You should read: A date with Sybil. I wonder how come this isn't obvious to everyone; i.e. why some believe that these are genuine nodes run by many users (they're not). |
|
|
|
Why is it that certain people can not live without drama in their lives (regardless of personal or online)? It does not matter who Vod is. what kind of credibility could have this kind of user ?
He has been here for a very long time and has deserved his place. |
|
|
|
So within what you believe is achievable... what would you want Bitcoin to be?
You didn't give me a definition of P2P Cash. I would say that a mixture of both is achievable by raising the block size limit (only conservative and safe time) and developing a secondary layer (e.g. Lightning Network). I do not think that Bitcoin can become "mainstream cash" on a single layer. |
|
|
|
It does not matter what people want if it is not possible. The real question is what is achievable. Do you want Bitcoin to be digital P2P cash?
How do you define P2P cash? Is it not P2P cash right now? If you define it as a system which everybody in the world can use a the same time, then you won't like the answer. |
|
|
|
Lost. From now on if there are couple of matches everyday you can expect premium parlays minimum odd will probobly be 1.95 of parlays they will also be really safe Lauda your request for this has been granted  That's good to hear. Keep up the good work. I'll stick around from time to time. However, I have more luck betting on tennis. |
|
|
|
Also arguing change limit to 2MB (or 4MB) means number of nodes have to decrease considerably is wrong, there is scientistic study I saw recently it might decrease the node count by up to 10% - you will not notice such small change on decentralization (btw thanks to Bitcoin Classic we are already up by 30% in 1-2 months)
You just defeated your own argument. As far as Classic nodes are concerned, they are worthless and part of a Sybil attack. Read: A date with Sybil. 1) with 2MB (or 4MB), nothing changes much here
2) second layer (LN) does not even exist currently, so pointless to argue whether LN become decentralized or can be used only in centralized maner as seems today
It does actually. In a small amount of time you will have people asking for 6 or 8 MB, that's for sure. It is not pointless to argue about LN. LN is being designed so that it is decentralized, don't spread misinformation that it will be centralized when that is not the case. |
|
|
|
There was no stress test, just people moving their bitcoins to buy Ethereum.
There was an attack. Stop posting misleading information. Why would you choose to wait 48 hours when you could wait just minutes, it's examples like this that the public need to hear and not the other negative stuff that gets thrown around the news. Then I suppose you never really see much positive stuff in the news.
Technically if both parties trust each other then you don't need to wait much more than a few seconds. Transactions are instant, confirmations take time. After taking out $40 from their ATM, after paying the $3 fee..
I recently had someone send me money via WU, they had to pay a few higher than 10% of the transaction sent. It's strange that some people complain now that Bitcoin has high fees (less than 10 cents for any amount) when you consider your other options. |
|
|
|
Lauda called someone a retard (when acting as a moderator) here, and I called him out on it here. So wherever I post I'm acting as a moderator? That's not how this works. When I asked Lauda about the negative rating, he claimed that it was suppose to be a neutral rating, changed it to neutral and told me that I "know the reasoning".
Trust rating has nothing to do with being a staff member; straw-man argument. According to Lutpin, Lauda handles the most reports out of all the moderators, although his most recent mod payment would suggest otherwise. I'm the most active (non global) moderator along with Mitchell (last month stats). You don't understand how those payments work, so you can't use them as an argument. Let's not misuse Lutpin's words though. He said I'm part of the group that handles the most reports. Lauda counts to the group of mods that handle the most reports, Lauda is among the fastest, when it comes to handling reports.
Lauda is also a blockstream fanboy, and will back the company line of whatever blockstream says, regardless of logic, reasoning, or facts.
No. I have no relations with Blockstream.
Let's not involve things that are irrelevant please. I'm not sharing my reasons for certain things and I stand by my decisions. I know Lauda better than most here. She pissed me off one time, and I told her off, and he apologized. And I understood his point of view, and I forgave her completely.
Lauda is both a he, a she and neither at the same time! |
|
|
|
Lightning Network is open source. How does this fit with your conspiracy theory of "they want to cripple the blockchain"?
It doesn't They stand to earn money with Bitcoin suceeding as well. Additionally a lot of people that spread propaganda tend to say that LN is owned by Blockstream which is completely false. There are several independent groups developing it. Replaced by whom? The Gavin crowd, who until recently supported a benevolent dictatorship for Bitcoin under the XT banner? Then I would rather sail on a slower boat with a better captain. The real
debate is not the Block size, it is who will be the captain of the ship.
A lot of people have quickly forgotten about this. The very save people who were supporting a benevolent dictatorship in Bitcoin, are not supporting Classic with some additions. Let's not forget that Toomin said that changing the supply can/should be considered. |
|
|
|
If you push the block size upward, there is little change compared to today - individual miners still choose what pool they direct their ASICs to. It cant be any worse.
Well, while I'm not sure what might happen with mining I'm certain that the number of nodes will shrink or the concentration in datacenters will increase. This is not good. On the other side with artificially keeping small blocks, unable to use onchain Bitcoin transactions is definitively increased centralization, as users have to use centralized offchain solutions (similar how bank or paypal works).
