Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2024, 02:50:52 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 [698] 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 ... 1472 »
13941  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 24, 2018, 12:43:13 AM
to reveal another hole timestamp is digging himself and tripping into

the real bitcoin creator was not working on lights, optics and lasers in 2008
he was working on bitcoin since 2007
13942  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 24, 2018, 12:17:57 AM
LN does use the Bitcoin network. In fact, its security model completely depends on it. That's how it solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem, by settling to the blockchain in case of dishonest or unresponsive parties.

Banks are irrelevant here since LN uses smart contracts, not trusted third parties.

banks are not third parties. they are second parties mascarading as third parties.
when you wire transfer or withdraw, you hand the bank the funds and then they move it on
LN is not a push to destination.. its a co-sign agreement

1. LN is not dependant on bitcoins network
LN nodes can still run without bitcoin network. they let litecoin users in vertcoin users. and other coins too..
so if there was not one single instance of a bitcoin node chainhashing a channel.. people can still use LN via other coins.

2. smart contracts are putting funds into a contract that requires more than one signature.
its about time some people do some independant research and not just skim the surface of promotional material they read

3. in the latest concept (not the outdated 2016 promotional over promising, under commiting material).
bitcoins are to be locked into factoriees(fortknx-esq elitist) contracts. and its the factories that hand out NON blockchain confirmed 'payments' to users. and then those users use those non-confirmed payments to open and close channels with a partner. and at settlement. the non-confirmed close session is handed back to a factory where by the factory aggregates the totals and the factory can:
a. sign off on either a broadcast back to a blockchain.
or
b.sign a fresh non-confirmed 'payment' to a user to open a fresh channel, without having to broadcast back to the blockchain

..
its this stage  3.b. that will play out as the "well bitcoin is heavy and expensive fe to confirm and slow to confirm so much better to not use bitcoins blockchain (the 18th century.. ("dont claim back your gold, here have some crisp fresh uncrinkled promissory notes and stay within the LN system, while we look after the gold)

dont get me wrong.. i understand the utopia, the dream, the convenience.. but look what happened to the "gold is a medium of exchange able to buy bread and coffee" in the 18th-21st century conversion period, due to having gold vaulted up by an elitist second key holder of the vault

LN is the same business model as 18th century banks. where barons set up banks 'for convenience'

4. when the whole 'atomic swap' / factory really takes off.. imagine the nodes.. requiring to monitor not only bitcoin but litecoin blockchains..
..
funny thing is the rhetoric of bitcoin cant scale because bitcoin blockchain too bloated.. yet LN's master nodes will be monitoring both...
oh and if you want to rebut that users will just want to run cell phone apps (which will be the case).. well they can run cellphone apps ONCHAIN..
and then those that are capable of monitoring 3 chains to be masternodes.. could easily just be bitcoin nodes of a scaled up bitcoin network without LN..

its all just a pre arranged roadmap to get people into LN and then notic that users sould probably atoically swp their bitcoin for litecoin if they ever decide to exit LN

5. the whole "factories help not need to broadcast back to a blockchain" makes the blockchain redundant to channels.. as people are trusting factories instead.
the whole point of blockchains/byzantine generals solution was that funds are confirmed and audited by a community. and rejected by such..
LN does not audit by community/reject transactions by such.
LN does not have fault tolerance by community each node can be edited independently to mess around with its channel partner and no community of auditors exist to help prevent that
13943  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Countering over promises of the Lightning Network with facts and reasoning on: December 23, 2018, 10:38:34 PM
Generally speaking, any level users of the forum are easily mislead legendary are just as much as newer members sadly..

users are not always in a position to defend themselves from misinformation and their nodes are treated as 'compatible' thus they have no way of stopping certain groups roadmaps. any nodes redesigned to oppose such are thrown off the network

It appears as though there are some unscrupulous people out there who would take advantage of this.  It's therefore vital that we give all users the real knowledge to be able to differentiate between lies and genuine assistance when they are presented with information about technical subjects.  As such, this topic wil rebut the the propaganda that other networks are a better way to transact and will stand as a handy guide on how to counter any fraudulent or deceptive arguments being presented by malicious users.

