You cannot tell me Bitcoin s fine as it is and it will be fine 5 years from now when most of new coins bring really useful improvements. Innovations is the key, always been and always will be.
I've yet to see a single one actually. What you think are "useful improvements" might be very subjective. |
|
|
|
It is awesome and im completely cigarette free for around 1 month now.
Great, keep it up, you're almost there! For me it was always helpful to keep my vaporizer with me if you're going somewhere with friends that smoke. It should remind you that vaping is much better and help you resist the urge (if it comes to that). Pro advice: Dont buy cheap 10 $ stuff - it's pretty shit imo. Just pay 30$ bucks more and buy a real vaping device/regulated mod.
This is the problem with people. They buy some very cheap stuff, liquids from unknown manufacturers and blame 'vaping' if something goes wrong. Of course such combinations would be unhealthy. They don't buy cigarettes for $1 per pack from unknown labels either. they are the best manmade inventions....on one side we can happily smoke...on the other hand our health will not be disturbed
You don't smoke, you vape. |
|
|
|
I always thought that Veritas was paid, but this has gone to a whole new level now. Dash had no pre-mine and there was "some" controversy with the launch?  This is too much. 
Interestingly as soon as their proposals get denied, and their controversial power grab gets rejected they start talking about doomsday scenarios. it doesn't matter because they are getting paid to do the shouting, win lose or draw ... wonder when the shills contracts run out? then we'll finally get some peace, hopefully this weekend when the puppet masters realise they are throwing good btc away on a fool's errand.
A better investment would be send Bitcoins to dead addresses. |
|
|
|
Is there any transparent source (not consider.it) that shows how many miners are in favor of the bitcoin classic?
What about bitcoin users / merchants?
I`d like to see a transparent number about the % of bitcoin classic supporters.
Define 'transparent'? There isn't really a good way to measure exactly how many people are using Bitcoin, thus you can't really measure how many support Classic either. However, there are sites where you can vote on various arguments with your coins such as bitcoinocracy. Miners truly support an implementation only when they start mining related blocks. Currently nobody is mining using Classic. |
|
|
|
They are not helping. Only cigarettes worth mention - green one Stop posting nonsense. I honestly do not know what it vape pen but I ever not smoked for 3-4 days and I can. it all depends on your own intentions what percentage you want to quit smoking? if you have a strong intention to quit smoking I'm sure you can.
You could say that they're advanced version of electric cigarettes. Read this. You can quit smoking without any help obviously, however vaporizers help you enormously. You've got two choices: 1) Quit smoking and vaping; 2) Switch from smoking to vaping. Both options are much better than smoking. |
|
|
|
ha! they all come trooping out -ha!
Is it not obvious which are the paid shills and which are uneducated trolls? The picture should be pretty clear by now. Don't expect this to be over though, another controversial HF might be just around the corner! Why would you frame it this way ? You really are losing a lot of credibility.
He's a failed troll that I've put on ignore long ago because he fails to understand basic concepts no matter how many times you explain it to him. You would be better off spending your time doing something else.
Say Kool-Aid again,
 |
|
|
|
electric cigarette will not help you to quit smoking, so if you want to quit smoking try to reduce its, IMO.
Of course it will. What are you talking about? When it comes to the liquid for your vape pen you can choose the nicotine dosage and flavors. You can start off high to satisfy a heavy smoker and then keep reducing it every few weeks (12 -> 9 -> 6 -> 3 -> 0 mg). Eventually you lose the addiction to nicotine and you can either vape at 0 mg if you like it or stop completely. This works much better than any other method (e.g. patches, gums). I've been through this process and know a few people that are halfway there. |
|
|
|
It blows my mind how you people are so shit scared of a 2 mb block increase. It will happen, like it or not.
Nobody is "shit scared", nor is this thread about 2 MB blocks. Stop trying to divert the argument. ToominCoin is officially over. What's the next controversial power grab that you're going to support, Bitcoin Original maybe? It would not be bad to start copyrighting names and buying domains. |
|
|
|
Irrelevant right now, they are part of the minority. Keep drinking the kool-aid. |
|
|
|
Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.
I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling.
Off topic: What degree do you have? Are you another economist, art teacher, or something else irrelevant trying to spread your "wisdom" on technology? |
|
|
|
I know that Theymos changed Mitchell's username to Mitchell, but that was probably because he was promoted to mod and got the chance.
Staff members can change their names as many times (I think) as they want. Just ask Shorena.  |
|
|
|
The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.
It can't. Stop spreading false information. No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!
I don't see how this is "centralization"? Do you know what that means? |
|
|
|
I just don't necessarily like when people say that "X" is the only way to go and there is no other alternative because that is just the way it is. Even though this problem doesn't seem like much right now, the more people start using bitcoin, the bigger this problem becomes... so it's better to fix it now... am I not right?
