Okay, since this "isn't" an attempt to attack me, I'll participate until either it turns foul or attracts drama. A chain smoker leading an anti-smoking campaign.
So you're saying that a person can't be anti-smoking and enjoy the action while it is still available? I'd say otherwise. However these posts in themselves are worthless posts as they contribute zero to the conversation and are clearly made in an effort to increase their post count.
Of course they are. You do realize that posts of 'zero-usefulness' do not get counted towards the campaign? This might be one of the rare (or only) cases in which I did not answer OP directly (prior), because when I do that I tell them to lock the thread in the same post if their problems are resolved. Should we create a thread for each time that someone does this, or for each time that Lauda does this? If someone has a problem with something that I did/am doing, then the first approach is to contact me directly. I don't bite, but my cat might scratch. I manage a signature campaign, am I allowed to participate in the discussion about signature spam,
or do I have to either shut up or drop the campaign(s) I manage?
Apparently you aren't, stop spamming!  |
|
|
|
Hm? This is nothing new, I've been a participant of various signature campaigns (usually by custom deals) for years (since Q4 2013) and I've been actively fighting signature spam and campaigns for quite some time now (I'm not the only example). Did you not notice my (other) signatures before, or are you trying to say that my posts are of inadequate quality? I was going to post/respond to Lauda in the original thread but didn't want to get Lauda all twisted up over some hyper-perceived notion that "off topic" actually matters in this place LOL.
That's just a far fetched dream that, unfortunately, only a few share.
I'm not sure what you think is hypocritical in my case; that I'm fighting signature campaigns while being part of one? I'm not the only example of such.
Update 1: My posting habits have not altered during periods in which I was not a participant in comparison to periods in which I was. If you've created this thread with the sole intent to attack me, then I'm sorry to inform you but it won't work and I'll ignore everything after this post. Cheerio, ~Lauda. |
|
|
|
I think Theymos is worried that Wright and his fund may have access to some early coins and wants to give core the power to remove them if it proves to be the case. This is just a wild guess, time will see how this plays out.
No blacklisting coins, no reversing transactions or were no better than paypal.
Stop posting your opinion when you've clearly no content from this thread. This is not about Wright and Theymos has built up his argument and position properly. TL;DR: You hold all the "early" bitcoins. The rest of bitcoiners (miners, exchanges, devs, people running nodes) do not. Devs decide to destroy early coins. This advantages *EVERYONE BUT YOU*.
wat do?
You either move your coins towards QC safe algorithms or you do nothing. If the person does not want to do that, then that is their problem, not ours. For those too lazy to go back and find out what we are really talking about, here is a summary: When/If QC becomes a reality (this is a big When/If) and
After QC becomes a viable threat to Bitcoin and
After we have already replaced the QC vulnerable algorithms in Bitcoin with QC safe algorithms which means
After a highly publicized, bitter, drawn out, drama about the "death of Bitcoin" because of QC in every news outlet everywhere and
After a majority of new addresses and transactions are using the new QC safe algorithms which means
After a vast majority of all Bitcoin users have heard about the issue, the solution and the consequences of not moving their coins
Then and only then, maybe, we should consider possibly blacklisting older coins that are not covered by the QC safe replacement algorithms, especially the more highly vulnerable very early coins.
This only makes sense after we have transitioned to new QC safe algorithms
Note that at the rate QC is progressing those of us alive right now really don't have to worry about this. Perhaps our grandchildren or maybe our children. This is a nice summary. Everyone who reads it should gain a little more insight as to why theymos has such a opinion. There's definitely not going to be general consensus right away, and BurtW's view is a example of that. |
|
|
|
You commenting here about stopping account sales is ironic.Don't even try to ask for proof,just admit it.
How am I trying to stop the sales of accounts? I said that I don't see what is wrong with buying accounts. Learn to read mate. Either you don't know English or you don't know how to read. He never said that you're stopping anything. Why would you anyways? You're practically part of the problem apparently (multiple accounts/sales). |
|
|
|
See what I mean about pulling teeth?