Moderation note:  Any malicious users who are quoted as sources of lies are permitted to post in this topic. but will be  corrected. and at worse, yawned at and laughed at. if they dont like it they can hit the ignore button.. its free



ISSUE #1:

"The Lightning Network will encourage users to leave Bitcoin by locking it up in smart contract vaults that are co-signed by elite users called "factories" who will charge for the service of being the entry and exit of broadcast tx and they will handle the non blockchained payments inside LN (other network thats not bitcoin). all due to certain devs stagnating bitcoins network scaling and implying bitcoin cannot transact well.. yet its the stagnation and stuff the devs have done that is the hold up. not blockchains themselves.
blockchains are not self coding AI. devs code it, so any problems it has come down to devs.

the result would be that average joe will end up seeing different blockchain coins as favourable when they want to exit the non-blockchain network. due to other blockchain networks having lower fee's and allow more transaction throughput
again bitcoin is not an AI that self coded in limitations and fee increases and self stagnated. developers purposely limited bitcoins scaling opportunities these last 3 years.

here is a person claiming it wont be the case, but he himself in his own reasoning shows that it will be the case that people will atomically swap within the non-blockchain network
REASONING:
It's called an Atomic Swap.  The clue is in the name.  It stands to reason that you can't swap coins on your blockchain with coins on another blockchain unless someone with coins on that blockchain wants some coins on your blockchain.  People will want to hold bitcoins due to the comparatively higher levels of security and adoption in relation to other coins.
If you relinquish ownership of some bitcoins and take ownership of a proportionate amount of altcoins, the owner of those altcoins will then take ownership of the bitcoins you just swapped.

this is exactly what banks done with the gold market in the 18th-20th century by offering something thats not as secure as gold but "convenient".. and eventually people didnt want to play with gold no more. eventually realising silver and copper coins were easier to handle. and then the banks got to keep the gold while swapping ownership of the gold from the users to the banks and letting users then have silver and copper coins

ISSUE #2:
thinking a swap is an equal 2people enter 2 people exit(one with btc, one with altcoin). and here is a persons foolish attempt to sway the sheep to sleep by saying it will all be ok
It's not a one-way street.  A swap is only completed if someone takes ownership of the bitcoins.  As such, it's only natural that there will be as many users coming in as there are leaving.  This will not result in a reduction in the number of people using Bitcoin.  

an elitist factory(bank) takes in peoples bitcoins under their smart contract cosigned address.. its not one person with bitcoin one person with an altcoin.
its one bank with altcoins and multiple people with bitcoin.
thats what an LN factory is. a bank vault where many people lock funds up with one entity and then the factory hands out non blockchained, unaudited unconfirmed 'payments' to users so that users can play around within LN

once those people end up wanting to leave LN by needing a factories signature to do so, users will naturally want the cheapest fastest easiest way to get their value out of LN

thus naturally leaving with altcoin and the bank as one entity keep the bitcoin..
reasons.. as explained in issue #1

ISSUE #3:
many have been fooled initially that LN is a bitcoin only network layer that will make bitcoin scale and more popular. but that is a myth

LN is a separate network, it is not as secure as bitcoin, it does not solve the byzantine generals problem, it does not have a blockchain to even community audit the payments. users need other users for it to function. the other users need to sign off an payments. and many other issues.
yes i understand the promoted "convenience" POSSIBILITY. but in no way is it a bitcoin scaling tool. its a separate network to get people away from using bitcoins network. and locking people bitcoins up in co-signed contracts. and making it harder to exit LN via things like factories gatekeepers/watchtowers that are made to persuade users into keeping bitcoin locked up, by reissuing new offchain transactions as oppose to broadcasting bitcoin transactions out.
and lastly by making bitcoins network innovation of scaling be stiffled for 3 years just to keep up the persuasion that bitcoins network is not the best utility for value(facepalm)

so if anyone wants to refute this and instead continue the lie that LN is made just for bitcoin. try checking the code.
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/chainregistry.go#L579
Code:
	litecoinMainnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,
})

// chainMap is a simple index that maps a chain's genesis hash to the
// chainCode enum for that chain.
chainMap = map[chainhash.Hash]chainCode{
bitcoinTestnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
litecoinTestnetGenesis: litecoinChain,

bitcoinMainnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
litecoinMainnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
}

 and as pointed out thus far even by the guys over promoting LN who are now FINALLY admitting its purpose to get people in, and then atomic swap them for altcoins(issue 1)

ISSUE #4:
people still insist that bitcoins network has scaled in the last 3 years due to segwit.

yet. segwit byte for byte is heavier on a hard drive than legacy bitcoin transactions. bitcoins original creator calculated under lean, non bloated contracted silly feature conditions. where users just do lean transactions of one spend, one recipient, one change address.. would allow 7tx/s (604k tx a day) this was an estimate given 8 years ago.
segwit of same lean 1 in 2 out wont get 600k a day for the same 1mb hard drive space
and....
the wishwashy code allows
partial data to be miscounted(witness scale factor)
separated(segrgate witness).
and the pretense of there now being a 4mb "weight" limit.
even the devs that created segwit admit that it wont achieve a 2.4m tx a day threshold(4*1mb estimates)
they cant even guarantee a 1.2m tx day (2*of 1mb estimates)

even now. there has not been a day that has pushed passed the 600k tx estimated threshold that has existed since 2009

segwits aim was not to be a scaling solution. as the byte for byte bloat proves (though many devs try hiding it with wishy washy scale witness and vbytes code)
segwits utility is to be the gateway tx format to persuade users over to other networks, such as LN.
while also adding in a trojan back door to allow devs to now change the network without using bitcoin consensus.
(their buzzwords 'inflight upgrades'/compatible softforks)
which if certain things are added that have malicious intent. users wont have consensus to prevent it as that has been by passed with the "compatibility" backdoor and threats of being taken off the network if they attempt to oppose segwit or deactivate it.

