I was. Thank you for the correction. I forgot I was at bitcointalk for a moment.  You forgot that Bitcoin.com - "related people" love this forum, theymos and Core.  You're right, Jean Pierre clearly needs to lrn 2 punctuate right.
-snip-
That's what you meant, right?
I meant what I said; he has never stated the following:"Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed”. Assuming that he himself is a part of that "very-rough [sic] consensus," or that the "old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen" belong to Satoshi would be no more than that -- an assumption.
He added an update on reddit and stated that there was no clear way to identify for sure which coins are satoshi's. |
|
|
|
Because he’s Canadian. They’re instigators.  Don't hate on Canadians. Gregory calling Adam, Luke, and Peter dipshits...
Well, you do realize that they played right into some peoples hand? Maxwell just strongly disagrees with that agreement I assume (actually not with the agreed details, but actually the agreement itself). You forgot to mention: - Bankster Trolls hit new lows in attempting to control the narrative, such as they're incapable of affecting Bitcoin in any other way
As soon as the news about CW, inside the speculation section:"Satoshi dump 1 million bitcoin". |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Begging 'for mother'.
|
|
|
|
In my wallet in our country you can convert your bitcoin in steam wallet so Steam is here now in bitcoin but i dont know what is the use of it. I want online games but i dont know what is the use of steam wallet, what happen if you have steam wallet? It use for buying tools in online games or you can earn in online games using steam wallets? Please tell me.
How about you rather start using steam and reading some FAQ's rather than asking such questions? Basically the idea behind is that you don't have to pay at each game purchase but can load your 'wallet' with a certain amount of money that can be spent at a latter date. I have never heard anything about 'earning in online games' with steam wallets. You could try selling in-game items (e.g. CS:GO) for money on the marketplace though. |
|
|
|
This is one thing that Theymos will have to respectfully disagree about.
If you're directly responding to the quote in the title, theymos has never said that. This is a false quote. Theymos just thinks he knows better about a lot of shit and he doesn't care that the larger community can't see his vision.
Correction: You think that theymos thinks that. Yeah...no.
Read my previous post before responding. |
|
|
|
|
The work was successfully completed. Thread locked and archived.
|
|
|
|
OMG I just know this information.lol Im very excited finally steam added bitcoin for payment it is more easier for me than using 3rd party site. Thanks for this thread
It wasn't really hard to use 3rd party websites, it was just a minor inconvenience and sometimes there were problems (i.e. delays). The niche market for those websites is gone now though. I'm waiting for Amazon to do this so that I don't have to purchase gift cards for Bitcoin from middlemen anymore. Bitcoin will soon be on every gaming platform it's already got g2a and now it's getting steam.
It is already on Steam. |
|
|
|
All the big 'hacks' at the Bitcoin exchanges were inside jobs - Mt.Gox, Cryptsy, and the recent example - ShapeShift.
It is quite weird that they don't use 2 out of 3 multisig or so in order to move large amounts of coins. It's quite unfortunate that they get "hacked" so easily. Some governments are afraid of Bitcoin, or Do not trust him.
The second part of the statement, you don't have to "trust" anything in Bitcoin (especially not a "him"). |
|
|
|
I think Peter Todd would likely agree that he's a dipshit. But well meaning?
Why is that? He vows to write the code by july 2016, whether the community accepts his proposal or not is a completely different matter.
Some users seemed to think (or still think) that what the agreed to meant that the proposal would be accepted instantly by Core and/or the community. Neither one is true and I have been trying to correct anyone who states that ever since the agreement was signed. There is no guarantee for any kind of consensus for that proposal. |
|
|
|
Dunno Lauda re: drama, having stepped away for a short while, more 2MB2MB2MB chatter is becoming less coherent by the day. I heard someone say the other day, "oh, are they still beating that dead horse?".
I wasn't really talking specifically about '2MB block size drama'. I was talking more in the lines of general drama,nof which I'm sure that we will see more. It's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit.
-snip-
Isn't the wording used here a bit too harsh? I do wonder how their proposal is going to look like though. But one should never under-estimate the bitcoin community's ability to keep cutting itself even after the external assaults tone down.
Nor the people behind the shill campaigns. |
|
|
|
Satoshi's coins are already destroyed. When Satoshi got sick and was hospitalized his mom got rid of his computers, she never liked them. Satoshi is OK now but he doesn't have any of the private keys.
Even if this "story" was true, i.e. it actually happened, the coins would not be destroyed. You didn't even read the article nor previous posts. Well this is not looking good if they just broke the ECDSA-protected bitcoin addresses then everything is done.
Wrong. The algorithm used can always be changed. |
|
|
|
I don't get the general idea behind 'adopt' and 'country'. Is this supposed to be about general adoption within said countries or about the government of said countries adopting Bitcoin? I don't usually agree with these kinds of articles as they're content keeps changing and reflecting on other 'reasons' but they usually end up being wrong. Iceland openly banned bitcoin as harmful unproven currency and now - according to the list they are most likely to adopt it in the future?
Even though I would not say that they're among the 'most likely' ones, the situation could very well change quickly once they realize their mistake. We have to add few more countries and people who really go with bitcoin.
