No, it is not. The outcome of this 'problem' won't have an affect on me in any way. However, to not have any criticism towards someone with such a biased position is very wrong. Additionally, the current statement by Antpool does not help resolve the situation at all. They've practically set up a stalemate (unless something changes soon in either side): Side 1) If Segwit then potential HF. Side 2) If HF then potential Segwit. Conclusion: Neither happens, and the situation is much worse than having just either one of those have. It's not about WHO implements 2mb.
That is possibly not the case anymore as Classic is practically dead and there are no other 'active HF proposals'. |
|
|
|
"Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin. Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin." -Roger Ver
Lauda's cat: "Unfortunately, I know of many Jedi masters with more than 100,000,000 students that have put their Bitcoin integration on hold because the block size is too big! Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin." The above is as true as Ver's statement. BTC is stagnating while multi-million $ companies are now looking at using alts instead of BTC for their companies.
What alts? The ETH pump scheme?  |
|
|
|
lets assume that satoshi has that huge bag of coins. lets also assume that he/she (they?) is still alive and has still access to the private keys.
why hasnt he/she spend or even moved those coins? any speculation?
Exactly why would they? You've made 3 assumptions: 1) Satoshi is alive; 2) Satoshi has access to his keys; 3) Satoshi needs the money. That is a lot of assumptions. If this occurs, then there is a chance that the price of the Bitcoin is no longer of this size.
Only if the average holder panics. yep, i know that people would notice that in minutes, but i dont think that moving them would reveal his identity.
Just moving from one address to another wouldn't do anything, correct. |
|
|
|
No, the 'you can, too' part is a hasty generalization. It really comes down to the region in which a person lives and the level of adoption in it. At the moment, I would not be able to pay some bills (e.g. rent) and it would be quite difficult to shop for food (as it is not common for grocery stores to accept them). Technically this could be all mitigated with a Bitcoin debit card (e.g. XAPO), although I'd prefer paying directly out of my Bitcoin wallet. The more money you deposit, the higher your interest rate and the less money you have in your account, the higher the fees.
The solution is not to deposit a lot of money in the bank. This is one of the main reasons why BTCitcoin is transparent, so we could monitor everything using blockchain, although it could be harder if someone doesn't give names to their addresses so tracking their activity would be harder but not impossible.
You have to remember that (especially after there's more TX volume) it is really hard to connect a person to an address (except in cases where e.g. they've stated that it is their address). This is why the constant use of the same address is not encouraged. |
|
|
|
Right now there are two pools have ~>24% of the network hashrate, and three additional pools have ~>10% of the network hashrate. The threshold that I propose prevents any one entity from being able to veto a HF. Do you think that any one person (or an entity) should have the power to veto a HF?
This is the game theory nonsense that was supposed to justify a certain HF. While they might be able to prevent a HF for a while (keep in mind that the miners are able to switch pools) it is in their best interest not do so if everyone agrees with it. I have looked at the facts and have come to that conclusion. To me, it has always been clear that a serious proposal to HF the network to raise the maximum block size will never be released. Based on what AntPool is saying, they will not support SegWit without a HF, and AntPool will most likely be able to prevent SegWit from activating.
You have looked at nothing relevant. The people that have signed the agreement haven't really voiced themselves much besides Luke-jr, who was trying to gather information as to what would be acceptable in the HF. This is also why the price has not been moving up even with the reward halving just round the corner.
There was never any guarantee of the price going high (even though it is much higher ATM than late 2015). You only have a bunch of people with primary school knowledge of economics predicting pretty much any random number ( example). |
|
|
|
The only possible explanation to your situation is bias (due to the rating that you've received). You're the only one (in this particular thread) who thinks that this is the case, even though many have argued that it isn't. Take a look again at: Let's say that someone posts how much they hate theymos and how they want him dead. If theymos doesn't ban them, does that mean that he likes them? Does that mean that theymos agrees them? (Hint: No)
(In this case): Neither does theymos agree with them, nor support their actions. if i had a file sharing website, i would include the common bullshit in TOS like i'm not responsible for the content uploaded by users, i'd still have to take an action and remove the illegal content, right?
bitcointalk hosts the ponzi and scam content.
