|
Roger Ver is pumping dash bigly to make his narrative of "people will go to other altcoins if bitcoin unlimited doesn't win" seem real. Roger Ver is acting like those rich fiat guys like Soros that use their money to make their agendas work, sad to see.
Anyway, this shit will crash sooner than later.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin was always supposed to be digital cash. It even says so in the original white paper title.
Where did this myth start that we need to 'let this go'?
No coin can scale at worldwide levels while allowing coffee-tier fast and cheap transactions onchain without massive node centralization. Gold-tier transactions and long term storage = on-chain Coffee-tier fast velocity big volume transactions = off-chain Those are the objective facts. If there was a coin that could offer fast, cheap, massive volume onchain transactions while maintaining a small block size so people can run nodes to guarantee a decentralized network then whoever creates that becomes the next bill gates overnight and I retire in some island with a couple billion dollars from a small 10 buck investment. Unfortunately that is sci-fi today, so best we got is Core + segwit + LN. You can't call something cash if the nodes are so big that the network becomes centralized, and you would need huge blocks to cater for coffee-tier mainstream level transactions. Those are the facts that delusional big blockers fail to realize. |
|
|
|
 The always level-headed, always neutral bitcoin expert Andreas Antonopoulos has spoken: Miners, get your shit together, activate segwit, let's scale bitcoin the proper way so we don't have to explain why there are 2 bitcoins as the price crashes to 2 figures (or why the price crashes to 0 as a BU fatal bug is found if it ever becomes the main branch). Stick with the best devs or be dead. |
|
|
|
Price will be ruined due to Core dragging their feet over a block size increase and generally fucking around prioritising technical perfection over actual usefulness and being totally unwilling to compromise. This is why alts are rapidly gaining on BTC.
If a fork causes Bitcoin to crash hard, then frankly, it deserves to, since this can happen at any point in the future.
Two coins would be the best solution at this time. All current hodlers have coins on both chains. One chain can scale on chain, be actually used as a payment system, the other chain can play at being digital gold and pray that lightning network is somehow better than on chain payments.
At least with a fork current hodlers will own both the gold and the payment network. No fork means an altcoin will eat Bitcoin's payment network market share.
A fork should make everybody happy. Except Vinny, who needs to cry some more.
The blocksize increase is segwit, tell the miners to signal the fucking thing already. After segwit is adopted, we can raise the blocksize in a safer way since segwit addresses certain problems. The problem is, even if we upgrade it to 2MB, they will soon demand more. |
|
|
|
|
This is almost laughable, ETH is bubbled, there's nothing that justifies it's price. The coin is inflationary and prone to more DAO events in the future, so its not a good investment beyond speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, the addiction of gambling can be brutal in some cases, you must stay focused and never give up on the wanting, if you give up on wanting to stop gambling for a second, the nits game over, you will go back to day 1 and it will be the same shit all over again. You must fight the urge until you become sane again, then you will see how retarded gambling all the time is.
|
|
|
|
Mayweather is back at it: New video claiming comeback in june, "let's do it" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2EKIj_pEloThe video already reached near 1 and a half million views. I think it's happening for sure now. What other fight can generate those views in hype videos? |
|
|
|
|
Sooner or later we will find a way to properly scale bitcoin for global mainstream success, as of right now it is a good censorship resistant tool to store and move value. Unfortunately, this does not come cheap, as opposed to centralized payment networks which the average joe uses.
As Andreas said, as long as we struggle to scale, we are making progress (as in an analogy to how the internet is always struggling to scale)
In other news, looks like Roger Ver already patched his botnet and nodes are at an all time high. Too bad the damage is done already and BU's credibility is shattered forever.
|
|
|
|
|
Alonso may abandon this year and not complete it. It would be too frustrating to spend another entire year with an useless car. Looks like Honda made a great looking design but the rest is garbage. Another bad year for one of the best pilots in the rooster due unlucky car.
|
|
|
|
|
You want huge block sizes that would centralize the network while wanting to call that cash, it doesn't work like that, so get your priorities straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Who would have guessed? CIA sponsored Gavin Andresen plotting to get bitcoin XT, bitcoin classic and now bitcoin unlimited at all costs, even if it means destroying the whole project, which is what I suspect is the end goal.
|
|
|
|
"A" writes a "smart contract" on Ethereum. Since "A" isn't perfect his "smart contract" isn't either. "B" finds the bug in "A" "smart contract." "B" steals "A" ETH. Repeat... Repeat... Repeat... ETH goes to $0!
That's the thing. We got a DAO situation, solved by proof of vitalik. If it happened once, why it can't happen unlimited times? There's nothing that guarantees it will not happen again, so why would anyone hold long term wealth on this thing I ask? |
|
|
|
Those that want Bitcoin to be (or think Bitcoin can be)
only a highly secure store of value (like Gold or a reserve currency),
without also being a high volume digital cash
used for buying coffee, are making some assumptions
that may be erroneous.
Potentially Erroneous Assumption #1: Bitcoin will remain
a store of value without widespread use.
The idea is that as long as Bitcoin is secure and has a good reputation,
large parties can transact millions of dollars and Bitcoin
will hold its value even if merchants don't accept it for coffee.
But if it doesn't have widespread use, it loses one of the key
properties of money. And it becomes more like tulip bulbs.
Potentially Erroneous Assumption #2: There will be
a healthy fee market for a low volume Bitcoin.
Eventually, fees (rather than block reward subsidies) will fund security
for the blockchain.
Currently, Bitcoin users' fees are not dependent
on the amount of the transaction. Therefore, with
only a few high-dollar transactions rather than a great
many transactions of all sizes, there will be far fewer
fees (and thus far less security) assuming that this
convention continues of 'amount-independent fees'.
