|
here is the mindblowing thing though.
BTCC say they are ready to make a block with a p2wpkh tx in it.
so why dont they do a test. and make a block with a p2wpkh tx in it. and show how 'compatible' all nodes are..
after all isnt that the point/ their 'promise' of going soft. that nodes of any type/age wont reject blocks containing p2wpkh tx's
very worse case, btcc block gets rejected, which blockstream have $90m to pay btcc, ~$13k for a one block test
or due to the partnership between btcc/blockstream thanks to barry silbert(dcg) they just treat it as a 3 second reject and be like all other pools that dont win. and not need to hand over funds, because its not a loss of ~$13k.. its just not a win of ~$13k
best case. the block is accepted and that gains the network confidence they desperately need
|
|
|
|
Maybe Unlimited Chinese miners pay for every favorable post about BU like in signature campaign.  theymos owns this forum lauda runs a few sig-spam campaigns. lauda gave up moderator status to run sig campaigns both lauda and theymos are strong blockstream defenders. (not bitcoin open diverse and decentralised network defenders) your theory is interesting but i feel its those adoring blockstream that love getting pennies per post it explains why they are soo many noob accounts(below 100 activity), which are created and are jumping in defending blockstream without understanding the basics of bitcoin, or even thinking about the bitcoin network. knowing blockstream recognise their own faults and agenda's to then accuse anything not core as the ones doing it(point in opposite direction to distract), thus to play the victim card to get sheep into the wolves den, adding weight to a possibility that its blockstream centralists showing the loyalty, under the hope of getting a few pennies of that $90m investment |
|
|
|
lets play the r/bitcoin meme education method, maybe its the only way to teach them  |
|
|
|
You dipshits will never get community consensus, only hashrate majority.
the smart community dont care about hashrate majority. unless nodes will accept the change, hash is a meaningless bucket filled with orphans and rejects. nodes mean more than hash. the community know this. thats why the smart pools (60% undecided either way) are not deciding. core failed by bypassing node consensus before hash consensus. they shot themselves in the foot thinking they could skip a step |
|
|
|
|
oh look at the blockstream centralists wanting non-core implementations to fork off..
they cant cope that the community want consensus and not dictators.
blockstream centralists are now so desperate that they are no longer(playing a victim card) shouting out fear of forks.. but instead (dropped their victim card) to now be begging other implementations to fork.. but atleast they are now admitting their centralist desires
desperate desperate desperate
lets just concentrate on using the consensus code. and let the corporations fall into issues of not repaying their $90m by not being able to commercialise bitcoin to repay investors.
i could tell blockstream was getting thin on funds last year when they were complaining it cost them $10k just to be members of hyper ledger.
after all if they still had multiple millions free and clear. $10k would feel like pennies.. but if they are near empty. $10k would hurt them, which they admit it had.
|
|
|
|
the real funny thing about the OP's rant. is that he tries to pretend he cares about bitcoin with the lets hope common sense keeps the status quo of one open network of digital gold Let's just hope common sense prevails and digital gold stays digital gold. sidnote: bitcoin is not digital gold. bitcoin is a digital asset, far better than digital gold in many many ways he also pretends to detest government money. by mentioning government and rothchild divide and conquer agenda. but here is the thing. he himself is playing the divide and conquer game by trying to make core the victim who should win dictatorship. by pointing cores failures in the opposite direction.. rather than think/talk/ mention consensus of no kings. ending his post with his ultimate desire.. to exit bitcoin when he can get $2000 of that government money he pretends to detest per coin. "They will not stop $2,000 from happening this year." here is some things that he needs to realise. 1. the drama of the PBOC visit btcc, irs visit circle and coinbase began from the blockstream rumour mill.. barry silbert(DCG) has ownership stakes in: BTCC, coinbase, blockstream, and.. coindeskso the rumour mill made a normal regulatory inspection sound like an attack. like barry's companies are being victimised. etc etc. all of which is meaningless crap. because it does not affect consensus of the network or the code. but the OP subtly is making it sound like core is the victim and if people stay in the sheep stroking arms of core, the price will rise to $2k this year please wake up people and care more about consensus and the code |
|
|
|
Is there really any money to be made with atms?