That is a bad example because the staff does remove illegal content when we find it. |
|
|
|
For example, "consensus" would be better defined (in the context of Bitcoin) as being 75%-80% of major economic companies, minor economic companies, miners, bitcoin experts, ect, and that no one of these groups can veto a HF (so if the miners do not like a HF, but everyone else does, then tough luck).
I would say that the chosen threshold is dangerously low. It looks like to me that we are not getting even a HF proposal to raise the maximum block size (let alone an actual maximum block size increase) - not that this was ever going to happen, and nor will we get SegWit.
Says who? There are certain people that are still working on the proposal and there is still enough time. Actually, anyone could make a decent HF proposal that would have parameters that most Core contributor would not instantly reject (e.g. low consensus period; low grace period), but people here prefer complaining. I'm understanding you so well! It isn't cancelled but it's taking so much time that an average person is forced to think that the whole thing has been killed. I'm not expecting it before the halving.
This deserve an entry in the book of the most ridiculous statements regarding software development. Underlying logic: If project is taking much time ⇒ project is killed.  |
|
|
|
Unfortunately it is impossible (or nearly impossible) to measure the "majority" in bitcoinland.
That's why statements similar to the statement from the person that I've quoted are ridiculous. They are (usually) backed up by nothing. I would say that it looks like that they figured out that Blockstream et al. has any intention of actually delivering a HF that increases the maximum block size, and they want to be sure that they will not get tricked into giving Blockstream et al. what they wanted and not get what they bargained for in the end.
AndreasMAntonopoulos I believe this is called a "Mexican Standoff". No segwit no HF. No HF, no segwit. Compromise time.
Seems like things are going in the right direction. Not. |
|
|
|
Agreed,
Who the hell wants a delayed, buggy segwit at this stage.
It isn't neither delayed nor 'buggy' at this point either. I don't recall anyone 'promising' a merge in April. |
|
|
|
Easy to fix. Majority wants the entire package incl HF, so it will be done w/o any real issues.
Leads to reunion and peace.
Happy days
Exactly how did you measure this "majority"? Please enlighten me. |
|
|
|
I nominate Lauda to be the official spokes person for core. :p
That is definitely not a position that one would enjoy being in. Thanks for those facts.
I wouldn't call them facts. Welcome to Drama-Land, where instead of trying to push forward, we try to keep stalling. I'm now curious as to how this one is going to play out. |
|
|
|
Pa valjda zato forum služi... da se pita iskusnije Nisam ja nista rekao sto se tice pitanja; treba pitati svakako kada se ne zna a ne praviti neke pretpostavka sam. Uglavnom, rudarenje BTC se trernutno ne isplati, altcoini se možda i isplate, ali je potrebno tome posvetiti dosta vremena, i isto nije bez rizika.
Upravo to. Razlika izmedu BTC i altcoina (osim profitabilnosti) je sto se ulozeni hardware u rudarenja altcoina moze sa solidnu svotu prodati i relativno lako, dok kod BTC to nije slucaj jer ubrzo postaje nevazeci ("outdated"). Osobno, planiram pratiti vrijednost BTC, jer smatram da će mu cijena još malo padat ići dolje... i probati ih kupiti kad cijena bude nisko, jer će pred sam halving cijena vjerojatno ići u nebesa. A onda ih prodati, jer će poslje halvinga opet pasti...
To nitko tocno ne zna sada; odnosno spekulacije su samo. ne vredi to ti je mentalitet, ne daj Boze da neko uspe (nego odma tup u glavu)...
