|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Begging.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Spam.
|
|
|
|
This depends on what exactly happens after a controversial HF is activated. However, since Classic is moving away from the "just Core with a 2 MB block size limit" model and adding some undesirable "features" it is more likely that I'd abandon Bitcoin. The approch Mike had - to leave - was not good neither for Bitcoin, neither for him (imho).
I understand that this involves much more politics than a dev would like, but leaving is usually not the best way to fight for your views.
It was always about politics. The people behind the controversial HF's aren't what I'd call 'excellent developers' anymore. It is a hope of a large number of bitcoin users that it will get success sooner in the coming future.
Mostly because they're greedy (hoping that the price will go up). |
|
|
|
 I couldn't resist. Somebody needs to redo that website as soon as possible.
Short comment: You did list some nice things (e.g. Augur; I wasn't aware of it), however this 'article' doesn't assure that much. |
|
|
|
It's a scammer trick. That's the vote distribution on the tiny little baby pool that Slush still runs. That stupid graph only represents 3% of the hash rate. There is so much misinformation being thrown around here it's a wonder anyone can make a decision on whether their own bladder is full enough to take a piss.
I've called them out on misleading charts before, but they always try using some straw-man arguments to get away with it. There is clearly a very low amount of supporters for Classic. Additionally, if you have read a recent article called "A date with Sybil" then you would know that the nodes are run by less than 300 people (according to the analysis). I do think some voting mechanism is needed, anybody with Bitcoin can vote.
Well it could work without a mechanism. Miners could easily show support (or "vote") by changing their pool. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't do it if it wasn't amusing. I find pleasure in proving misinformed, self-entitled idiots wrong for some reason.
Okay then; I was just wondering along with others as it does not seem amusing for us. At least you get some entertainment from it. your the only 1 demonstrating lack of brain capacity pal, but meh your too much of a brainless retard evidenced by the fact you dont see the difference between hardware and soft ware go boil your head you may learn something
No. If anyone is wrong in this thread, it is you. It seems that you are one of those people who insist that they're right, regardless of what kind of 'evidence' you throw at them. that thread should be closed and throw in bin.
It is just a matter of time. |
|
|
|
Does it qualify as a coup if the majority accept it? If it does happen it'll be because enough people want it to happen.
Bitcoin is not a democracy and will never function as one. The majority as defined in the current systems does not apply here. Luckily, Bitcoin was made to be resistant to this, so in the short term I'm optimistic. After many years there could be so many Bitcoin haters that they could derail it. But not today! Today Bitcoin is still with us and operational.
Exactly. Bitcoin was designed so that it would be really hard to change. What if Bitcoin is a really an NSA project?
It isn't. What if Gavin works for the CIA?
That possibility exists. |
|
|
|
Yeah, just two more months 'til new forum releases, right?
There isn't a exact date. It could be tomorrow, or it could be in 10 months. You never know. It will be released when it is ready. That was more than 3 months/$150,000 ago  Seems like some people are just envious of the money. |
|
|
|
The much expected conspiracy mocker/downplayer shows up right on cue.
It was expected.
Well, I'm not really into conspiracy theories usually but if you really consider a few things it could make sense: 1) Repeated attempts to break consensus. 2) ETH bots on Reddit (before the spike) 3) The spammer in the Speculation section changed his pattern from "dump Bitcoin/dying ponzi" to promoting ETH. It can't all be a coincidence, can it (in addition to the stuff provided by OP)? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin was designed to be a Peer-to-peer electronic cash system, and that is what it should be. I would note however that even if Bitcoin is used as a P2P electron cash system, it can also be used as a settlement layer, however there is little reason why anyone would want to do so.
That depends. There is a difference between what it can be and what it should be. As we can see there are limitations that currently would prevent a lot of people using Bitcoin everyday (even if we increased the block size limit tenfold). It is almost as if the very idea of a settlement layer might even be antithetical to a world where cryptocurrency becomes the dominant form of currency, rendered obsolete like many of the other functions that banks carry out today.
Everyone keeps talking about it yet nobody mentions the differences between P2P Cash and a settlement layer. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Not sure why you guys are wasting your time on this fool. Best to just ignore him.
After reading the latest replies, I highly suggest that you take up this advice. I'm certain that your time could be used for something better. Just don't feed him anymore as it is pointless. |
|
|
|
Keeping small max block size doesn't solve the decentralisation issue (decline in node count). At very best it only slows it down.
Correct. I never implied that it does solve it. However, an increased block size limit could only make it worse. People who run nodes don't get any direct incentive + most newcomers will go straight to lightweight clients or online wallets for convenience, so here's the real problem.