Nope, you have no point here. 1. Sure there will be 20 threads, there are 20 threads on just about everything, "Why do banks hate bitcoin," "Why do people hate bitcoin," "Why should we use bitcoin," Why should people use bitcoin," etc., etc. How would these 20 threads change anything? Would starting 20 "Death is unfair!!1!" threads make death disappear?
So staying quiet and not talking about it solves the problem? Good to know. 2. How would it matter if Satoshi (or any person simply hodling BTC) refuses to "upgraded to a version that tries to 'destroy other peoples' coins"? A detailed explanation plz.
Very detailed explanation: The effect is that same as when people refused to upgrade to "Bitcoin Stupidity" (aka Bitcoin Classic). 
Update: I'm almost certain you were one of the people tossing around the altcoin argument against XT and Classic, in which case this completely valid example is awfully hypocritical.
I may or may not have used that, however there's a reason why I've used this 'example' for this specific user. |
|
|
|
Well I think that people don't want to build up their accounts all the way from brand new, so they just buy them. I really don't see what's wrong with that.
I'll be direct about this: Anyone who is too ignorant to see or care is part of the problem. In other words, you're part of the problem. You might be confusing spam with user/posts that you disagree with or don't like. That's not how it works.
There's a huge difference between those. Falsely labeling posts as spam could also be disastrous.
I've asked theymos for a opinion about this a few days ago and have received no response in regards to it. |
|
|
|
According to him, coins prior to Bitcoin-Qt version 0.5 are affected. Did he propose to selectively destroy some coins, but not others? This is like pulling teeth  Nope. Didn't you say that 99% of the people here "don't even understand what Big O notation is" (inb4 paraphrase, not an exact quote)?
I've said that and I stand by it. How are these simpletons gonna understand what the devs are proposing? And what of the people who are simply hodling their BTC & not sodling it, like, you know, Satoshi? How do they even have a say in this?
1) If you think that in the case of such a proposal that everyone would be quiet, and that there wouldn't be 20 threads about it in this section, then there's something wrong with your perception of the community. 2) They have a say by refusing to adopt the next version and/or switching to other implementations. As an example, my node would never be upgraded to a version that tries to 'destroy other peoples' coins. |
|
|
|
Also what if the last character of hash in not a number but alphabet?
How about you check his previous raffles? He assigns combinations for everyone, i.e. you have a few combination that will make you the winner. It is actually a clever way of picking a winner as it can not be cheated.
Minerjones these look quite lovely, but I've had to lock my coins down for a while due to buying too many collectibles. Good luck everyone. |
|
|
|
If people just stop talking about it, then this 'issue' will slowly fade and nobody would start to give attention anymore.
I highly doubt that. While the story about this particular fake Satoshi Nakamoto might fade away, the "war" will certainly not. i dont think Craig needs therapy,but he just need atention,and he succesfull to do that,and now i know who he was.
After failing to provide any kind of valid evidence, he tried to play the victim with that last blog post. Craig is a classic sociopath. I think that the the real Satoshi will never reveal who he/she is ever.
MRKLYE made a good point: Anyone claiming to be satoshi is a fucking idiot and is painting a MASSIVE read target on their heads imho.
|
|
|
|
To be clear, you feel that our Rogerian Enemy's choice to single out Satoshi was an underhanded attempt to undermine theymos.
The whole article is and especially this quote. Had they only not lied, but said "Theymos proposes to destroy ALL the coins mined prior to 2012, not just Satoshi's," bitcoin community would have applauded the idea?
No. That's not what he proposed either. If core developers has the power to destroy bitcoins then i consider bitcoin not safe, what if in the future they decide to destroy most of the coins that we might have on our wallets, this idea is not good and it's not what bitcoin was developed for.
They don't have this kind of 'power' at all. It comes down to the community and industry. |
|
|
|
|
I think that there was a similar suggestion in regards to this. However, instead of using two lists it was just an 'improve ignore' function where you would practically not see anything from the person that you choose to ignore. I'm unsure whether this is a good thing in all cases, e.g. : You don't see the posts nor quoted posts of someone and thus you post the same content that was already posted.
|
|
|
|
I am talking about the compromise increase reached by core devs and miners btw.  There is no need for any compromise. I agree that from technical perspective there is little point in 1 mb increase. From non technical there are some big benefits I believe.
