I think someone hit a nerve, calm down Dog no need to threaten violance, you've lost the argument already  As soon as someone resorts to ad hominem, their credibility and argument goes pretty much down the drain. reddit is a biased place. i never go there.
I sometimes check both subreddits out to analyze the situation over there. Anything that I read, I usually take with a big grain of salt. I would never participate in such 'communities' though. I mean i would have to be subbed to all sorts of altcoin subs to learn about different forks since /bitcoin considers any fork to be an altcoin.
Altcoins should not be discussed in Bitcoin subreddits unless necessary. I thought the bitcoin way is the logical way - why so much hate?
If you think that most of the people involved in Bitcoin are "logical" or rational, you're in for a big surprise. |
|
|
|
Yes, agreed - so 'good' (sorry) thing this happened already and we are alerted.
I'm pretty sure that if there are potentially breaking problems with LN, that they will be discovered early on as it will surely be extensively tested as soon as any version comes live. Even if something starts going wrong (e.g. a bad entity being able to steal money from someone else), that isn't such a huge problem as long as there are no 'bail-outs' as the one proposed in ETH. The bigger problem is losing immutability and decentralization as opposed to losing X amount of funds. People will eventually recover (as we've unfortunately experienced multiple times already, and Mt.Gox is one example of that).
The Classic folks over at r/btc are exploiting this situation to attack Segwit while over-blowing the complexity of it. |
|
|
|
The Ethereum community will decide in the next few days if they want to take back the money stolen by sombody.
In other words, you're deciding whether ETH can be centrally controlled or not and whether it is immutable or not. If this money gets taken back, then ETH is neither decentralized nor immutable. Smart contracts should depend on their code only, not on their "ETH overlords" to save them once that code is broken. |
|
|
|
Who ensures that LN does not become bitcoins DAO like experience?
That's not really relevant here. Let's all stop any advanced development because an incompetent team failed with their pump & dump coin? I think not. Peer reviews and extensive testing 'ensure' that. Although one can never be 100% sure. |
|
|
|
You are a little punk assed bitch Lauda. I'd smash your filthy face in.
Sigh. You can love all the censorship you want, but the real voice of the people is to change the bullshit away from Blockstream's artificial 1MB limit. Blockstream is owning bitcoin to their commercial advantage.
No and off-topic. They use DDOS and censorship to continue their poison position. You like being part of that?
I'm not part of anything. ethereym supporters are the worst and they have always been annoying as hell from the beginning.
i have seen all kinds of altcoins and altcoin supporters but this ethereum is something different, they do everything they can to bash bitcoin in order to bring their premined pump and dump coin up.
ETH seems like the Fed of cryptocurrency now. Although, this should probably be left for Altcoin discussion. As I understand it, the focus here is on r/btc. To be honest , there are censorship in /r/bitcoin but the same as /r/btc .
Someone gets it. |
|
|
|
That subreddit is horrible. Toxic would be a nice way to describe it. They are even trying to attack the current (Core) developers within the news about ETH, even though they themselves have practically almost no skills and aren't doing anything that could remotely contribute to the system. This is why Bitcoin needs to reject all subversion attempts. Bitcoin needs to remain immutable as it currently is, unlike ETH: Gotta love it when one smart contract threatens to kill an entire blockchain, and those in control of it are scrambling to subvert every principle of decentralization, fungibility, immutability, and practical rationale behind a blockchain model, just to bail themselves out.
It is interesting that the people on /r/btc are in support of a bail-out. This makes me question their motives even further. |
|
|
|
For those that are trying to defend these actions, you are wrong. Read this transcript. They're making a huge mistake with coin control: Gotta love it when one smart contract threatens to kill an entire blockchain, and those in control of it are scrambling to subvert every principle of decentralization, fungibility, immutability, and practical rationale behind a blockchain model, just to bail themselves out.
They're even trying to compare this situation with the one with Bitcoin back in 2013. This is not even remotely similar. Bitcoin has never taken away anyone's coins, regardless of whether they're stolen or not. Bitcoin is immutable, ETH obviously isn't. |
|
|
|
It's time to fork to bigger blocks.
No. The DAO has just clarified my concerns with segwit. (they didn't really need clarifying, it's common sense)
These is no correlation between DAO and Segwit. Segwit is being released to a pre-planned schedule. to a deadline of congestion, high fees, growing adoption, aggravated miners. Segwit needs more time. Lots more time.
No. Nobody is pushing Segwit anywhere until people independently review it. If the miners HF to bigger blocks, with an agreed (between themselves) 75% hash power, would it succeed?
That would be a horrible decision to make. Possibly even worse than the one that ETH is making right now. Might as well rename that altcoin to MinerCoin. Close but no cigar, bud. Bitcoin is immutable. Its blocksize is 1MB, if you give in to a socialist mob... they will stop at nothing until they make your pre-ipo company worthless... serious shizz brah. Soft fork is love.
Hard fork is hate, becuase it uses fource.
Someone finally gets it. |
|
|
|
This has happened to a few members, and I'm not sure exactly why. I will notify the developer. Please have some patience. ~Lauda
Don't know why you didn't receive any email, Maybe try it again and make sure your email is correct.
