I assume that the address in question "3BpHnKpc4GeufHTepDBfnirCD22WRqVGii" isn't yours? If that is the case, then increasing your own fees wouldn't actually do anything.

That seems fine. More information is coming in the next post.

The first problem that I see here is:

---

Secondly, I don't think that there's something that the members could do for you. The problem with your transactions is that you're trying to spend unconfirmed input (repeatedly) which can be easily identified with this 'symbol' (blockchain.info) :
The problem starts at this TX, since one of the inputs is not confirmed.

That statement is ignorant and those companies surely don't represent "~ the entire Bitcoin economy". BIP101 is one of the worst proposals that I've seen so far. Should I mention that the creator of this BIP either was not aware or forgot to address the problem of quadratic validation time (I don't recall added limitations) which just shows how 'competent' they are (in addition to 'how much testing they've done'). Additionally, the grace period on that BIP is horrible. Ask any experienced engineer who has worked on large scale systems about the time required for infrastructural upgrades.

Propaganda bullshit as always.

Maxwell has made a comment about those 'experienced developers' in a post found here.

Lightning does not require (definitely not the right word) gatekeepers, it is just more optimal to use them (i.e. hubs). Think of it as a system that provides 'path-finding' for payment channels.

The Bitcoin blockchain remains decentralized and Lightning can not have an negative affect on that. The possible centralization of Lightning is another topic.

I'm talking about a scenario in which the miners suddenly decide to 'change the rules' which would be the case with this ridiculous plan that was proposed. There's no way that businesses that are running on less-than-optimally maintained versions and some unusual ones (e.g. Bitcoin ruby) could upgrade very quickly (testing and deploying takes time IMO). Besides, once you give in to such coercion the chances that someone will attempt to do this with even less preferable "changes" become higher. If the HF was 'driven by' consensus, then the economic majority would most likely accept the new rules.

It doesn't matter from whose perspective this is being viewed from, any blockchain that enlists coin control is not immutable.

For the time being, there is no "HF" being discussed. This was just a FUD attempt by some random person trying to rally shills and HF supporters. There has been zero evidence that any of the major pools have been participating in this.

Indeed, but this has evolved into a very complex situation.

That's not how a HF supported by consensus works. What happens if the miners use hashpower as coercion as the network is that their blocks get invalidated and the coins that are being mined are worthless. The miners do not hold any 'superior' power over the network, else Bitcoin could relatively easily be manipulated (which we know is not the case). Anyone who thinks that people and businesses can upgrade their infrastructure within a very short time period clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

No. Firstly, nothing is happening. Secondly, it won't affect the halving either way unless you're concerned about the price (which is trivial).

The metric is very useless and especially in short time periods. We've observed this with exponential rises in both XT and Classic nodes, which disappeared very quickly afterwards.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.

This type of question is truly pointless and it makes me think that every poster who asks this does not understand what Bitcoin is. Please tell me where the "best place to grow X" is, where X is any fiat currency, dollars, euros, etc. Oh right, the only right answer to that is: work. Get a job where you get paid in Bitcoin or buy Bitcoin using the currency that you get paid in. That's it, no investing in shady stuff and other nonsense that some members tend to play around with.

If you post just to gain money, you will most likely end up being banned. This is not recommended. In a optimal scenario a person that already does X amount of posts in a period (which is not the case with OP) could join a campaign to get a small 'bonus' for each period without altering their posting habits.

I don't really understand people who can't control their wishes to become rich very quickly (and effortlessly). Control your greed. If you look at this from another perspective you will see why it doesn't make much sense: If you had a 'get-rich' method (e.g. this one), why (assuming you're a reasonable person) would you want to share and even worse, sell it to someone else? There is no flaw, the story is just made up bullshit. I highly advise you to stay away from such websites.

Enough has been said.

The idea of private blockchains is just idiotic - Andreas Antonopoulos has some great talks about that. One needs to figure out where the intrinsic value of a blockchain truly lies. We are talking about decentralization, immutability, censorship resistance and such. Who in their right mind would think that a private blockchain could retain any of those aspects? Surely, those companies could cut down costs using the 'block-like' structure and other features of the blockchain technology, but those private blockchains can't even come close. If Bitcoin would to lose those 3 values, we would just be left with a inefficient, centralized system. Why would anyone want to use it, right? I guess the whole idea that private blockchains are just as good is a spin-off by banks to draw attention away from Bitcoin.