This post will be updated with more issues that will and are negatively affecting bitcoin.

just remember they dont want bitcoin to scale. they want people to lock up thir bitcoin, play with other networks and not return so that elitists can stockpile the bitcoin. because they want bitcoin as a "reserve currency" not a open peer to peer cash network
13944  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 23, 2018, 12:14:06 PM
How does it dilute Bitcoin's utility? It can make micro-transactions long term viable, which adds a great deal of utility. Use Bitcoin for slower and more expensive but highly secure transactions. Use Lightning for cheap, instant and private transactions that still leverage Bitcoin's security for Byzantine fault tolerance.

What's not to like?
1. not using the bitcoin network.
2. thats what banks said about gold
3. LN payments dont solve the byzantine generals issue.

Maybe you should try taking your own advice if you want Lightning to "fizzle out".  At the moment, you seem to be doing a great job of promoting Lightning, even going so far as to claim that Lightning will be so effective that users won't want to use Bitcoin anymore.  Roll Eyes

wrong.
LN will make people fall into the same FIAT trap as gold merchants in the 18th -20th century

but nice try pretending i think it will be fantastic/effective
people will end up locked into factory contracts that just circle funds within LN channels = bad
people will end up unlocking from factory contracts using altcoins because bitcoin devs are not scaling bitcoin network utility = bad

bitcoin can grow. but devs are not allowing it because its not in their roadmap=bad

gotta laugh how you and your chums love to twist things that im promoting and im saying LN is fantastic and effective

now go do some independent research, because you sound more and more like the same scripts your chums try to churn out.
or maybe atleast try having an independent thought and not play the same social games.. its not original
13945  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A Bitcoin Millionaire arrested on: December 23, 2018, 11:58:55 AM
Anyone read this? I just read this in an advertisement that popped out of nowhere.

https://www.ccn.com/hong-kong-bitcoin-millionaire-arrested-after-throwing-cash-off-apartment-building/?utm_source=CCN&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=dd

Maybe he is a member of this forum too and I am a bit curious what really happened there that pushed him to do that, they say that it is an advertisement, well, in his own way of advertising.

"maximum penalty for his offense is a 12-month prison term and a fine of HK$5,000. "
"the police reported that they were only able to recover HK$5,000 (the equivalent of $639) from the streets."

"and they have also urged members of the public who were beneficiaries of his lawlessness to return the bills to where they got them."

in short police have to return 5000 back to the arrested man..... (so he can pay his fine)
lol..

5000 needed to pay.. only 5000 returned to him.. not a coincidence

"Innocent bystanders at the location attested to the total amount of money that was thrown away could be millions,"
HK5000 is less than 700US
i wonder what the police done with the other amounts that they grabbed but didnt declare, thus not have to give back to the arrestee
13946  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin gave us something more than the protocol on: December 23, 2018, 11:18:53 AM
but you again seem to want to pretend the non consensus mandated august 1st 2017 bypass (dev state buzzword bilateral split) ever occured.
kind of funny because "dev state" were and still are proud that it occured
Hold on. You were the person agreeing with Roger Ver, and debating that "Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split". How is it that now you are saying that it is a "dev-state" buzzword. Hahaha.
1. greg maxwell termed it before august 2017.. he actually was openly saying in that conversation in ~october 2016 how he tried to convince opposers to f**k off and the opposers declined his offer.
2. saying it happened is different than advocating the desire of bilateral forks/split/contentious dilution of the community/mandated threats
3. i didnt agree with ver. i independently mentioned that a moment in history occured.
4. you have on many times subtly worded things to suggest i advocate and i want Y. when im actually mentioning the opposite of advocating/insisting on it happening. you seem to do this so that you can then foolishly have the mindset that i am pushing for things which i am not pushing for, just so you can ignore the real context of the message/topic i am discussing

the fact that you admit in another post that core didnt get segwit in using the 2009-2013 consensus (the november 2016-spring 2017) shows it wasnt high majority. it only had 35% vote.
The community wanted Segwit, your "35% vote" were not really "votes", but miners signalling their readiness to the soft fork, which they politically used to make drama.
the community includes miners. but got threatened to accept segwit or find themselves off the network
if they continued to oppose on august 1st they would have had their blocks rejected.
that is NOT community wanting segwit. thats the community forced into segwit.

learn what actually happened on august first to fake a majority. stop denying nothing happened
blockchains dont lie. the block data proves what actually happened, no matter what social yammer you may script out. the blockchain immutable data can refute you
13947  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Bitcoin SV caused mid november bitcoin collapse? on: December 23, 2018, 10:57:20 AM
so the more you mention it the worse it gets toward what you actually want. which is for it to fizzle out.
so stop talking about it.

