The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be. The clowns I refer to are you and alikes. Gavin (the lead developer before core got compromised) was one of them who made Bitcoin relevant. At the moment core is compromised and hijacked by stagnators. It won't last. They'll be forced to deliver bigger blocks or to become irrelevant.By whom? By market participants that want and need bigger blocks and don't give so much interest anymore about Core implementation. This minority, no matter how loud it is, is still a minority, therefore if you want bigger blocks better fork off into your own altcoin  |
|
|
|
The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be. The clowns I refer to are you and alikes. Gavin (the lead developer before core got compromised) was one of them who made Bitcoin relevant. At the moment core is compromised and hijacked by stagnators. It won't last. They'll be forced to deliver bigger blocks or to become irrelevant.By whom? Gavin hasn't done anything significant in Bitcoin in almost two years. Yes, unfortunately. The result is visible on the chart since the stagnators are in charge. But then, Peter R. stepped in and told the geeks something about socionomics and the market:  good one we sure learned a lot from his 5th grader economics 101 class ! |
|
|
|
even MP seems more legit.
Yes, this is the idol of the clowns with their vulgar language here. But you don't represent Bitcoin. Vulgar Your self-serving high horse moral judgments are the definition of vulgar |
|
|
|
The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be. The clowns I refer to are you and alikes. Gavin (the lead developer before core got compromised) was one of them who made Bitcoin relevant. At the moment core is compromised and hijacked by stagnators. It won't last. They'll be forced to deliver bigger blocks or to become irrelevant.By whom? Gavin hasn't done anything significant in Bitcoin in almost two years. From where I stand Core is healthy as ever and leading the charge of Bitcoin development. Having just disposed of its most toxic parasite I should expect it to thrive even more in the future! You do understand Core is composed of more people than the Blockstream crew? |
|
|
|
ah finally!  Yes. that's the difference between him and a '50 posts a day spammer' like that brg0815. Peter might be competent in his own field. Unfortunately when it comes to Bitcoin he's in way over his head  |
|
|
|
Trust charter confirmed: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/10/05/bitbeat-winklevoss-twins-gemini-exchange-gets-trust-license/edit: To open on thursday  Gemini will be begin operations on Thursday. The exchange will allow customers to buy, sell, and hold bitcoins. Bitcoin deposits will be held in an offline vault; fiat deposits will be held with New York-based commercial bank Signature Bank. The exchange is open to both individual and institutional investors, but the twins are keenly focused on attracting institutional business. |
|
|
|
The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be. Unfortunately, Peter's piss poor research will never make it past peer-review seeing how his original "Spherical cows exist without block size limit" was dismantled by Greg Maxwell. I guess having one of your pal's credentials next to some mildly important (effectively irrelevant) academic circlejerk makes your crew feel warm and fuzzy. Rational observers couldn't give less of a fuck |
|
|
|
vomits his bile
Everybody out there is talking laughing about the ideas of Peter R. Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod. Which is no surprise. FTFY |
|
|
|
Apart from the slow confirmation times and the low TPS issues - for any average consumer what is the benefit of making an irreversible payment? Benefit from an irreversible payment? Very little, however there are other benefits to the customer, primarily (current) low cost of use and the ability to send money instantly (yes, I would argue that bitcoin transactions are for all intensive purposes instant from the viewpoint of the customer, regardless of confirmation time) Credit cards are costless to us and send money instantly as well. It's fairly obvious Bitcoin doesn't compete and certainly does not offer a superior product on these grounds. People would use Bitcoin to to pay for something online because of the lower cost. To counter the fact that payments cannot be reversed, consumers should only deal with companies that have a sufficient reputation that they can trust items will get delivered, for example if an Amazon order does not get delivered, I would think that the majority of the time Amazon can resolve this issue prior to the customer ever contacting their credit card company (yes this will lead to more centralization, and yes this will make it more difficult for newcomers to enter the market online).
Consumers can also use Bitcoin in person in similar ways that they use cash in person. If someone were to trust a mom and pop store to hand them $500 for a TV, then there is really no reason why they would not trust them with $500 worth of Bitcoin for the same TV. Such store could probably even offer a discount for paying with Bitcoin over cash because of the lower costs associated with protecting bitcoin over cash.
It seems you pretty much confirm CIYAM's point which is that there is little incentive for the consumer |
|
|
|
I'm curious to know in what way you believe I've broken the rules. Indeed I shared links to my submission here, at /r/bitcoinxt and at bitco.in to encourage participation in (what I think was) an important discussion. I regularly do this as I believe the dissemination of new content is useful. Nowhere did I solicit people to up-vote or down-vote any comments.