I assumed it would be peanuts. Certainly not enough to attract maniacs.
knowing the exchange rate "spread" between exchanges can be a couple %.. they can play that to pretend that they dont charge fee's while just showing a slightly greedy spread. or charge a fee and also take the spread too some BTM's can make upto 5% that way without disclosing its upto 5% |
|
|
|
2. gangs have their own BTM's and destroying the competitor
That's an interesting set of comments which may very well be true to one degree or another. 2. I am guessing the gangs here in my city do not have their own BTC ATMs, but have not looked into that possibility. the coindesk article Their goal, the lawsuit alleges, is to put other operators at a disadvantage through extortion and destruction of property. |
|
|
|
Yes but look back before 2013 when everyone was their own pool, when people used to mine with CPU or GPU.
You're mistaken here. I've been writing mining software and mining since June 2011 and virtually everyone was mining on a pool back then. If you want to use that argument you need to go back to 2010 or earlier... basically before bitcoin became popular at all. Ok I did now know the exact date, I've been here only since ~ 2013/ 2014, you may be thinking of october 2013.. the first ASICS rolled out publicly prior to 2013 GPU were doing sub 20thash combined. from january 2013-october asic manufacturers were privately testing asics.. pushing that to 1000thash(1peta) and the rest is uphill from there.. today over 3m thash (3exahash) |
|
|
|
What do you think, in the future, blockchain technology will take over. Personally I really hope to see this apply in banks, currently there is no safe and fast way to send money via bank to bank transfer, using block chain you could send money in any amount with low fee from one bank to another bank. This could support a LARGE amount of businesses alone, potentially making this technology more and more popular as long as the government would allow the idea of large amounts of money being transferred like this. Let me know what everyone thinks about potential blockchain-technology-businesses could be and what it's application's could be.
personally i prefer bitcoin, but most sheep will choose to lock their funds into permissioned contracts just for less timewasting/admin headaches This right here is why I love bitcoin, even if you transfer 100,000$ you can't get your funds locked or stuck in a 180 day hold or some bullshit. dont be so sure about that if core really went and pushed LN as the end goal of 100% user utility, rather than a voluntary side service. CLTV is the X day hold(even after LN settlement confirms) and CSV is the chargeback(while funds are CTLV maturing AFTER confirm) look no further than the hyperledger project
the concept is to have atleast 200 chains/ledgers that link to eachother. yes this means public keys will be linked to social security, tax, passport, medical records. but atleast people dont have to sign 20 registration documents for 20 services/entities.
they dont need to be "vetted" for each exchange/bank/service" because all that admin is done in one go.
Well I know currently there is already people who can hack private keys from public keys from using random strings of text and numbers or something along those lines. I hope that, in theory, these public keys with SSN and other important information can't be hacked. if people are using brainwallets (short length alphabet 'passwords' to create private keys, or bad random generators) then yes they can be hacked. also if you re-use addresses a few times the 'randomness' of signature data can start showing a pattern. also vanity addresses are weaker to (easier to brute force a vanity address) which again is an issue for LN where everytime to sign a payment you are revealing a signature with the certain point of the axis, which with enough signatures can be used to find the pattern and thus find the origin point of the curve(the private key) this is why you should never re-use addresses using normal bitcoin transactions. and why LN and other things are not completely fool proof |
|
|
|
What do you think, in the future, blockchain technology will take over. Personally I really hope to see this apply in banks, currently there is no safe and fast way to send money via bank to bank transfer, using block chain you could send money in any amount with low fee from one bank to another bank. This could support a LARGE amount of businesses alone, potentially making this technology more and more popular as long as the government would allow the idea of large amounts of money being transferred like this. Let me know what everyone thinks about potential blockchain-technology-businesses could be and what it's application's could be.