Sometimes it just doesn't work properly. This is a beta version after all. |
|
|
|
I think. 5mbtc is equivalent to 500k satoshi. That's why. Confirmation of blockchain is very quickly.
Flat-fees are not the right answer to this situation. I think 0.005 is a little too much for tx fees even with a 0.0005 fees you get a significant faster confirmation, if the input is not high 0.0005 should be sufficient for a faster confirmation.
Wrong. Please stop spreading false information. A flat fee is not the right answer. The queue determines priority based on the included satoshis/byte ratio. This means that this flat fee might be enough for transaction A, too much for transaction B, too little for transaction C (due to differentiating sizes). but i think right now transaction right now is fast than before this is like the same as before january..
Transaction speed has never changed. It has remained constant (near-instant, i.e. 1-3 seconds under reasonable conditions). You're talking about confirmation time. |
|
|
|
Remember when bitcoin hard forked multiple times because someone created 9 billion bitcoins? Oh you don't?
False analogy. Stop defending altcoin which don't deserve defending. In this specific hack, no additional coins were created (which was the case with Bitcoin), neither were the specifications altered. Read: 
That's because you're a pesky noob
Resorting to ad hominem when you don't have proper arguments? |
|
|
|
It's only until he rolls back the chain, then it'll be us bitcoin holders' turn to start panicking.  No. As soon as they do something like that, it proves that the statement of this coin being beyond the influence of 'governments' and whatnot was a lie. looks like DAO is going to simply open for withdrawals thats it. Or is that just fud?
If by simply you mean doing a change that is the equivalent to coin control (which is frowned upon) in a decentralized system (which isn't decentralized anymore), then yes. |
|
|
|
I also have the same problem nowadays, the confirmations are taking much longer time, some people are saying that it is because we pay less fees, but in xapo there is no any option for transaction fee.
Stop using online wallets or talk to the Xapo support staff and let them know that they're improperly calculating their fees. In theory, the higher the fees are paid, your transaction will have higher priority over the network.
It is not just in 'theory', that's how the system was designed to work. Priority is based on the age of the inputs and the number of inputs. So if your output is made up of loads of small inputs, and the result is a big kilobyte transaction, you are going to struggle.
That was the system in place for 'free-transactions' and is pretty much depreciated at the moment. The main thing that matters here is the included 'satoshis/byte' fee ratio in your transaction. People need to enable coin control, and only send the oldest coins. That way their priority increases.
That won't guarantee anything if your fee is low. IF your bitcoin wallet has the option to add transaction fee. Pay a big transaction Fee and your confirmation will be faster. But some wallet like coins.ph doesnt have that option.
The don't use a trash-can as your wallet. |
|
|
|
As my experience in sending and receiving bitcoin default fee is enough you don't need to increase the fee its the same result.. the transaction is always depends in miners if they can confirm it fast or not..
This is wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. The 'default fee' is pointless. The priority of your transaction is dependent on your fee, and not whether "miners can confirm it fast or not)". But don't reduce your miners fee to below default because it can reduce the speed of your transaction..
No. The transaction speed is the same regardless of the fee included. You are talking about confirmation speed. Also i tried sending bitcoin in the same company like electrum to electrum wallet the speed is fast than sending outside like electrum to coinbase or electrum to xapo.. it takes a long time for me..
Nonsense. The same amount of time is required regardless of whether you're sending from Electrum to Electrum, Electrum to Core or whatever. The difference there is that some of those services require multiple confirmations before they update your balance (e.g. Bitstamp requires 3). |
|
|
|
It's seems that at the moment, there's no other way but to pay a premium if you want your transactions to be ahead of the queue.
There is no such thing as 'pay a premium' now. The system has always worked like this. The amount of fees included will determine your priority. All those people that complained about their transactions not confirming have used the wrong fee setting. I read somewhere that bitcoin is still lagging behind paypal in terms of transaction volume, partly because of how their transaction speed takes place.
A decentralized system is not an efficient system. Everyone should know that. Bitcoin is far behind Paypal and the likes of Visa when it comes to the transaction capacity. This will be improved in the future though. Can't you just doublespend it with a higher fee on the new tx?
That's not as easy as you think, else people would constantly be doing it. You would have to spend the same input twice, and one would obviously get dropped as soon as one is included into a block. |
|
|
|
if you have money in a shit "decentralized system", would you prefer to lose all your funds or accepting that someone can stop the tradings and returning your funds back ?  Subjective bias is invalid in this argument. In other words, ETH is not decentralized. The hacker is the lesser evil here. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for this report. I have pinged a global moderator and he will be banned shortly.
~Lauda
|
|
|
|
In the mean-time Vitalik has tried to get all trading to stop. This is not what is supposed to happen in a decentralized system, nobody should have that much authority.  |
|
|
|
|
I still don't see the point in this. How is one "participating" in the community when everyone 'ignores' them and they're unable to establish communication with other members (via PM)? What I possibly see happening is some people getting mad about not knowing that they're banned and e.g. thinking that they'd get paid by their signature campaign, and then stronger retaliation (more spam and whatnot).
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