He said without a hint of irony.   Roll Eyes

As if you're in any position to offer that advice.   Cheesy

Best franky1 post ever.   Cheesy

the topic creator was talking about how a website is indexing crapcoins based on how popular the coins name is mentioned

my opinions are not being indexed and monitised into a basket of crapcoins
thus no irony regarding me mentioning a certain thing, as me mentioning it has no impact . its just discussion. its just chat.
if you dont like discussion then hit the ignore button. or dont look out for certain topics that are against your beliefs

oh and if you actually stopped poking the bear. then you wont get bit by the same bear
learn that simple analogy.
if you dont like bears biting in a certain way. dont poke them,

again if you dont poke you wont have to hear the same answers.
its that simple

but have a good day.
13948  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 23, 2018, 09:50:18 AM
its not helping scale bitcoin though. its helping divert people away from the bitcoin network
its diluting away the utility of the bitcoin network

How does it dilute Bitcoin's utility? It can make micro-transactions long term viable, which adds a great deal of utility. Use Bitcoin for slower and more expensive but highly secure transactions. Use Lightning for cheap, instant and private transactions that still leverage Bitcoin's security for Byzantine fault tolerance.

What's not to like?
1. not using the bitcoin network.
2. thats what banks said about gold
3. LN payments dont solve the byzantine generals issue.
it might be worth you updating yourself with the issues of LN.
even the LN devs admit it has issues.
watch this.
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
and also for further research look at the eltoo concept of factories(fortknox issuing unconfirmed off-chain (promissory notes) into peoples accounts(channels))

if anyone wants to promote LN. try to be atleast more open to honesty without all the utopian optimism of over promising
EG
LN is a separate network service for multiple coins to be locked and pegged into contracts to allow faster payments for people that want to do regular small purchases more often then a couple times a fortnight

4. i understand the optimism and the utopian dream. but diverting gold from being used hand to hand and instead insisting the future is banks and promissory notes
i understand the optimism and the utopian dream. but diverting bitcoin from being used peer to peer and instead insisting the future is smart contract locks with factories and offchain transactions of 12 decimals

but it is not helping make bitcoin stand out as the better network than say litecoin or other coins that do have more transaction throughput capacity per day
13949  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 23, 2018, 08:50:59 AM
it's very true that LN is not a bitcoin network. it's interoperable with the bitcoin network, and that's what is important. this means it can be used to help scale bitcoin.
its not helping scale bitcoin though. its helping divert people away from the bitcoin network
its diluting away the utility of the bitcoin network

Plus I believe no one is saying that IT IS "a Bitcoin network", like franky1 insists. Although we do need Bitcoins to open channels, and use the Lightning Network.
first of all. you are quoted here saying something that SUBTLY IMPLIES that i insist it is a bitcoin network(should your chums take your words out of context). .. which is not the first time i seen you trying to make out that i am the one advocating stuff.. when infact i am doing the opposite.
secondly many people do say its part of bitcoin with the "layer" buzzword. i am simply informing people to clarify to them that LN is SEPARATE.
EG coinbase is not a bitcoin layer. its a separate service/company that accepts multiple coins

since the blockchain scales linearly, it can only be improved so much by optimizing things like transaction size. schnorr is one such method. but it provides very limited scale compared to things like LN.
blockchains dont scale linearly. bitcoins blockchain hard drive usage if all blocks were full would appear linear, because scaling is not happening. scaling would allow data/utility expansion to move away from a straight line. should real scaling occur onchain
oh and also. dont then say exponential like the old myth of "gigabytes by midnight".. scaling is not a zero or full only 2 options scenario
..
and also schnorr is not about helping scaling. infact its to try to avoid new bloated transaction features from reducing tx counts per block. thus not scaling up, but just trying to avoid reducing utility, while they add more bloated complex tx formats

Storage was never a big problem for on-chain scaling, bandwidth is.
the old myth of 'online games wont work. streaming live video wont work, because bandwidth'
maybe you should tell skype, applefactime, livestream, youtube, twitch, facebook messenger, and all other such services that deal with large amount of data. that they should not use their services as bandwidth is a problem(its not).
bitcoin uses far less bandwidth than online games and streaming media

pre millenion kodak had the ignorant mindset that digital media for photo storage cant scale..

