It's not worth discussing. I get a lot of similar and different spam in my junk folder every day. This reminds me of the time that I got to keep part of the money that I transferred for a Nigerian prince.  Take my advice, just ignore it and lock this thread. |
|
|
|
In order to participate make a deposit to 1C9XRe3TpcmkpYKevhGmxsJis8TbkvB3Yy
(General depository account)
This is a obvious scam. They're requesting you to deposit money and promising you a 150% payout. Just block the sender and you're good to go. |
|
|
|
Nobody can undo a transaction. Wrong. I can. Bitcoin transactions are irreversible. What you are saying is different than reversing it but I can't understand it. Can you elaborate? You can't undo a transaction that has been fully confirmed (possible but very hard, and it gets harder with each confirmation). Unconfirmed transactions are not in the blockchain. You can however (shall the need arise), delete the old (still unconfirmed) transaction from your wallet and re-send it with a higher fee. This is what you a double spend. Your second transaction will confirm much faster and the previous one will be invalidated. OP if you really feel like you need to do this instead of waiting then look at this link.
If they were unconfirmed, then they were never in the blockchain in the first place. Therefore, they can't "disappear forever from the blockchain".
Bolded, because most will chose to ignore it and reply to the thread. Interestingly only a small amount of users are aware of double spending a unconfirmed transaction. |
|
|
|
he means that's its meaningless because bitcoin1.0 does not allow your voice to be heard just by polling like bitcoin2.0 does:
-snip-
if you can hang on for only 1 month longer, then you will be able to actually vote on your hard forks, and the devs will be bound to do as the poll results state!
Stop promoting this nonsense. There is no Bitcoin 2.0. That is a marketing scam. A voting mechanism that incorporates all users will never happen as users are easily manipulated. Are you going to let random people decide the faith of a multi-billion dollar industry? I think not. You incorporate experts into the equation.
Adam, how about you stop the propaganda (obvious as there is 100% for the first choice for now)? This does not help anyone. This poll will not make a difference at all. Besides the options 1 and 2 aren't properly written. Option 2 still gives room for support of bigger blocks, just not now. Option 1 has no defined time. Instead of actually proposing something better, you guys focus on fighting the Core vs XT, no increase vs increase and similar. We should be discussing BIP106 and a potential mixture with BIP100 (or some other solution that is better; no BIP101 is not).
Update: Our developers and community is starting to look like a bunch of incompetent fools. -snip- The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become. I concur. |
|
|
|
I have missed a lot of things in this ~2 week leave. I wish I hadn't took a leave in this period. You became mod, QS' shady actions brought to light etc... Anyway, congrats! Keep up your good work! I think you will become a patroller soon!  Thank you. You seem like a nice person even though we did not have much interaction. Maybe one day (thank you).  Congratulations LaudaM!
Thank you Welsh!
Patrollers deal with all newbies. However, they are powerless when it comes to any member with a higher rank. A patroller technically isn't lower than a moderator, they're different. A moderator is a lower rank than a global moderator (as they are comparable). I would see Moderator and Patroller as different roles.
Correct.
Update: grats lauda You are awesome. Thank you as well. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't call it just interesting. Rather remarkable, as it shows exactly what people have been talking about. Most XT/BIP101 supporters aren't willing to admit or just don't understand this. Bitcoin in its essence does not scale efficiently. This is why technologies like the Lightning Network would be helpful. Even though such block is not a regular one, imagine a validation time of 2h 8min. As seen clearly while Garzik was presenting, we're heading towards 1 MB blocks. However, as of today, blocks are not full. He did nicely present potential problems that we might encounter at the 1 MB wall. The whole economic policy is going to drastically change. "and we all go work on Etherium."  |
|
|
|
LaudaM against LaudaM:
"Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here."
"Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper, nor am I that interested in it (in general)."
Makes not much sense to discuss with people like that.
Anything else you would like to add to this personal attack? I didn't review his paper, others did. I never said that I would not discuss it based on the opinions/reviews of others. With (in general) I mean papers related to the fee market. I do not have time to read that. If you are not going to contribute properly, do not contribute at all. Anyone who does this next will be permanently ignored as well. I shall not waste my time with such people. Instead of "Peter Todd is wrong because of XXX" you go for "let's attack Lauda because of XYZ". This bring us back to: The level of hostile emotional appeal and logical fallacy in this thread is astounding.
Update: The said user was put on ignore because of zero value posts, attacks and trolling. |
|
|
|
Nopes for me Earning Spending and Storing bitcoin isn't complicated nor either using it...The think which bring headache to me is mining...i hate it..i tried several times but didn't even mined a single satoshi and don't know how other people just mine with thier normal pc  Nobody isd mining with their PC anymore. This is just wrong. Mining is easy as well. Yes, great.
The fact is that how many users out there are tech savvy enough?
I think very few.
The other day I tried to explain in simple words what BTC is to a merchant and it felt like a desperate challenge.