Bitcoin could always adopt a new convention and charge
a percentage of the total transaction, but would be
subject to intense competition from other cryptocurrencies.
For example if the fee was lets say 1% and I wanted to send $1M,
why I would I pay $10,000 with Bitcoin when i could do it
for far less with another coin?
Additionally, these 2 assumptions are related because if we're
going to have a Bitcoin without widespread use as a store of
value, then it needs to have even higher security, since that
will become the dominant property which gives it value.
No coin can scale at worldwide levels while allowing coffee-tier fast and cheap transactions onchain without massive node centralization. Gold-tier transactions and long term storage = on-chain Coffee-tier fast velocity big volume transactions = off-chain Those are the objective facts. If there was a coin that could offer fast, cheap, massive volume onchain transactions while maintaining a small block size so people can run nodes to guarantee a decentralized network then whoever creates that becomes the next bill gates overnight and I retire in some island with a couple billion dollars from a small 10 buck investment. Unfortunately that is sci-fi today, so best we got is Core + segwit + LN. You can't call something cash if the nodes are so big that the network becomes centralized, and you would need huge blocks to cater for coffee-tier mainstream level transactions. Those are the facts that delusional big blockers fail to realize. |
|
|
|
Looks like all those BUcoiners are on suicide watch. Very sad! I feel bad for the idiots that felt so deep into the Jihan Wu + Roger Ver propaganda that they will not see the obvious. Sorry, BU lost all its credibility forever. Nobody without an agenda will risk their wealth and business in the hands of amateurs. Time to think about the next powergrab attempt. |
|
|
|
http://www.coindesk.com/code-bug-exploit-bitcoin-unlimited-nodes/Let this be a reminder of what happens when you try to pass the development of a 20 billion dollar project into a bunch of idiots instead of sticking with the time-tested, world-class coders with a conservative mindset that have guaranteed our holdings stay safe for 7+ years.  This also proves most BU nodes were single entities with big pockets, probably the work of none other than Bitcoin Jesus himself. If Jihan Wu, Roger Ver and Gavin Andressen still promote this garbage, we all know they don't even care about their holdings and have ulterior motives beyond the idea of naive good intentions.
|
|
|
|
 President elect Jihan Wu will guarantee that your blocks remain unfull, so your transactions are fast and cheap. Centralization? don't worry, you are safe in Jihan's hands. Secretary and official Jesus of the crypto-era Roger Vermin will preach the BUspel around the world. Bow down to your new God:  BUcoin will be ok, just keep copy-pasting Core's hard work. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5z47f3/it_looks_like_chinabu_developers_forgot_to_add/What? what is this?  Even after copying 99.99% of Core's hard work, they introduce a couple of lines and manage to fuck up? Lies! linking to bitcoin reddit? you brainwashed blockstreamer cultist. You are going to the BUlag!!  |
|
|
|
Here's further exposing of Gavin in pre-CIA times, talking about the evils that he is now promoting, and pointing out how merchants and nodes control bitcoin, not Jihan Wu's monopoly: I very much doubt that any one entity will ever have 50% of the computational power. The botnet operators will bow to the whims of the community because it's the community that ultimately gives bitcoins value. What good is a giant load of bitcoins if you don't have anyone willing to give you something in exchange for them?
Eventually the largest merchants and money exchangers will control what is "standard" bitcoin.Take the "50-coiners" scenario, and imagine that they manage to get 75% of the CPU power on their side. But imagine that the biggest merchants and money exchangers are more conservative, and are in the 25% minority. I think they will be-- I don't think they'll be the ones in the business of generating coins (they'll be busy selling products or doing the exchange thing). What happens? Well, the block chain splits. Transactions using coins minted before the split will get added to both block chains, and accepted by everybody. Transactions involving "50-coins" (generated after the split) will be accepted on the 50-coin chain, rejected on the 25-coin chain. And vice-versa. "50-coiners" would quickly find out that they couldn't get rid of their newly minted money because who wants bitcoins that are rejected by the biggest money exchangers or merchants? If the big merchants and money exchangers disagreed, I bet you'd see Bitcoin clients that ONLY accepted pre-split coins and did no coin generation (since those transactions would be accepted by everybody). If it was never resolved, I think the number of Bitcoins at the time of the split would become "the number of Bitcoins, period," because most people will not want to use money that is accepted some places and not others. Replace "50-coiners" with BUcoiners and 25-coin with Core. There you have it. Check the tweets here too: https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/how-bitcoin-unlimited-btu-will-be-erased-169977ecb3bb#.8lzo1psxcGet ready to dump BUcoin and double your BTC stack if the unfortunate event happens. |
|
|
|
According to coinmarketcap.com there are 668 coins on their site all trading. Do they all do something different or are there a lot of copy cats and if so, what do the 100% copycats have value?
Please show example if you can
Obviously not. 99% of coins do not offer anything that's worth holding above bitcoin. Some coins, offer some creative stuff, like Maidsafe, Byteball, Monero, Ethereum... but is yet to be seen if any of these have any realistic long term value. For example, with sidechains, Bitcoin can do everything Ethereum can do (via Rootstock). What's the point of holding ETH then? |
|
|
|
|
Is it clear that gambling can be wrong, but if you control yourself it can be really fun. I like to make some gambling in the market rather than casinos.
For example, I sold bitcoins right before the ETF, I waited for the dip because I bet that ETF was going to be rejected, and I made some good BTCs because I also bet that it would recover quickly. That is reasonable gambling.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