home users that have bad internet suppliers dont need to be nods with 100 connections. they could set there node to only have a few connections, they would have a better experience that way.
EG its like someone taking a shower. the bandwidth myth is that people thing a shower has to be full pressure water supply or turn off the water supply.. because it will cost them alot on their water bill. they never thing to adjust the taps to just use less water while taking a shower
telling people that the future involves avoiding a shower and using water from a sink to flanel wash their privates is the future is not the right thing to be informing people

again because i know how this scripted propaganda is played out. its not a linear or exponential (server farm full on or nothing scenario). only two option debate.
there are multiple ways to scale bitcoin onchain without having to divert utility away from the network
as the misleading concept that scaling is full on or nothing is the same rhetoric that bankers done with gold in the 18th century 'its too heavy, lock up your gold with a trusted partner/service and use these promissory notes instead"

oh and dont rebuttal that blockchains couldnt scale due to the legacy linear sigops validation problem.(which still exists and remains unsolved even now)
solution was easy. dont let a block allow itself to be deemed full by having just 5 tx of sigop bloat.
reduce the maxtxsigops from being just a 5th of maxblocksigops
eg instead of maxblocksigops=80,000 maxtxsigops=maxblocksigops/5(16,000)
eg instead of maxblocksigops=80,000 maxtxsigops=maxblocksigops/1000(80)
then you will find people can still pay many others in one go without some malicious transactor filling a block with just 5 tx that take ages to verify under legacy conditions
and to pre-empt your rebuttal that segwit helps with this using witness scale factor to miss-count actual sigops of legacy by making legacy tx of say 4000 sigops appear as being 16,000 max ex sigops.
as i said it doesnt solve the issue of 5tx filling the block. infact the wishy wash code of misleading actual count by using witness scale factor makes it far easier to fill a block using just 4000 sigops
again solution to allow more transactions throughput per block can be solved by making maxtxsigops/1000 so that there is never a case where a block is deemed full with under 1000 tx included due to a "sigops attack"
13950  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 23, 2018, 12:29:31 AM
500 bitcoins is rather negligible considering the total market cap.
Yes, BTC is for HODL-ers mostly and these are all the early enthusiasts who want to be part of history - like the pizza guy from 2010.
I'm not a huge believer in the long term success of LN, but I sure hope it does succeed regardless. Simplification of installation and configuration should be significantly prioritized at this point, otherwise it's not going to get better than that.

LN is not a bitcoin network

what should be prioritised is scaling bitcoin. not locking bitcoins up and persuading people using alternative networks that are not decentralised blockchain audited/secured/utilised..
i guess people forget why blockchains are so unique and forget what satoshi solved when bitcoin a thing
13951  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Bitcoin SV caused mid november bitcoin collapse? on: December 23, 2018, 12:25:00 AM
It's possible that the split added fuel to the fire of our downtrend. [altcoins] supporters were holding a lot of Bitcoins before the split and if they wanted to pump their own coins they could sell some of that and buy the coins that they were supporting. Craig Wright at least was vocal about it and he probably sold some to pay for [altcoins] mining.

[altcoins] =removed reference to certain coin names to not let the topics point of a certain index finding references of certain coins being speculated more than usual in topics

anyways
there was no volume of arbitrages of markets. or correlation to show any trend that the bitcoin price downfall was due to the altcoins.

there is a correlation that the mining hashrate decline in october due to selling off old S9's before new S15's took over on some pools

there is correlation that the mining hashrate decline in october played out a mining:market dynamic of decline in november.
there is correlation that the a buy up of coins in novmber and a sell off of coins in november 2018 had an impact
13952  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 23, 2018, 12:10:01 AM
franky1 said:

Quote
and before you begin pretending that suddenly you actually made that address to be specific to you..
vanity is not easy to make an address that has VW in it at that location of the address..
vanity was not even a thing back then


You indeed have an incisive mind.  James designed and launched the entire Bitcoin Core, but of course, as mathematical odds would have it, his first revealed address had "HOME ftp" (caps different) in Satoshi's address.  Clearly, you don't figure Satoshi is as bright as you, as he couldn't conjure up a partial vanity to amuse himself with his numbers-spinning binary "this not that, that not this" marvel ware.

again he did not create the address that you pretend contains funds you pretend to own
secondly the person that created vanity was not satoshi
thirdly the computational power needed to get an address with certain descriptors as laid out in the address you define as yours.. well ill make it simple for you