They really cannot get as it is: they want to understand it compared to bank accounts etc. otherwise the won't understand.
That's just silly.
Very very few. I know a lot of people that don't know that the 'prt sc' button is for screenshots. They do not know how to make a screenshot of their desktop on their computer. I didn't want to comment that further. Bitcoin still remains for the technically adept.
Actually not knowing how to properly handle technology will eventually be comparable to not knowing how to read or write. A very good point if there was way of instantly transferring Bitcoin to fiat quick and a small fee more people be interested. At the moment the fickle price of Bitcoin and the time needed to transfer fiat is a major downer for anyone interested.
Bitcoin is supposed to be used. Converting to fiat should not be one of your primary goals. |
|
|
|
|
So using banks and getting a credit card is a simple procedure? It only is if you don't read the whole complicated contract that you have to sign. Considering how it was a few years back, I do not consider using Bitcoin complicated. It might just require slightly more effort. There are pretty good (both technical and non) videos that explain Bitcoin nicely under 5 minutes. After that one must find a place to acquire Bitcoin, and I think that this is still the weak spot. Not enough ATMs and exchanges/other ways of acquiring.
For a tech savy user, using Bitcoin should be one of the simpler tasks.
|
|
|
|
...They complained about non existent censorship...
In your opinion, has there been censorship at /r/bitcoin or here? There might have been censorship at /r/bitcoin. There has not been any censorship here. Threads were getting moved, not deleted, neither did anyone get punished for constructive posts about XT. Let me say this one more time: This is a privately owned forum. If you don't like it then you're free to start your own (as XT supporters did). Regardless, this is completely off topic. Let's get back to your paper. Peter Todd (source = reddit): this paper is fatally flawed and at best rehashes what we already know happens in the "spherical cow" case, without making it clear that it refers to a completely unrealistic setup. It'd be interested to know who actually wrote it - "Peter R" is obviously a pseudonym and the paper goes into sufficient detail that it makes you wonder why the author didn't see the flaws in it.
You'd be wise to run future work past experts in the field prior to publishing widely if you dislike heated controversy.
Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here. That is interesting. |
|
|
|
If there is no incentives then why there is nodes on the network?
Here are your incentives:
Individuals - Fans that want to contribute to the network
- Heavily financially invested individual that wants to contribute at securing the network
- Others?
-snip-
There is no financial incentive to run a node. That was what I wanted to say. If what you say is correct, there is only a handful of people really involved with Bitcoin. Considering the huge amount of "incentives" to run a node, there should be many more than we have today, correct? I'm pretty sure that most of the supporters do not understand the importance of decentralized nodes. The level of hostile emotional appeal and logical fallacy in this thread is astounding.
Why is it so difficult for a group of intelligent people to discuss ideas on their own merit?
there is no tax on being respectful.
It is pretty obvious who is doing this. One must never look at their solution as the perfect way of doing something. We can not have a normal discussion with most people who support XT or BIP101 that is. They complained about non existent censorship, and yet here they are again even after they created their own forum. Instead of actually having a good discussion, they chose to ignore decent (or better) arguments/questions and proceed to spread nonsense.
pretty sure smallblockist are the vocal minority.
I'm pretty sure what you have started doing could be considered trolling (looking at your other posts). I've shown you that centralization is a problem as requested, and you've chosen to ignore it and make posts as the quoted one. I do have a question though. If there are no incentives for 8 MB blocks (since fees are lower than 3 to 6 BTC ) then why should we implement them at all? If there aren't going to be bigger blocks often (that would fit more transactions - one of the main arguments of big blockists and XT supporters; i.e. need for more room) then it is not worth the risk, or is it?
I'm still waiting for a proper answer. |
|
|
|
I don't know if this is 100% true, and might be considered off topic... But I'm pretty sure if you take btc and switch them out for another coin with more anonymity features like cryptonote currencies, such as monero, you can be anonymous that way... The only risk you have is if monero loses its value over time, and the fact you would have to find merchants who would accept xmr as well..
This is off topic. You're talking about holding an altcoin. OP is asking about being able to use/transact Bitcoin 100% anonymously. P.S. Don't promote Monero here. I don't think it's a bad example. Satoshi is proof that you can do it.
It is a bad example. Satoshi is a special status user (or group). You don't even know that he is a single person, and you try to make a example as he was a user. Stop calling out on him for reference to everything. I think most people think Bitcoin is anonymous, even if they they use Tor... but they might be surprised how much information is transmitted without you even knowing it.
Encrypted VPN(s) that do not keep logs are better in my opinion. Tor helps but it has it's own problems. its not easy to solo mine a complete block, or find a guy who solo mine a complete block
most blocks are mined by pools and they divide that money to their miners
There was a project called Mint (currently on hold) from Blocktrail. Their plan was to sell a limited supply of coins directly from a miner. I don't think 100% anonymity is possible.