look no further than the hyperledger project the concept is to have atleast 200 chains/ledgers that link to eachother. yes this means public keys will be linked to social security, tax, passport, medical records. but atleast people dont have to sign 20 registration documents for 20 services/entities. they dont need to be "vetted" for each exchange/bank/service" because all that admin is done in one go. so i can see funds moving more swiftly.. just not done anonymously. even tax returns become automated. some may see the benefits of efficiency. but others will see the downside of permissioned services holding funds and rating/judging/knowing everything about the users/citizens. personally i prefer bitcoin, but most sheep will choose to lock their funds into permissioned contracts just for less timewasting/admin headaches |
|
|
|
Whats the point in destroying the ATM? even if they are trying to steal shit the bitcoin arnt even there .....lol
its not about stealing bitcoin its more about these possible scenario's(top of list most relevant) 1. gangland protection blackmail 2. gangs have their own BTM's and destroying the competitor 3. gangs that lose value on a price dump and take it out on the BTM |
|
|
|
Franky, genuine question, what is the fear? what do you think is the ultimate goal of Blockstream and a hyperledger ?
hyperledger is FIAT2.0 blockstream are using bitcoin as the "experiment" messing with offchain/sidechain techniques to then hand those techniques to the bankers so that the bankers can have their 200+fiat interlaced and swappable chains(national currencies and other markets) holding up bitcoin onchain growth just to let blockstream paid devs sandbox bitcoin to give time for hyperledger to overtake. is not helping bitcoin |
|
|
|
Core is in the sheep hearding seat. Their task is to bypass consensus features. I still hope for a change of motive because we should do both in one go: fix issues and allow nodes to choose scale = swabu
fixed that for you |
|
|
|
Im not aware of any others, i would suggest that in these times you just increase your fee, which sucks i know but it seems to be the only way.
fee war: 140/byte - https://bitcoinfees.21.co/= 0.00063000 for average 450byte tx ($0.65c) = 0.00031640 for leanest 226byte tx ($0.33c) Cuba see a lean tx costing 6hrs36mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 13hrs minimum wage. Georgia see a lean tx costing 6hrs36mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 13hrs minimum wage. gambia see a lean tx costing 2hrs32mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 5hrs minimum wage. egypt see a lean tx costing 1hrs2mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 2hrs5mins minimum wage. and so on anyone see the problem yet |
|
|
|
..
non-core implementations will only use CONSENSUS (try being specific, rather then using the 'fork' empty umbrella term) they do not intent to split they do not want to split they do not require a split they are not proposing a split. they want to use bitcoins consensus. yep core have forked the chain. yep even Sipa caused a bug in 2013 which led to needing to roll back some blocks to fix his boo boo. core have failed the community by not doing a node first pool second double consensus (hard consensus) because just doing a pool consensus single consensus (soft consensus) means the pools get to decide. but even so, the smart pools/ethical pools will wait until nodes are happy even if nodes dont get a vote. purely because of the orphan risks if a bug pops up. core want people to think its a core vs bu, king against king battle. when its not. its a COMMUNITY decision there should be no king.. only nodes... who adjust based on the settings of the nodes. and the pools react to what the nodes will allow. 75% of the community are saying undecided or saying no (~60% undecided/ not keeping uptodate) 25% pool agreement 25% node have full latest running implementation the rest are not uptodate or not decided either way (yes another 25% of nodes are 'compatible'. and 50% are 'acceptable'. but only 25% nodes are uptodate) funny thing is even if nodes/pools did gather 95% pool votes, when it activates they still end up having to wait for another core release just to actually use p2wpkh/p2sh keys. meaning this whole give pools the power to vote first has issues. and even then its not an effective vote because nodes then have to re-upgrade to use the keys to see the benefit of the one time boost temporary gesture. yep even with 0.13.2 people can still malleate transactions. even after activation at 95% people using 0.13.2 can still malleate transactions. yep even with 0.13.2 you wont see any different to the transaction count after activation. it requires another release and only those using the new 0.1x.x(whatever the number will be) after activation who move funds over to p2wpkh and p2wsh keys who are the ones that cant malleate. but if you use legacy p2pkh /p2sh keys you can still malleate. meaning that malicious people can still be malicious. and seing that nodes take so long to remain fully uptodate with the latest version. getting it activated is not the end of the drama of low tx count or malleation.. its still going to take a while if ever to get the 'promises' core suggest. yes every node and every transaction needs to be p2wpkh or p2wsh capable and used to give the tx count boost and malleation impossibility. anything less than 100% means not 100% fixed |
|
|
|
The government is not stupid. They want to get rid of cash, and the immediate alternative for when that happens will be bitcoin (because they will ban gold too, they have already done it in the past), so you are delusional if you think bitcoin isn't under their radar. They want to crush it, and they know the best way is to launch a trojan horse dressed as a sweet solution that sounds good in principle but it's really shit (BU) in order to take control and get rid of Core which is the original cryptopunk team that wants to keep the network as decentralized as possible by giving nodes the #1 priority (without easy to run nodes bitcoin is useless as a censorship resistant tool).