1F.......................... = seconds
1Franky................... = hours
1.................franky... = years
1..fra............ky........ = months

fourthy.. it would have had to have been you that made the address if you indeed were the recipient of the funds
for you to have not been using bitcoin for months to have generated such a personal address(which you claim it is). to have said to satoshi heres an address to send 10 btc to. shows both lack of basic knowledge. lack of bitcoin history. lack of timescale proof. and also. just obsurd notions that faming up someones life before bitcoin is proof of involvement in bitcoin. is just overwhelmingly short sighted agenda to garner fame.
13953  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 22, 2018, 09:58:56 PM
I can only conclude James bet I'd never read the blockchain, or if I did, I wouldn't recall my quite definitive and memorable address.  His final reasoning may have been-- being his fellow thought criminal with so much water under the bridge, I still wouldn't say anything, but mightcall him...so he could deny.

you trying to pretend you own funds of a address because it has significant meaning. is not proof.
you subtly implying that the address was created as a vanity, to have meaning to you and thus it must be yours because you have special personal social reasons that link you to that address..

but guess what.
that address is actually RANDOM. firstly satoshi didnt not send it to an address of significant meaning to you.

what occurs in bitcoin is the address is randomly created by a reciever and the receiver then tells the sender the address to send funds to.
not the other way round
as shown below.. you believed satoshi created the address specifically for you.
my distinctive wallet address "1DUD...VW" (the people's, "volks" car of Hitler!)  James, did you do that as more fun gamery?  VW, really?  What are the odds?

and before you begin pretending that suddenly you actually made that address to be specific to you..
vanity is not easy to make an address that has VW in it at that location of the address..
vanity was not even a thing back then
13954  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 22, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
outsiders (not the utopian dreamers) but realists see LN as a room that needs a room just to use a room.

EG everyone knows a house has utility and has value. but to outsiders.
many know bitcoin has/had utility and everyone (SHOULD) know bitcoin has value(im not talking abut price)

but outsiders say having to KYC to turn their fiat into crypto.. first wall of entry.
then using crypto = fee's and confirm delays.. next wall..
then being told crypto is not good for transacting so need to lock up the coin.. another wall..
then being told to split funds into separate channels. more walls.
all just to be able to spend crypto for coffee.. more walls

alot of people are saying easier to just buy a starbucks giftcard and job done

thats like thinking your not just selling one house(fiat) for another house(crypto) which was the old concept of bitcoin being the free open borderless second option to fiat

but instead selling a house to then buy something thats more like a house-share(timeshare) that you have to share with other strangers and hope you dont inconvenience them by waking them up when you want coffee

there have been many other people express concerns that stalling bitcoin innovation of bitcoin network utility.. just to persuade people over to alternative networks is not the direction the "project" should go.

but hey, most bitcoin utopianists dont want to hear the realistic view of how the general public view it. and so will keep their ears and eyes closed and keep dreaming that if extra people just buy bitcoin thats all that counts.
13955  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 22, 2018, 07:57:30 PM
^
Thanks for the analysis, your argument is very complete, I can not debate it because my knowledge in Bitcoin technology is very recent, but these innovations can serve to make Bitcoin adoption faster to the base of the population, which does not know how to save, buy, sell ​​or pay with Bitcoin.

if you can understand the history of how banks came about in the 18th-19th century by locking gold up(call it bitcoin 8 decimal point value transactions locked outputs) and then hand people unaudited promissory(bank) notes(call it 12 decimal unconfirmed non blockchain transactions of value pegged to multiple coins(dependant on which coin you locked/atomically linked to)) then you will be on your way to understand what LN is doing with its latest concepts and direction.

as we all know what happened to the gold:bank imbalance after people stopped wanting to withdraw gold(bitcoin) but take silver(litecoin) coins out instead.

just remember LN wont by paying with real confirmed guaranteed funds. the developers have made it clear use at own risk. there is no way to guarantee fund confirmation.

LN is also not user adoption ready. and wont be for years, by which it will only fit a small niche of those wanting to spend under $100 for purchases of far less daily.

LN is to make people move away from the bitcoin network.
by definition that is not scaling bitcoin network in any way. its diluting/offsetting/removing utility

alot of people are already questioning the whole have fiat. then get a crypto, then lock a crypto to then split up unconfirmed crypto into multiple accounts to hope for productive regular use.... when its far easier to just use fiat to buy a few giftcards. job done.
(i have seen many other questions asked by average joe questioning is crypto better than fiat)

yes i understand th utopia. yes i understand as a bitcoiner myself all the other benefits of it. but for the outsider looking in. see LN as another barrier wall against adoption. "another room inside a room that needs to be walked through" (one reply was) "just to spend crypto as fast as say applepay or bank notes"
13956  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 22, 2018, 07:44:12 PM
double timstamp and james are either the same person..
or
james and double time stamp are so close buddies they are working together to both fake fame each other up

james is trying to fame up time stamp and timestamp is trying to fame up james. it just feels odd..
usually you would see if someone was outting another person there would be some rivalry not this co-faming thing

this is like the fake lawsuit between craig wright and craig wrights friends brother who are both causing drama to try falsely to persuade people that one of them have ownership control of coins and coded bitcoin but both neither actually bother to sign anything.