Well, I don't think that the majority needs to bother with using non lightweight clients. However, they should have the option to easily use one if they wanted to. Yes. But to be fair, the main concern in blocksize debate is network bandwidth capacity rather than just storage.
Both are a concern. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Cracked accounts.
|
|
|
|
Of course I agree.
Bitcoin can currently be used as P2P Cash.
However as the network grows from 2 million users to 20 million... there are engineering choices to be made which could change some of these qualities. There will be trade-offs between speed, cost, simplicity, fungibility, etc...
That's what this thread is about.
I wanted to know if my view is correct; that's why I asked if you agreed. How about listing some features that are present in a settlement layer so that we can compare? As far as the trade-offs are concerned, I'm not sure. We might experience increased on-chain fees. |
|
|
|
 Source: http://coinjournal.net/coo-samson-mow-btccs-support-of-bitcoin-core-is-a-no-brainer/ At least some people get it right.
Especially when all two of Classic developers both seem terminally retarded?
But they told me Classic was Core with only a 2 MB block size limit   echochambering your positions and deleting every post that could make you look bad.
That's how self moderated threads function. The author is allowed to delete any post for whatever reason. |
|
|
|
-Open, permissionless system. If you have the token, you can use it.
-Mere Possession of the token is enough. No extra proof is required.
-Payments are simple, fast and have low transaction costs.
-Tokens are fungible.
-Payments are irreversible and final.
1) Correct. Bitcoin is censorship resistant. 2) Correct. Owning the private key is everything that is needed. 3) They current are (fees have an unknown/undecided future). 4) Somewhat fungible (unknown?). 5) Correct. ...and for it to be P2P:
-Only the voluntary interaction of the 2 parties to a transaction is required. No third party can block the transaction.
Correct.
Do you agree with my statements? |
|
|
|
oh. so it's because the government is corrupt. I got scared for a moment because I thought there are some laws about bitcoin (not just in Venezuela) that I wasn't aware of.
Correct. Apparently, (at least AFAIK) there are no concrete laws that make this illegal. However, the government has started to recently spread propaganda against Bitcoin and this is the first arrest (since the propaganda). It seems that they are afraid of losing even more control even though they're the ones who damaged their own country. ok, wake me up when you have consensus on that, since the limit is part of the consensus layer.
(in other words, not gonna happen)
I don't see why not. There is pretty much consensus on achieving more transaction capacity on chain (be it a 2 MB block size limit or Segwit). I'm certain that someday after Segwit an increase can happen, they just need to agree on an exact value. |
|
|
|
IMO all will agree to this IF
1. It is the ONLY quick straight fwd solution
2. there is enough proof due to testing incl all preripheric appl
3. nobody is left out / no ugly side affects come up with
As far as a 2 MB block size proposal is concerned: 1) It isn't a quick solution as HF's were never meant to be deployed as proposed recently by Gavin (grace period & consensus threshold are too low). 2) Adequate testing in some areas (maybe somebody has a source) 3) They are left out if they don't upgrade in time. Its not clear to me that raising the blocksize wouldn't cause massive amounts of node centralization. I think it's going to be really hard to run a node. We need data before doing this, and the research done so far points at centralization of nodes.
Exactly. We need much more data in this case. A lot of people tend to say that it won't happen because storage is cheap and internet is fast already, but I tend to disagree because there aren't even that many people who run nodes these days. |
|
|
|
its not an appeal for anything other than you lot to grow brains and learn the difference between hardware and software, modifying hardware without touching software dictates it should be under hardware its not rocket science, but like i said expecting common sense = well lets just refer to the title of this thread ehhh  One can't grow their own brain, ergo your post is foolish. It ain't even entertaining. I still don't see a valid argument here. Well that changes things a bit. However, I'm certain that if OP asked other moderators for an opinion, that he'd get the same answer from pretty much anyone. LOL at attempting to judge me, im not seeking attention im trying to educate the retarded, hardware and software are very different yet you lot dont have a clue, almost funny pal!!!!
Calling the staff members 'retarded' is a very smart move indeed. You're definitely not asking for attention. |
|
|
|
I was just wondering why this thread here is now sw else. Feels like some bad politics happened and moved things into some 'illegal' underground and failed to better discussed it on facts... OP was banned due to repeatedly breaking the rules (in addition to being in a signature campaign). He must have re-created his thread on that forum. Additionally, they apparently blame theymos for this ban. He had nothing to do with it. Hope that very soon some real intelligent species here or there will realize that all that poor fighting leads only to lose base and only makes strong some alts... Signs for that just cannot be hidden away.
Not if one is being paid to do so. All would be fine if people agreed with Segwit now and some increase via a HF later (2017 maybe?). A 2MB block size proposal has no benefits aside from increased TPS. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