Nema to veze s nikakvim mentalitetom. ali cudo sad je mr. lauda isao pametan jer me nalepio u prvom postu......to je ono pre podne mrzi sebe, poslepodne sve druge  Nitko vas nije 'nalepio'. Iznio sam vam problematiku u vasem razmisljanju i mnogih drugih ljudi u vezi rudarenja te sam vam predstavio relevantne informacije. |
|
|
|
Even 0.001-0.00015 BTC fee doesn't help transactions to get confirmed soon.
Such arbitrary fee amounts are useless and won't guarantee anything. It seems that only a few people actually know that it comes down to the included satoshi/byte ratio[1]. In other words, a fee of 0.0001 (arbitrary) might be sufficient for transaction A of size X, but might be too low for transaction B of size Y.
[1] - https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ |
|
|
|
you send a BTC TX == near instant.
when he knows that merchants dont AND SHOULD NOT accept zero confirms. That's not true. In several occasions I paid at merchants and they accepted the tx with zero confirmations. I disagree with you, and have to agree with franky1 (despite his constant ad hominem). The problem with zero confirmation TX is that they can be cheated, quite easily IMO. Just send a TX with near-zero/zero fees, and it will most likely never confirm even though the merchant accepted your TX as valid. If you know what you're doing, then it isn't hard to attempt a double spend or use RBF to replace it. However, in a lot of cases the merchant will know who you are (e.g. if you're using Steam) and can apply appropriate measures. Additionally, practically nobody is going to attempt this for trivial amounts and those amounts would be negligible losses as well. The general rule is that the more value the TX has, the more you should wait before finalizing the transactions (e.g. buying a $100k car). I have made litecoin transactions nearly instantly with zero confirmations, no reason why Bitcoin cant be, the merchant was logging my IP and obviously new how to deal with people who tried fraud
I dont think tor or anything else can protect u from gigantic corporations if they wanted to track u down,
Knowing the IP is pointless in most cases as IP != person. Additionally, those 'gigantic corporations' can't track you down easily either, unless they know how to bypass encryption (e.g. used by VPN). |
|
|
|
ljudi ima li ovde neko da stvarno zaradjuje od rudrenja ko bi mogao da nam objasni bolje pod kojim uslovima se isplati....
Znaci cenu kwh. ulozeno u opremu (i koju), posebno sad kad se nagrada smanji za pola. evo ja sam licno zainteresovan ali cena kwh je jaca nego u USA.....
svaka sugestija je dobrodosla....
poz
Ja stvarno ne znam zasto ljudi koji nemaju pojma o rudarenju zele da ulazu u to industriju (bez ikakve uvrede). To je isto da ulazete u necije prica o necemu o cemu nemate uopce pojma. Ako nemate veliki kapital (milione) i pristup lokacijama s vrlo niskom potrosnom struje (ili imate besplatnu struju) onda je bolje da se maknete od Bitcoin rudarenja prije nego poslije. Bolje cete proci ako ulozite tu svotu novca direktno u Bitcoin tako sto ga kupite. Narocito je s ASIC problem jer ta oprema poslije ima vrlo nisku do nikakvu vrijednost, sto nije slucaj s altcoinima. LP ~Lauda |
|
|
|
Most of coins correspond to their name, i.e. they're trash, although they are exceptions. Apparently a lot of people hope that they they will be lucky with one of those altcoins, i.e. that they will profit (similarly as they could, if they had bought Bitcoin in time). There are a few names that are suited for the role that their coin was 'in', either using the word 'digital' (or something similar) or having a 'humoristic' aspect behind them (e.g. dogecoin). I think you're worrying about names way too much. A coin isn't about the name but what the service entails.
OP is not worrying anything; he made an assertion that the coin names are ridiculous, which they are. |
|
|
|
Exactly what did you expect with these irrational predictions? The similar story applies for every year and especially the halving. I've heard practically almost every single number between 0 and the moon (possibly even beyond). Even if we assume that each of them is a "Bitcoin expert", that still does not give them any credibility when the price is concerned (economics). The founder of Mastercoin predicted a big range: $500 to $10,000.
Predicting in such a huge span is pointless. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