they both also tried to persuade the world one of them is or knows who satoshi is by talking about social lives before 2009 and how much education and work experience and standing in the community they had before 2009 as the 'proof' that its a possibility.
13957  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Bitcoin SV caused mid november bitcoin collapse? on: December 22, 2018, 01:39:56 AM
look i hope cryptoindexmafia reads this here:

probably better you hope they dont.
you do realise in all my wall of text in first reply i never named the altcoin.
yet you have made a topic naming them and in each most named it again. and again

the website crpto index picks up on discussions about certain things and if a coin is named multiple times it gets flagged as being potentially popular.

so the more you mention it the worse it gets toward what you actually want. which is for it to fizzle out.
so stop talking about it.

Just in that months, we see how 200,000 btc moves. Theories say

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/1ee11c8a24c9244f14c4d5a9c3670c13664f4ae8f7738c31b4f21221a5bdfbd1

109,232.32987556 BTC

So, as i say, was multiple factors together.  or as I say, it rains over wet floor.
multiple factors:
mining decisions of october to start swapping out asics and start testing new rigs, and not wanting to raise the hashrate.
other pools reacting to it.
and then the private investors unlocking funds from 2017. (unrelated to tx in quote)

the movement of those coins in the quote is nothing new. and nothing to do with the year long unlock of funds from november 2017,,,
the coins movement pattern of the coins in the qoute happen many months of the year. but when some who only has a few $$ to their name sees hundred of millions move. the shock, sends them into a spiral of needing to talk about it.

its like right now apple moves huge sums. but if some person managed to record one of apples regular payments. and then asks about it on reddit.. suddenly a storm of speculation chatter begins about apple doing something big or apple must be moving country or other twaddle. when infact thats just apples staff grocery bill for the week

those funds were nothing special. its just one newbie got over excited seeing a large transaction for THEIR first time and thought it must be something news worthy. those funds were just an exchange re-organising their reserves like they do regularly.. thus its about as news worthy as a janitor coming into an office to sweep the office floor
13958  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Bitcoin SV caused mid november bitcoin collapse? on: December 22, 2018, 01:04:21 AM
what was the role of the cryptoindex mafia listening bitcoin sv directly into the top of the index?

for the same reason as you and many others.
even though there are 2000 coins..

because you gave a crap. because others gave a crap.. it brought attention to the crap.
if no one tweeted about or talked about the crap. then people would see it as crap where they would
not care about the crap and it would have not gotten any attention

i dont mean you give a crap as in you care about it.
i mean even now a month later your stil talking about something and asking questions about it.

is the market still unaware about that scam they are running?

even scams remain alive as long as people advertise it and it then shows pump and dump profitability.
thus self perpetually reviving itself the more its talked about.
best option is dont talk about it dont get curious about it, and let it fizzle out
13959  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Bitcoin SV caused mid november bitcoin collapse? on: December 21, 2018, 11:52:44 PM
no..

new gen asics were designed over summer. they started getting tested over autumn. they had to get rid of obsolete old hardware for 2 reasons

1. they didnt want to push the hashrate up to shotself in foot with large hashrate/difficulty too fast
2. its better to get rid of old hardware while it still had a few months value left in the hardware

so they sold the hardware to the social dramatists of the altcoins known as craig wright.

asic manufacturers and private investors knew 'mathematically' (on paper) they should try to declare a loss(tax deductibles are good) for this year to then start a fresh tax year in profit. so more reason to not push things. and instead for every 3 asics taken offline put just one next gen online for cough quality assurance cough purposes.

this meant it would avoid drama from the crowds shouting omg poolX has too much hashpower on bitcoin

this resulted in them lowering the hashrate but still able to make blocks in a reasonable time and make profit. so able to sell profitable and also using the coins they gain from selling the hardware both old tech and new. they had excess coins to sell
now they can mass produce rigs ready to ship (christmas week)

so hashrates drop and profitable to sell coins for one group. .. while other pools were not profitable so they took their rigs offline. thus bringing the curve down further.

also private investors that locked coins up from mid november 2017 got them unlocked mid november 2018 (that also amplified the shift down)
and thats what happened on the bitcoin network
.........