So where does ETH exactly fit into this comparison? Oh right, comparing a little garbage can to an air-independent propulsion system such as Bitcoin. Good to know.

Indeed. It is really pointless to try to spread logic into the minds of those 'people' when think that they're right no matter what is presented to them.

I definitely agree + this raises some very troublesome questions, e.g. If my own smart contract fails, do I get bailed out as well? If not, why not? This reminds me of the FED and their "too big to fail" statement.

I guess it is something that one should just 'accept'. There were also cases in which my own posts (I'm not the only member to which this happened) that were older than 1 year getting deleted for some unknown reason. The reason in this case would be an old report; it just happens sometimes. While it does sound good knowing the particular reason for deletion (which helps one improve and build upon mistakes), it becomes a tremendous amount of work if we are 'obliged' to state a reason for each deletion. If you're lucky, the moderator that has deleted your post might see this thread and reply. It can only be either one of the global moderators or gmaxwell (local section moderator).

~Lauda

Please no. There's a reason for which deleted posts get reported 'anonymously' via PM's. This would add a tremendous amount of additional work for us.

Spam isn't the only reason for which your post could be deleted. There are other reason, for example: quoting a deleted post, replying to a necro'd thread, etc.

Is it really worth anyone times for a small amount of deleted posts?

I'm glad that people are allowed to have their own (subjective) opinions.

Without going into any detail (I'm certain that you could find information yourself and that there are better qualified people to explain it): https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/673544762754895872

No. CSV has been activated and Segwit activation parameters have not been set up and the Core version containing Segwit has not been released (no idea what you mean by "including SW).

"Steady".

Why jump to conclusions? I have altered one a few days back but don't recall a direct response to this particular thread as they were quite busy at the time.


You've said it yourself: "I don't pretend to fully understand this forums rules.". I'm just trying to direct you towards the right direction, those posts would most likely not be removed due to rule 1 and a punishment would definitely not be handed out because of it.

No, it is not. Both are at fault and both broke the rules from my perspective. Whether that deserves a punishment and what kind of punishment is to be determined by global moderators.

I can't know that.

---

Update: I've sent them another message at the time of writing of this post.

I can't say for certain, I'd assume that they've read it by now (due to the age of the thread).

I don't think that either rule 1 or rule 8 have been breached. Keep in mind that the person is making genuine posts (regardless of whether they're positive/negative); I've also not seen signs of any concrete threats in the examples presented. I would say (without a detailed analysis) that the involved parties (in the thread where I've participated) have gone completely off-topic in a sense where they've been just talking to each other and about each other. As far as trolling is concerned, this should not be concluded without analyzing/reading the whole thread(s) as something may seem like trolling when it is taken out of context.

No, he's not and there's no way for normal users to check that.

It is still not late to PM either one of them (or grue) and ask for input.

I agree. There is no reason to really downvote that video as it is truly funny regardless of whether you've lost money in DAO or are just an innocent bystander.

There's surely room for profiting in the altcoin ecosystem, but there's also room for disaster to strike.

---

This deserves to be bumped - the priec of ETH is currently declining:

Yes, for using the report-to-moderator function which helps us locate posts that need handling more quickly.

Sending a PM is usually better, but suit yourself.

That does not necessarily have to mean that they have read this thread. They may have read it but are still evaluating the situation. I can't tell you for sure.

They are not.

You start talking about the Raspberry Pi (I assume model A) and then mention 15 year old PC's? That does not make much sense. I think that the requirements for running a node have to remain relatively low in order for Bitcoin to prosper as a decentralized network. Where would we be from the premise of 'anyone can participate' and verify transactions (should they choose to) if running a node requires enthusiast hardware (we're talking about 4 figures here)? I'm not saying that we need to limit the network to very cheap solutions either, but this needs to be factored in. Just because a higher block size limit may result in more users that does not mean that a decent number (equivalent to the number of nodes that get lost due to higher requirements) of node operators are going to come in and start supporting the network. This is still just speculative.

I've switched over today from another campaign that is temporarily being closed down for reasons that are not known to me. Betcoin definitely provides very good 'deals' for everyone and the manager does respond when problems occur from what I've experienced (e.g. spam). Let's see how the month of the halving goes.

---

Updated & posted for self-reference.