Government/bankster mafia top priority nowadays is to start shifting the bitcoin network into a datacenter driven network instead of random people running them at home on their own computers (if you are not holding the blockchain yourself you are not hosting a full node, so forget about online services crap).
1. CORE are bypassing node consensus to make the rules have upto FOUR mb weight WITHOUT node votes allowing/vetoing 2. other implementations USE NODE CONSENSUS where the nodes decide what they can cope with. and then pools react when there is consensus. 3. CORES main guys sipa, gmaxwell, matt corallo, luke jr(plus dozen others) are PAID by corporations. even gmaxwells/adam backs 'founded' business has MEMBERSHIP into HYPERLEDGER, which is the BANKERS fiat2.0 concept. wake up to the hypocrisy of the scripts they get sheep to shout. when the real truth is that core are doing all the mis-deeds. https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members <- general members - blockstream admit it they get sheep to fear splits, and then tell sheep to beg non-core implementation too split.. yet non-core implementations refuse to split. non core implementations want to use consensus. not splits. just wake up |
|
|
|
|
r/bitcoin script
1. script: "everyone shout out that you fear non-core implementations want to split the network"
2. reply: but they dont, they want to use consensus
3. script: "ok everyone shout that non-core SHOULD split off"
4. reply: now thats hypocrisy, but they wont, they want to use consensus
5. script: "ok everyone shout that they are giving miners the power"
6. reply: but they are not. core are giving the miners the decision power, by bypassing node votes.
7. script: "ok everyone scream that non-core want to take cores dictatorship away"
8. reply: but there should be no dictatorship, there should only be consensus
9. script: "ok call anyone hating core-blockstream a troll because we run out of misdirected scripts"
|
|
|
|
Why would they work on that specifically when they have provided a near-future 'solution' temporary gesture?
fixed that for you No, stop trolling. you do realise what LN does... its a contract AKA permissioned funds locked in.
No, unless you want to severely twist the word 'permissioned'. if you dont understand the tech, please learn it before replying. and i do not mean you have read their sales pitch glossy version. but done the critical small print understanding of what is being promoted for instance if you dont understand multisigs where you are no longer just signing your own tx and sending your own tx, but requiring a counter party to sign off on your transaction. that is needing their permission.. without them you have nothing. it has some advantages but also disadvantages. atleast understand and be honest about both sides. also please understand CLTV and CSV and understand the REAL WORLD end user experience of these and how they compare to paypal/banks 'issues' of the same end user experience. its you trying to undersell/ sweep under the carpet. atleast try to think about bing helpful to the real community by informing them of exactly what they are going to be getting involved it. honest critical thought means more to people than stroking their sheep fur, telling them its ok to go to sleep |
|
|
|
|
you dont need a bitcoin IRA
you just need a bitcoin JHI - Just Hold It
bitcoin JHI - no middle men, no handing funds to strangers, no admin fee's, no worries of anyone running off.. you just need to hold onto it yourself
if you have fiat and want an IRA i see the niche.
but if you have bitcoin, normally best to just hold the bitcoin yourself
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