Okay "X is better than Y", where X represents Segwit and Y represents Classic/2MB blocks. That's the right way to see it then I guess. You're right, it will become a bigger problem. However, scaling via the block size will never be able to solve this problem because it is very inefficient. Here are some quick calculations that I did a while back: Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
350x365 = 127 750 GB per year (i.e. 127 TB). This can be avoided with the second layer. |
|
|
|
1. Really? No issue at all to speak of? ; 2. Agree to disagree ; 3. If you are saying that 1 & 2 are true, then why would there be a need for a "copy-paste" from Core... What exactly are you talking about? If there is no issue at hand, then there wouldn't be a "debate" at all...  There is most certainly a debate. 1. There is no issue right now. Transactions are going through and the network is functioning properly. Is this not the case? 2. Saying "agree to disagree" doesn't invalidate my claim, it just tells me that you have no arguments. A 2 MB block size proposal is not a solution, it is kick of the can down the road. 3. You do realize that the development is not solely focused on the scaleability? Their announcement states the following: In parallel, we will focus development on features that have been requested by miners and companies for a long time now, and that will help Bitcoin scale on-chain:
Faster block validation, Faster block propagation
By "focus development" do they just mean "copy more vigorously"? Look, I know this has been discussed for a while... and from what I'm gathering is that you are in support to allow this "round table" to be the only ones who have their voices heard, and to have this "round table" be the only ones to fix and build "the spaceship going to the moon" that you have quoted before, comparing them to the "well informed engineers" and us to "tax payers".
I never said that the people who signed that statement were engineers. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Stop reading /r/btc, thank me later. Apparently everyone that disagrees is a 'nobody' but Gavin, Rizun and Garzik are relevant 'gods'. Enough of the attacks already. Charlie Lee
Wang Chun - F2Pool
They are "nobodies" according to these ignorant fools. The user who created that post is "blockstreamcoin". I don't need to further comment this. The main problem is that it's not under the control of Borgstream. -s
Another employed account? Interesting.
I've seen that scenario being used a lot, and how I see it is that this isn't the case... Certain issues that need to be fixed can be fixed in a number of different ways, and depending on the situation could call for different tactics to solve it.
1. There is no issue at hand; 2. There is no "fix" from Classic; 3. There is no plan of action from Classic aside from 'copy-paste the works of Core'. What "ways" are you exactly talking about? Fact of the matter is that there are multiple ways to reach a solution for any problem... I just feel that having this "Satoshi round table" isn't the right way to go about things for this specific problem. So again... agree to disagree.
The block size debate has been discussed for years. "Satoshi round table" isn't making any decisions, they have just voiced their opinion. What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
I think this "industry", that I guess has been created, should propose a certain list of electable proposals that people can vote on. Now, how we would be able to do this is another topic, and could possibly do this by a form election system that uses a sort of "block chain" as well. This way people can see, verify, and confirm votes that are being submitted.
-snip-
This proposal, that creates more complexity in the system, needs its own thread though. People who are on here and pay attention to bitcoin in general aren't stupid... I feel that when deciding between multiple block size proposals, a democratically elected proposal is the best choice.
That is definitely not the case. It is not that hard to fool people to support something (take Classic for example) that isn't needed/is unsafe/other. If the block size debate has demonstrated anything, it's that there's a fundamental lack of understanding about how Bitcoin actually works. If you're going to the moon, would you like your spaceship built by a handful of informed engineers, or by the average tax payer?
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin wasn't created and intended for only rich people... it was created and intended to allow people to be their own banks and freedom of the Fed.
It wasn't and the rich people can't really force anything. There is no central authority. I've updated my post. This is really not a good way to explain it. There is no voting whatsoever. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty. People (who run full nodes) can't be coerced into accepting a rule violation except economically.
but the whole idea of this type of small group of people/miners making decisions about what should happen with block sizes and all pisses me off just as much as a small group of men in the Fed making crucial decision that will change the whole economy for all of us "ignorant civilians" that can't make a decision for our selves.
The industry is trying to work with the developers to find the best solutions. What exactly do you want here? Random aliases on the forums and reddit deciding? They aren't changing any fundamental rules, nor would the users agree on it. |
|
|
|
And this is exactly why I'm not so sure about Bitcoins future in general any more... I mean c'mon... really??? There has to be a better/more democratic way to decide these things, and not have the top tier of miners and devs deciding Bitcoins fate from here on out.
This is not really centralized and it works. You have two options: 1. Vote with your hashing power; 2. Vote by running nodes. You can't really blame Bitcoin if you lack the capital to compete with others. This is really not a good way to explain it. There is no voting whatsoever. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty. People (who run full nodes) can't be coerced into accepting a rule violation except economically.
What a shame that Bitcoin users can only vote with their feet. Without users, the whole system will die.
Judging from the situation that we're presented with, the majority still supports Core and a lot of the users don't really care (i.e. aren't involved in 'politics').
Updated post. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