Completely wrong: 1) On-chain remains decentralized (nodes are cheap to run). 2) Decentralized second layer solutions will exist (LN). |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see more 'super-safe parlays' rather than Premium picks. I'll follow one last time. Additionally it might be nice to somehow display the odds for the premium picks before purchase. I'm certain that some don't like the idea of ~1.5 odds for 0.01 for example.
|
|
|
|
If a hostile government halted bitcoin mining in any country, wouldn't this just make mining more profitable for miners everywhere else, and shift the consensus to them? It sounds to me like that would be a good thing.
Technically yes. However, if they took down all the mining in China at once we would have to go through a somewhat difficult period until the difficulty adjusts. After this, the network would be fine. If the block size is kept the same, or pushed downward, then fees increase, and low cost transactions are forced to move off chain, and there are centralization risks. (Examples: BlockStream, Lightning Network service provider).
This is better because people are still able to support the network themselves and agree to rules by running nodes. There is nothing wrong the second layer; besides LN should/can be decentralized. We really nee some extent of tradeoff, or some party need to compromise his ideas for the sake of the bitcoin's ecosystem.
The capacity is being increased with Segwit. No compromise is needed at the moment. A block size increase might come after it though. |
|
|
|
The easiest answer: who is their target? By knowing the target you know the attacker. I have some clues, do you? That question does not make sense as it is labeled in the title "bring down Bitcoin". Bitcoin has a decentralized flow of money, it brings that power back to the people where it belongs.
This is a threat to the economic elite. At first they did not recognize that threat, but now that it is clear Bitcoin is real, they recognize the threat is real. They can't take it down directly, but what they can do is attempt to seize control of the network. And that is what I believe they are trying to do, using the very social engineering tactics quoted in your original post.
The worst part of this is that genuine people are being manipulated by the campaign and they're indirectly joining it. This does make a lot of sense if you consider: 1) Bitcoin "has many enemies". 2) Bitcoin can't be damaged otherwise (no known exploits). 3) Humans are flawed. |
|
|
|
this " bitcoin let you anonymous transaction but some popular exchange need real id include number department to join platform exchange
like bitstamp and other popular exchange.
This is still correct. You don't understand the statement at all. You are transacting anonymously between address X and address Y. Nobody is forcing you to join services which require personal information. Bitcoin contains a virus that will override your computer and make you part of some hackers great network.
it seems it is not a hoax or trick. Did you even read his post and/or understand it? The claim was that Bitcoin contains a virus, which is obviously false. That a user is "anonymous" in the network and no one can follow your transactions, it's actually almost the opposite since the chain is open and anyone can view the transactions and possible even trace them back to there origin coins.
Nobody knows who this "user" is, ergo this is where the anonymity is coming from. |
|
|
|
Are we mainstream yet?  We'll see how the block reward halving goes I suppose! No. We're not even close to being mainstream. It is still the early phase. All I ask is that bitcoin prices reach the moon before I'm too old to wipe my own ass. I'd like to enjoy the fruits of my labor.
Don't be fueled by greed. Buying Bitcoin and posting on a forum is "labor"? Interesting. |
|
|
|
Money/Greed has always been the #1 corrupting force. It's no different here.
and who is this vc-funded corporation? Coinbase? Support Classic so that we hopelessly rush mainstream adoption because of not greed? The main reason for which they'd want to rush it is an increase in the price per Bitcoin. Coinbase is one of those corporations. More nodes doesn't indicate that many bitcoiner support bitcoin classic now, classic (and others) nodes can be manipulated.
The majority of Classic nodes are on Amazon. They're useless. Great article. Maximum of 213 Classic supporters. |
|
|
|
Well well.
So, the mods have proven to me that anonymity has a price tag on it.
I.e. Anonymity is not free.
Use a different node while creating the account or a VPN. Problem solved. Where will the money I give go? For usefullness or the owner (theymos).
It goes to the forum.
Also, please refrain for making consecutive posts in a row. This is technically not allowed. |
|
|
|
We hold the limit (stay at 1mb), in the interest of protecting the original ideals of the white paper of decentralization and etc.
or
The downside is it causes the theoretical problems that can cause Bitcoin to stray from what protects it from regulations and destruction.
Keep in mind that one could easily argue that Bitcoin's best aspect is decentralization. It is very important that this aspect does not get harmed. The Winklevoss twins agree with this as well. Probably. Segwit has an effective increase as a doubling of the maximum block size. AFAIK the lightning network, and sidechains as well, could in theory go infinitely.
Segwit is around 180-190% (realistic usage) which comes pretty close. The Lightning Network does have a theoretical infinite capacity, not so sure about Sidechains. Add to that the human factors involved with the different implementations, like personal interest <Greed> and people who wants to have the power and the control and you can see why there are such huge problems, getting anything done.
There's where the urgency to go mainstream is coming from, greed. Why should we be giving ideas to a false flag undercover shill
They will come, it is just a matter of time. |
|
|
|
Seems for a lot of people this does come down to a conspiracy argument and the more I read about this I find it's quite ridiculous.
So where is the greed and desire to profit that so many people are accusing Blockstream of?
Actually it is even worse if you look at it more closely: 1) Blockstream has only 1 developer working on LN. Why would they only put 1 on the project if that was their major plan for profit? Does not make sense. 2) There are multiple groups working on independent implementations of LN. 3) Blockstream never advertised LN as their solution. If you add it all up, you can see that the propaganda from the 'forkers' is foolish at best. LN is a wonder (as far as current solutions go) and one should learn to embrace it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