Maxwell explained why this is not the case. Not gonna lie though, it makes me sick to see Luke state that this is to appease the industry. Why pander to them?
Indeed. While I'm a bit curious as to what the HF proposal is going to contain, giving in to 'the industry' is definitely the wrong move here. So they blame the tech, thinking big blocks and maybe a good ol' change of the guard will re-kindle their bankrupt "cheap transactions = mass adoption = profit" business plan.
This is what it is all about. Someone previously said something in the lines of: People willing trade decentralization for a temporary price increase deserve neither and will lose both (It's an adaptation from B.Franklin's quote I believe). |
|
|
|
Did you spam your signature campaign?
Answer: Of course.
I was just about to post the same thing and you've beat me to it. That post has zero relevance to the whole thread, maybe a bit to OP but that is it. In other words, "Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed” is incorrect.
Indeed. This is not what theymos said. What theymos actually did say in the topic titled "Petition to Protect [and by "protect" OP means "destroy" lol -ed.] Satoshi's Coins" was that ALL old coins, not just Satoshis', "should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation."Thanks for clearing that up It is clear that Bitcoin.com tried to undermine theymos with this, knowing that the idea would get a backlash from the community as soon as people see the quote: "Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed” |
|
|
|
Didn't you say you wanted to pass that on to me?  Who are you Sir and why are you quoting an outdated version of my post 
If I recall correctly, this coin is long due. Was it not planned for May/April? |
|
|
|
Remember that time that you told me that you would reserve #2 for me? I remember.  |
|
|
|
I agree with you but that does not change the fact that if not for the agreement reached the noise would be much louder now.
I don't disagree with that, however if you take a look at e.g. r/btc you will see that the people are still very toxic (albeit seems "calmer" than before). Its also important to acknowledge different perspectives and that both can perspectives can be right. 1 mb is a can kick down the road, but often can kicks are useful.
It is not useful since Segwit will provide similar capacity without the need for any other artificial limitations as found in Gavin's BIP. |
|
|
|
^^ you should stake a new bitcoin address.
Do the following as suggested. These 100 posts were unnecessary (at best).[Retracted]; Please lock the thread in case that all of your problems have been resolved in order to avoid future signature spam. Update 1: Actually it was an interesting foray into the hacked account situation.
-snip-
I never said that all of the posts were useless.
Update 2: On a tad bit of a power trip are we?
Would someone on a 'power trip' say please? Is answering three different post in a single post efficient enough for ya? Please don't get offended by any of my responses to you as I am just off my meds for a while. Anything under 9000 is not efficient enough (and no, I don't get offended). 
Update 3: Retracted some things in hopes of clarifying my original intent. Why would someone decide to come in at the end of the thread and say it was useless, I'm not sure.
I never said that the thread is useless. I have retracted the statement if that makes the situation better; The idea behind it, and what I want, is to avoid is create a play-field for signature spam. This is why I'm asking OP to please lock this thread (if everything was resolved). |
|
|
|
Im not sure Greg, things are only this calm because of the agreement.
Like it or not a significant amount of 'economic majority' want hard fork asap and most likely 'economic majority' want a 'reasonable' hard fork soon.
Possible relevant analogy: The economists telling the engineers to upgrade the servers because they think that is the right action.  How many times have we tried explaining why a X block size limit HF is pointless, and how it solves nothing? Take Segwit for example, it makes validation time scale down from quadratic to linear. Guess what? 99.9% of the people who read this don't even know what it means, nor have they ever heard of the O-notation. Some will just pretend like they do, but if they actually did they would not be requesting 'solutions' that solve nothing. |
|
|
|
I'm posting here to confirm my enrollment in the campaign: - Post number: 14 938
- BTC Address: 1DXSCjULGeQELxJh7RoLG9qxwSKmiBTQd2
You seem to be in the wrong thread or are wearing a wrong signature.
No. It just took me a bit longer to change my signature. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