meanwhile totally and separately.
those altcoiners were gaining asics(old gen) dirt cheap but unsure what to do with it all.. so playing off the october bitcoin drama they decided to try making out they had sway and fame and prominence by starting some drama/distraction to hide whats really going on behind bitcoin and distract people with some nonsense altcoin drama as if the altcoin drama is of importance..
th altcoin drama was of no importance and no impact. it was just a distract for 2 people to just get some minutes of discussion fame and fake glory
13960  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 21, 2018, 06:26:22 PM
what you'll find is that in the network. the whole consensus of solving byzantine generals problem has been bypassed. with near everyone just following one general now(core) and any dev team that wants to propose a new rule/feature that opposes the core roadmap ends up getting knocked off the network.. there is less need of a decentralised network(their view). as the "generals"(plural) has been sidelined and relegated off network. and now its one general and tens of thousands of loyal soldiers blindly following.

its gone from a byzantine generals solution for a decentralised generals network. to a singular general for a distributed soldier network

people end up not wanting to archive 10 years of data. just to wade through all that data just to ensure their $100 is confirmed.
holding the data if they are just interested in a few addresses becomes a waste of hard drive utility so they end up prunning it, thus they no longer become able to be a node that others can sync from

.. also you being a DNS seed is not being a full node. its just being a yellow pages directory to guide users to each other, essentually. which if you without bias dont set it to just list core nodes(as all DNS should do), would help if a revolution occured to bring core down a peg or two back down to an equal playing field with other nodes that want to get back to a united community of byzantine generals,
so it has purpose for some independent people to be DNS seed nodes to ensure the network doesnt become full 100% core only centralised.
.....
but back to the users being full nodes...
the situation will get worse when things are really pushed to pursuade users off the bitcoin network and into using another network like lightning.

because lightning network is not a bitcoin layer. it is its own network that allows multiple coins.
(bitcoin layer is just the sponsorship advertising buzzword many people use to try faming up that their project is part of the crypto industry, to garner investment)

users using the lightning network will find in a couple years that funds from litecoin, vertcoin or bitcoin are locked to be unspendable on their respective networks in a smart contract with a "factory/watchtower" entity. and this entity would need to monitor those multiple chains as a masternode.(super bloated mega node) to then when convinced the locks are locked. offer out a un-chained(unconfirmed) 'payment' to users that allows users to open channels. so that users can use phone apps to make payments instead of lugging around laptops/desktops when they visit starbucks

these factories become the gatekeepers (i would say banks but people hate when i say it, even if factually correct). this is so that users dont need to wait for their locked funds timeout to close a channel and broadcast a tx to the respective coin networks. they can just close channel and let the factory audit and then refresh them with a new un-chained(unconfirmed) 'payment' to reopen a new channel at any time.

this allows users to open/close channels more frequently if their co-partner in-channel is offline
yea i know your thinking the optimism of how great and user friendly it is. but. if you think about the whole network security of phone app users needing to trust a factory/masternode(bank) who has the real privatkey co-sign control of the real funds
and that the factory has to be a masternode monitoring the networks and also many users channels...
its not healthy. or secure, especially when the channels themselves are not byzantine general solved either

the only reasons the bitcoin network is told to people that blockchains dont work and impractical and slow. is due to the limitations of a blockchain imposed by the developers.(bitcoin is not AI self coding.. devs code it. devs put in the limitations, devs can remove them too)

anyway, take the initial block download argument. people dont really object to the blockchain data size. as a 256gb data is less than a fingernail(microsd) size, not a server size
its the fact that its coded that users cant even check a unverified balance to be able to do anything until the chain is synced.
if only they realised they could bloomfilter(request specific data of specific addresses) from peers first. just to get a unverified balance instantly. and then make the verifying/syncing more of a background secondary task that goes on less noticably so that people are not twiddling their thumbs waiting to see if they even have a balance/imported the correct wallet/keys

many people are too optimistic about lightning(future multicurrency banking system) but dont realise that to "be your own bank" on LN requires being a masternode of multiple chains. which is much more than just full noding one chain
(if you still think LN is bitcoin only feature.. research chainhash registry code in LN aswell as atomic swaps)


many people are too optimistic about lightning(future multicurrency banking system) but dont realise that its not a 'scaling bitcoin' its a take people away from bitcoin and use 12decimal payment values PEGGED to bitcoin via a masternode

many people are too optimistic about lightning(future multicurrency banking system) but dont realise that its not scaling bitcoin because its taking people off the bitcoin network where people wont want to be bitcoin full nodes as they are never going to be using bitcoin network daily

but anyways.. we are already seeing the dilution of the community bing diverted away from bitcoin. we are starting to see where the term "bitcoin maximalists" are being used as a derogatory term even to make it fel like if you support bitcoin as a payment network and want bitcoin to be secure and to scale then your 'dirt'
Pages: « 1 ... 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 [698] 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 ... 1472 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!