And who exactly are 'these people'? |
|
|
|
Next drama in sight... because bitcoin isnt funny without fud and division.
The idea behind Classic is useless at the moment. Why would someone opt for a solution that does something in a certain way, when there's a solution (segwit) that does it in a much better way and comes with additional benefits? It does seem like we can't really take a break from the drama. Seems like the community constantly jumps from one thing to another. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin, IF successful, will disrupt a lot of these services and they will lose a lot of profits. These people WILL undermine Bitcoin and try to divide the community or spread FUD all over forums like this or Reddit. We need to take notice of what is happening and fight fire with fire... If they spread FUD, we counter it with FACTS.. If they try to divide us, we STAND together.. This way we will succeed.  It is already starting to have an effect, else they would not be so actively fighting it with various tactics. I have made a thread about a post a while back "How I would take down Bitcoin" which mentioned some behavior that we've seen. What war i havnt seen it to be honest, yes there have been some disagreements over direction but i would hardly call it a war.  You clearly haven't been paying attention to all the 'discussions' and events that have unfolded in the past year or so. |
|
|
|
You're making declarative statements without supporting arguments again. How exactly is it apples to oranges? Will full nodes not have to transmit and store the up to 4MB that is allowed by segwit?
Because your argument does not make sense. The answer to that question is yes. Don't call non-segwit nodes full nodes either, because they aren't validating all tx on the Bitcoin network, like a full node would.
Correct. The term "attack surface" was actually taken from the 1MB4EVA crowd very early in this debate. Back when they argued that having 2MB blocks provided a larger attack surface for tx "spammers". They stopped calling it that, or indeed arguing for 1MB4EVA once we found out that segwit would be up to 4MB for 1.7X the amount of tx's.
Okay things that are wrong here: Nobody defined what this "attack surface is". Just because 4 MB of data can be transmitted that does not mean that it is an attack vector. Additionally, if there were a total of 4 MB of data transmitted (everything was multisig), the "1.7x" doesn't apply as that goes only for standard PSH transactions. There would be much more capacity in that single block. I wasn't talking about "forbidding" them, that's silly. More wondering if a statement from Blockstream had been made that they wouldn't be directly profiting (at the expense of miners) from the network topology they are steering us toward.
Anyone who decides to run a Lightning Hub will directly receive the TX fees from within LN. |
|
|
|
So exactly what do you think that you will get from create an additional thread about this issue? The CW situation should be forgotten and ignored (aside from remembering that he's a con artist). Satoshi wants to be anonymous, so anyone who comes out to public and says that he/she is satoshi is 100% scammer.
He 'came out' stating that he doesn't want the attention. Quite contradictory behavior. We might as well call it "Bitcoin - Drama of the century" Seems like people can't let some things go. |
|
|
|
People need to calm down. It seems like the article is fabricate and that the quote is a lie. Bitcoin == Drama
It does seem like the ecosystem is slowly transforming to 'DramaLand'. I think that these coins and everyone's coins should be left as they are, if people want to store them away for 20 years then they should have that choice.
Indeed. What's to prevent this from happening from someone else's coins?
Updated post. Edit: To be absolutely clear: I am not proposing (and would never propose) a policy that would have the goal of depriving anyone of his bitcoins. Satoshi's bitcoins (which number far below 1M, I think) rightfully belong to him, and he can do whatever he wants with them. Even if I wanted to destroy Satoshi's bitcoins in particular, it's not possible to identify which bitcoins are Satoshi's. I am talking about destroying presumably-lost coins that are going to be stolen, ideally just moments before the theft would occur.
|
|
|
|
The people behind Classic are well-studied and experienced C++ developers.
Indeed, and my Cat is God. i dont know their name,can you tell me who are on that picture?
How about you don't rush to post (spam) and read all of the posts in the thread? I have added a link to a image with the names of everyone within the picture. Classic is a failed project and will remain like this forever especially with that bunch of jerks and scammers that has for supporters like Ver, Gavin, Wright, Armstrong.
They keep trying, but we aren't fooled easily. |
|
|
|
I can recognize at least Gavin Andresen so I am rooting for team Iron Man I honestly hope that you're joking with that statement. To say that supporting Gavin, at this point, is idiotic would be an understatement. Have you even been paying attention to the latest events? I don't think that you have. Dont focus too much on the names. To see Amstrong like this hilarious  While it is funny and the characters might fit, it was not properly made (story-wise). Adam Back as Vision was a interesting choice. I thought we call it Drama The picture could incite more drama (if you take a look at /r/btc you will see what I mean). |
|
|
|
People who make money out of it by doing it fair and square have to suffer if this is banned. I believe that you need to take a more subtle perspective to this problem; rather than banning account farming and selling.
I couldn't care less. Account sales should be banned on the forum and all accounts that are found to be involved in them should be permanently banned (no exceptions). Additionally, being able to wear a "flashy" signature should be a privilege (something in the lines of OgNasty's suggestion). This would considerably improve the quality of this forum. Until then, the staff will be playing whack-a-mole with signature spammers. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