It is not and it is not necessary. Nobody will invest a lot of money to track a random user without a good reason. |
|
|
|
Tl;Dr: This website is not active enough, let me suggest one that is even less active. The point of this thread is the promotion of ucrypto.co, and nothing else. I'm starting to doubt that there are more than one thousand active accounts at bitcointalk on a given day.
My suggestion for a better option is uCrypto.co
 P.S. Wrong section. |
|
|
|
|
Dear user,why did you feel the need to make this request public? You can PM Vod directly and ask him about it. You also have a negative from Muhammed Zakir.
I would just like to make a notice here. A month after asking for that loan (because of which you received the negative trust rating) you've asked for a even bigger one (5 BTC) with insufficient collateral (around ~2 BTC).
Update: Okay then, I retract my statement. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
ok show me a part of the network that is Centralized and the problem it's causing.
I never said that it was causing any problems right now. Stop diverting the argument. They're not wrong. Centralization is already a problem.
wtf is wrong with you? Centralization is a problem != centralization is causing problems. Stop grasping straws trying to undermine my arguments. If you do not want to properly contribute, then do not do so at all.
Clarification update: Centralization is a problem - In other words, the node count is going down and the mining is centralized via a few pools (China being the one with most hashrate). (bad) Example of centralization causing problems - Nodes are impossible to run on average hardware; i.e. they need a data center (might as well use Google). Decentralization is one of the main feats of Bitcoin. Rhetorical question: Would you feel comfortable if the whole network was running on Amazon and Google cloud services?
Update 2: No, that is not a datacenter. There is no incentive to run a node, what exactly are you talking about? |
|
|
|
ok show me a part of the network that is Centralized and the problem it's causing.
I never said that it was causing any problems right now. Stop diverting the argument.  
If I'm a miner, why would I bother to make an 8 MB block if it had (e.g.) a 25% chance of being orphaned? I would only do so if it included enough fees to offset this risk. This is the essence of my fee market paper.
I estimate that, given the current network propagation impedance, a miner would only be wise to attempt to publish an 8 MB block if it contained 3 to 6 BTC of fees (due to his increased risk of orphaning).
-snip-
Yes, I'm aware of your talk. You were actually one of the few that I saw on livestream as I did not have enough time. Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper myself, nor am I that interested in it (papers about fees in general). I do have a question though. If there are no incentives for 8 MB blocks (since fees are lower than 3 to 6 BTC ) then why should we implement them at all? If there aren't going to be bigger blocks often (that would fit more transactions - one of the main arguments of big blockists and XT supporters; i.e. need for more room) then it is not worth the risk, or is it?
People need to shift their focus towards making propagation times better rather than explaining potential situations relating to fees. If we had a better way of propagation right now, we would not be having this discussion. |
|
|
|
They have no other arguments any longer. The only remaining talking point they have is that if we raise the block size limit too much that it will result in centralization (without a clear definition for what this means).
So we don't have 1% orphan rates at 1MB blocks? So the orphan rates would not grow if we had e.g. 8 MB blocks right now? It really seems like they don't really have any arguments. You should really discuss this with other people (not if you're going to be closed-minded) before making slides that are incorrect (hint: Luke-Jr said something about one on IRC if I recall correctly). fear of being proven wrong.
They're not wrong. Centralization is already a problem. Can you ever conduct an honest argument? Seeing as the answer is no, I will suggest a solution: stop talking
I suggest a better solution. Just put him on ignore and you will have a better experience around here. |
|
|
|
i think if block propagation can be sped up, 500MB blocks can easily be handled by most, but i think we should see what China can handle and put that as the limit.
Well let me explain this in really simple way. With 1 MB blocks the orphan rates are around 1%. So imagine what happens if the block size was 500 MB. I don't even want to go into this further as it should be obvious. Even with 8 MB blocks today, it would still increase the orphan rates drastically. There needs to be improvement on block propagation or some sort of way of informing the network that a block was found (would be much faster than the current block propagation time). People really do not understand the orphan rate problem. This is why there was quite some talk about it at the recent conference. |
|
|
|
Confirmed, he's okay.
Thank you for sniffing my behind. |
|
|
|
You personally can remain anon. For example nobody knows who satoshi really is but they can see a lot of his transactions but can't trace them to his real world identity. You can also use mixers to mask where your coins are going.
That is a very bad example. You can't use a person who hasn't used Bitcoin for years as a example. A person (if it is one) that did his best to hide his identity from the start. The average user does not fit this description. Someone who is actively using Bitcoin on a few services can not hide his identity. The services (i.e. ones that require ID) keep records of money transferred in and out, in addition to the addresses that you've used. A worse scenario would be if one of those services got hacked and all the information got leaked. Because the ledger is transparent and permanent, one has to think ahead. If someone gets information in 2020, they can trace it all back to the begging easily (especially considering that there will be advanced tools by then). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
