Where is Bitcoin Core a company? What are you talking about?!...
OMG, it's so cute that you think that Core devs are doing this all for free. |
|
|
|
Honest question: Who is buying FLDC at 500 sats a coin? And why?
The same people that buy it an any other price. And because they either want to fund folders or they think they can sell it to some other sucker at a higher price. |
|
|
|
So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo prevent these kind of situations.
I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.
We must drain the swamp.
You're right, it's bad for companies (like Bitcoin Core) to make deals/decisions without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors.  It's almost entertaining to watch you ignore the fact that everything you say applies to the group you seem to be a fanboy of.  |
|
|
|
...Everything else is just human ego.
Devs? Ego? Surely not!  Anyone else see a Bitcoin Classic on the horizon?  |
|
|
|
....people that have made miners themselves and know more about the components being used then you or i do and yet you still fight it as if they are complete morons and know nothing about what they have spent probably hundreds of hours if not more tinkering with...
Well, the 1st part of that belies your entire belief system on what Bitmain should/shouldn't do with programmatically controlling fan speeds, and as for the 2nd, kindly link me to a single post (in this thread) where a single person has given a single fact-based reason (as in with actual data to support the conclusion that programmatically controlling fan speeds is bad/wrongly-configured on a large scale) as to why they believe Bitmain is erroneous in programmatically controlling fan speeds.... |
|
|
|
What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken...
Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.
Yeah, no. Seems like you need to read the whitepaper again.  You can't "save bitcoin from being centralized" by centralizing around only 1 group of devs. Because, English. |
|
|
|
...followed by a 1 year long activation phase followed by the bulk of the bitcoin community running full nodes choosing to run core's segwit signalling...
While that is technically true, a certain percentage (unknown if large or small) did so because (until this last update) the choice was: - updates and signal,
- no updates and no signal, or
- some unknown new entity.
There was no option to both use an updated Core wallet and not have segwit; and, for the average person, there still isn't. |
|
|
|
On a more "on topic" note:
With BTC pushing towards $2,200USD and alts not moving in the normal inverse direction, I may have to switch to 1 day on and 1 day off (instead of 2 on and one off). Bitcoin is where most of my loyalties lie, but I have to keep my main loyalty to the economics of what buys me more toys faster.
Yeah I know. If we were finding blocks and bigger by now it wouldn't be the case... * -ck sighs some more. True. There will (I truly believe) come a day where the pool size will grow to the point where I can stay full-time. For most folks, there's only a marginal income difference; however, with "profit switching", numerous PoS wallets, and some auto-trade code, the income from current markets for me mining alts vs bitcoin is nearly 2:1.  |
|
|
|
The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...
There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong? |
|
|
|
...It is time to drain the swamp. Let's kick ASIC miners out of bitcoin.
Thanks for that; I needed a good chuckle this morning. |
|
|
|
|
On a more "on topic" note:
With BTC pushing towards $2,200USD and alts not moving in the normal inverse direction, I may have to switch to 1 day on and 1 day off (instead of 2 on and one off). Bitcoin is where most of my loyalties lie, but I have to keep my main loyalty to the economics of what buys me more toys faster.
|
|
|
|
... and won't even use the existing segwit bits...
While it's no secret that I dislike segwit, it should also be no secret that I see an adoption of segwit that isn't coded by the wonderful folks at Core as a blessing to Bitcoin itself. Much like folks stopped seeing IE as the "official" browser of the internet; there needs to come a day of reckoning where the devs either bow to the wants/wishes of the marketplace (and not the wrong way round) or they get left behind. Um, no, they'll be using segwit as coded by Core. They're just going to add a hard fork to it and use a different bit. And in one fell swoop, you took me from  to |
|
|
|
... and won't even use the existing segwit bits...
While it's no secret that I dislike segwit, it should also be no secret that I see an adoption of segwit that isn't coded by the wonderful folks at Core as a blessing to Bitcoin itself. Much like folks stopped seeing IE as the "official" browser of the internet; there needs to come a day of reckoning where the devs either bow to the wants/wishes of the marketplace (and not the wrong way round) or they get left behind. |
|
|
|
Any capable developer willing to work on this? PM me price and what you can do for the coin. There are not many multialgo coins and this one had so much potential.
Until, literally, no one wanted to buy it and it was pulled from every market. |
|
|
|
It looks like blocks are a little shy latetly despite the huge inscrease of hash rate.  Let s start a new week with some blocks! errrrrr.... ummmmm.... Blocks 45 Expected 42.25 |
|
|
|
....
I am somewhat suprised they allocated 20% to the miners when I think about it.
That 20% mostly goes to POS wallets under the guise of "mining". So maybe you could try to do some lobbying so that the Devs get nicer towards ASIC miners on the future SigmaX coin since a higher number of miners means increased blockchain security... It would be a win-win situation. Because the truth is that it doesn't. I'm a POW mining fan because I'm heavily invested in POW mining equipment, not because it is actually any "more secure" than POS*. *At a base level POS and POW are the same functions, but the reward and difficulty structures are different. |
|
|
|
Not sure I would call this "very slowly":  ~50,000,000PPD increase in a month on top of the ~20,000,000PPD dip (or ~75,000,000PPD from the dip) |
|
|
|
....
I am somewhat suprised they allocated 20% to the miners when I think about it.
That 20% mostly goes to POS wallets under the guise of "mining". |
|
|
|
...The devs originally put PoW in place to help miners without GPU folding equipment participate in the coin, but also to make sure the chain could be secured with very light-weight mining equipment in case too few wallets were staking in the beginning....
No matter how you pretty it up, or explain it away, the "Whether you are heavily-invested in ASIC equipment or still have GPUs and CPUs, you can participate" for the OP is, at best, an exaggeration. By the time more than a handful of POS wallets came online, those "heavily-invested in ASIC equipment" got screwed by "participating" in CureCoin any further. I'm just saying that: - The more POS wallets that run is the more POW mining gets punished by POS.
- POW miners do get their difficulty raised by POS wallets.
- POS wallets do not get their difficulty raised by POW miners.
- Folding is not mining.
|
|
|
|
FoldingCoin need a new team! Given that it's a corporation (even though they never act like it), good luck with that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