'Vote brigading' is against the rules. I can not be 100% sure that you did it, nor that it was done at all, but I doubt that this post would have been taken down without a reason. The XT community could have done this as well. The moderator said it was "vote brigading" because I shared a link to my submission here, at bitco.in and at /r/bitcoinxt. Nowhere did I solicit people to up-vote or down-vote any comments. As a reminder, this was the censored image: Yeah we get it, now please go away and take your spam along with you. |
|
|
|
New wave of banning idiocy in their spheres at the moment.
Indeed. I was banned earlier today. And it looks like Adrian-X was just banned too. For the record, here is the censored submission: *FUD* I support the censorship Your thread was nothing but typical disingenuous FUD attempt to "teach the controversy" It shot to the top of reddit in 10 minutes and every sensible posts in there was promptly buried under downvotes Great to know the censorship cheerleaders on the other side. Vote brigading = censorship. Spare us the hypocrisy you stupid shill. As reference this post of mine was at one point downvoted to children status. Censorship heh? Gimme a break  |
|
|
|
New wave of banning idiocy in their spheres at the moment.
Indeed. I was banned earlier today. And it looks like Adrian-X was just banned too. For the record, here is the censored submission: *FUD* I support the censorship Your thread was nothing but typical disingenuous FUD attempt to "teach the controversy" It shot to the top of reddit in 10 minutes and every sensible posts in there was promptly buried under downvotes Great to know the censorship cheerleaders on the other side. Vote brigading = censorship. Spare us the hypocrisy you stupid shill. What are you doing here anyway? Is it so lonely in your bitco.in circle jerk you have nothing to entertain yourself with? |
|
|
|
New wave of banning idiocy in their spheres at the moment.
Indeed. I was banned earlier today. And it looks like Adrian-X was just banned too. For the record, here is the censored submission: *FUD* I support the censorship moderation Your thread was nothing but one of your typical disingenuous FUD attempt to "teach the controversy" It shot to the top of reddit in 10 minutes and every sensible posts in there was promptly buried under downvotes. You Gavinistas have no honor  |
|
|
|
I thought the ETF was meant to be ready for the end of 2014. In that time, someone else has beaten winklevoss to launching a bitcoin ETF.
Pretty sure the last quarter of 2015 is what they were mentioning and shooting for. We're just entering this quarter and things seem to be progressing. What is it stopping them from launching sooner? First mover advantage is now lost. They have to get approval from a US government body called the securities and exchange commission (SEC) before they can launch the ETF. The SEC moves at a glacial pace and can take years to decide whether to grant or deny approval. There is nothing the twins can do to make the SEC speed up, they can only wait for its decision. The Gemini exchange could open before the ETF but that still needs to wait untl it gets permission to open from some other regulators. So why were they beaten to market, there is already a Bitcoin ETF? There is nothing on the market that resembles anything on the scale of their proposed NASDAQ ETF. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin users not affected  |
|
|
|
A fork of the code isn't an altcoin until it uses the same blockchain (and the same rules of the majority)
Whatever fork/code that will become the minority (in nodes/blocks/mining power), then it will be an altcoin.
If we imagine that Bitcoin XYZ (whatever fork, with different consensus rules) will become the majority of nodes/miners, than Bitcoin Core will be an altcoin.
If there is consensus to change rules Core will implement them. Until then, attempts to divide consensus by creating contentious schism forks are to be considered altcoins. Again, this is nothing against code forks that are bug-for-bug implementations of the existing Nakamoto consensus rules. If an implementation (Bitcoin XT) proposes to change these rules absent of consensus it could a. be rejected or b. get adopted. As long as economic majority does not bulge from current consensus rules the implementation in question will see little to no support. On the other hand, other different implementations that respect consensus agreement on the protocol rules could see adoption depending on the quality of their code, its features and security. |
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused about these forks. Are these esentially altcoins? Will this affect the price of bitcoins?
Yes, Peter is attempting to confuse Bitcoin users by proposing different altcoins with very similar but ultimately irreconcilable rules. This would essentially fragment the user base and make them vulnerable to governance attacks that could undermine the value of their coins. |
|
|
|
For anyone that cares here's the actual history of Bitcoin Github commits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=287&v=PfKlee8kLE4You should find that it supports arguments that current Core repository is enjoying very healthy growth in contributors and peer-review. Decentralization of Bitcoin development is as strong as it has ever been. Don't listen to this guy's FUD. |
|
|
|
|
There are currently 3 maintained and well supported versions of the existing Nakamoto consensus protocol:
Bitcoin Core
btcd
thebitcoin.foundation's
Moreover hundreds of person are currently running different versions of Core with sometimes their own patches.
We're waiting for yours Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
