|
After seeing the bullying tactics and rubbish posts by the XT shills here I think @theymos is doing the right thing.
Fuck them and their attempt to take over Bitcoin!
|
|
|
|
The block size limit is basically a growth limit right now. I don't know if it directly affect the price but it sure doesn't help specative investments.
Why do you make such stupid statements (oh - yes - you are an XT shill - nearly forgot)? As has been pointed out all of the speculative trading happens "off-chain" so please ignore this shill's stupid post (these shills have no shame and will try and state any reason to promote XT). |
|
|
|
'If it turns out that you transferred BTC to our old wallet (in the old system), there's still a slight possibility that we may have access to it. However, there is no certainty. Your case has been handed over to our technical department for tracing.'
So - as I had guessed they do have a backup of the "old wallet" so I think it should be entirely possible that they can refund you (assuming they are willing to make the effort). Understand that it might actually take a bit of effort to do this so you might want to perhaps not ask for a 100% refund so that they are rewarded for their effort (it wasn't their fault you sent the BTC to an old address after all). |
|
|
|
Anyway, if they were to keep every deposit address, wouldn't the backup be very big and large amount of power is required to check them?
You do realise that a private key is only 32 bytes in size? (so keeping millions of them backed up wouldn't be any issue at all) |
|
|
|
Actually, I'm fairly certain that many sites will delete the private keys after a few days. They usually have a warning that says that deposits after a certain time of the first deposit will not be credited. This is usually because they delete or at least stop checking the address because it saves space and processing power.
They would still keep a backup (even if not officially I'm sure their IT staff would keep a backup so they can steal coins inadvertently sent to old addresses such as the OP did). |
|
|
|
What is the reason of them allowing these direct deposits if they were blocked all this time? And who has allowed them? Chinese government?
Also you mentioned, how long til they blocked them again! Why would they even be unblocking them if they are going to block deposits again in the near future?
I honestly don't get this move!
Honestly it is impossible to know what the government in China is thinking (they generally don't broadcast things like western governments do). So I've no idea why they decided to suddenly allow bank account deposits to exchanges but it would not surprise me if they change their mind later (as there has been no official announcement about this change). |
|
|
|
That a fork without consensus will happen if Core doesn't come up with something? Maybe but I fail to see why I would bet on this as it won't change anything about the outcome.
As I suspected - you aren't willing to make a bet as you know you won't win. There is no imperative for larger blocks sizes to appear by December - whether they do or not is not really of any concern to me but those that are trying to push this "has to be done next month all we all will die" story need to be told - shut up! Bitcoin is working fine and will continue to do so without the need of control freaks. |
|
|
|
Only efficient market players will become richer. The ones that can only steal and spend will loose their wealth and influence.
This statement I agree with. |
|
|
|
Achieving consensus is hard but this is exactly because your mindset that makes it impossible and why a fork without consensus will happen.
Would you care to take a bet? I'll wager 100 BTC that no successful fork will happen - can you match your opinion with your wallet? |
|
|
|
Unless Core come up with something that satisfy both camp before December, things will change for bitcoin.
Again - this is just bullshit that the proponents of XT have been using. There is no rush to do anything by December at all - so go and fork and see how you lose please. You guys are full of threats but have *no ability to actually do anything at all*. You have been *called out*. I'll be interested to see the bullshit you post next year when your fork hasn't happened (let me guess - you'll be saying "by April" then "by July", etc.). |
|
|
|
Why you consider a fork as a threat is beyond me. Forking is the whole point of open source systems and if a fork happens, Core devs will be the sole responsible as they tried to hijack it.
You seem to be rather naive - if you fork Bitcoin then you are going to fuck up everyone's BTC. This is not the point of Bitcoin at all - and if we had a bunch of forks then actually BTC would be worth nothing. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a "fork" and a "separate blockchain" (I really wish you'd learn about these things before spouting off about them). |
|
|
|
Little do you know Satoshi Nakamoto is a psychopath  Well for a psychopath he seems to strangely not crave power or recognition (unless he plans to come back and control the world with his 1M+ BTC in a few years - and if he does just that then you will be correct). |
|
|
|
Thoughts on the likelihood of this being the explanation? Everything I've seen so far has been speculation about the halving.
I'd agree 100% it was the opening of being able to send RMB to BTCC that led to the current rise (it had been blocked since Chinese New Year in 2013 after that last huge rise). The more interesting question is just how long until they block it again. |
|
|
|
BIP 101 is good only if 75% network adopts, as far as I now, that's a majority...
And where is it at now percentage-wise? If it was just about that then we wouldn't need CEO's to be making threats would we (am guessing you didn't read the article that was linked in the OP)? |
|
|
|
So it would be better if they have forked without noticed? Are you being serious?
Seriously - we are sick of the threat of forks - please "fork" and just see how you lose already! (like typical bullies you think that these threats are going to intimidate us - but now you are learning that your threats are hollow) |
|
|
|
Are you still considering free choice to fork as bullying?
When you have less than 10% of support and rely upon CEO's to make ultimatums then *yes* I would call the bullying. |
|
|
|
Satoshi also said the blockchain size won't matter as it would be run on decentralized servers.
Your point being? |
|
|
|
Because of some of the whales or groups of whales with clashing interests can use their forked/original coins to send exchange rates to the rock bottom on the forked chain while keeping the other chain on a higher value.
A load of rubbish - let's see them actually "try it" rather than just threatening it. All I see is a bunch of psychopaths wanting to bully others - but they are going to lose (and we are going to laugh at them). (they are so gutless that they don't even dare post themselves but hire shills to post for them) |
|
|
|
Perhaps someone should ask MP, TAT and few other whales to cast a vote on this argument...  . Unless they have their own mining farms then why on earth would that even matter? Some people just don't seem to *get* Bitcoin at all - they think that the rich can rule it like everything else before - sorry but you can't! |
|
|
|
I'd disagree. Bitcoin has value due to bitcoin holders. If miners mine something bitcoin holders don't like, they will dump the coin and put them out of business. You seem to be rather seriously deluded. If you have a bunch of BTC then you'd rather have smaller blocks to help keep the value of your BTC high (like gold). Allowing a huge number of txs will do nothing to enhance the value at all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
