"while the peasants hand pennies to the bank... the bank is accumilating pounds."
all the bank needs to do is hold them until their age(confirms) is long enough that it costs nothing to move the pennies by which time a penny is also worth more then a loaf of bread, and then change them for pounds (spend them to yourself to combine the value)
knowing that as that time passes the peasants give up waiting and never come back to get their pennies
|
|
|
Maybe Matonis and Gavin
what if i told you that coindesk ceo barry silbert, pays matonis a wage via coindesk what if i told you barry silbert pays gavin via barry's investment/ownership stake in Bloq what if i told you barry silbert pays gmaxwell via barry's investment/ownership stake in Blockstream and its just a big finger pointing distraction for clickbait and drama for the last 2 years to get people to take their eye off the ball EG when politics get serious and real lives can be affected and wars begin.. bring in some kardashian drama to settle the sheep back to sleep so they dont notice the real concerns happening in the opposite direction
|
|
|
franky1 is now also an enemy of fungiblity and not just decentralization? color me surprised.
seriously? im not an enemy of fungibility.. im an enemy of bloated transactions using failed Pedersen commitment idea that permanently bloats up a transaction but ends up only giving about a couple weeks of secrecy. here is the issue with your commitments. if people are to mix funds and move funds for your confidential transactions to work where funds A and funds B, when being spent must equal the same as funds C.. then many people need to use the same commitment for the math to work. as soon as someone knows the commitment. it can all be decoded. same as the concern of the other separate problem of "address re-use". i see rusty russel is very quiet about the "address reuse" issue which will cause an issue for LN. try to think beyond the positivies of your short term use strategies to offer a feature and instead think about scenario's of length of utility before the utility itself becomes a weakness.. try to be critical of your own code, not plaster it with utopian dream advertising, while sweeping the risks under the carpet. you love giving people hope and empty promises or features offering empty short term gestures, but you dont give the community what they really need. and thats why i lost all respect for you.
|
|
|
Stop that whining. Gmaxwell hit the point
not whining. he did hit the point. he just didnt realise he was slapping his own face. 2 vs 4 gmaxwll is 4 lover and a 2 hater
|
|
|
when making an exchange.
1. if you are going to handle fiat. expect costs of running to be higher and alot of fiat compliance rules required.
2. never have a private key on the front end server. instead just have public keys attached to peoples accounts for deposit display. and a database to store withdraw requests. which a separate remote system watches the withdrawal request database. to separately process withdrawals. thus mitigating any hackers from stealing keys from the front end server.
3. as an extra 2factor authentication. ask customers to supply a unused public key of their own. and then send the customer a random message to sign using their key(privately on their own wallet) and paste in the signature back to you as the 2factor response. this way only the customer can make requests.
meaning no passwords need to be stored on the front end server either. making the front end server just the GUI interface with nothing of value to grab.
man exchanges do not do this. which is the rookie mistake.
|
|
|
yep rational people want dynamic blocks of lean tx's starting at 2mb block buffer limit..
large block maniacs want 4mb weight.
you can spot a maniac when they cant even tell you that 4 is bigger than 2..so will refuse to admit they are the large block maniacs,
if you cant admit that 4 is bigger then 2 and always try to make it sound like 2 is bigger than 4.. then no one should take any notice of other word twisting crap thats said
they also want to bulk up lean tx's into being bloated tx's with 1kb confidential Pedersen commitments in the future. they even deny their pay cheque comes from corporate and banking sources
I must say you're even better story teller than Craig Wrightoshi himself. Btw why did you remove the last paragraph from your comment? because confidential Pedersen commitments is their future plans. and because its not yet official, i presume they will deny it even is in the plan and then meander the topic into more maniacal over dramatics by stating they have not added it yet so i must be wrong... rather than admit i see a few steps ahead of what they are ready to admit. so i left off their future plan to reduce their maniac mindsets of twisting words. as for how they are paid. well they will denie they are paid to work on bitcoin and deny their blockstream investors have anything to do with bitcoin... more nonsense meandering away from the topic at hand. so i tried to stick to the point gmaxwell made.. and just highlighted where he failed.... 2mb block vs 4mb weight.. which is bigger.. even a 6yo knows 4 is bigger
|
|
|
In this thread, large block maniacs show that their judgement is equally poor in other domains.
yep rational people want dynamic blocks of lean tx's starting at 2mb block buffer limit.. large block maniacs want 4mb weight. you can spot a maniac when they cant even tell you that 4 is bigger than 2..so will refuse to admit they are the large block maniacs, if you cant admit that 4 is bigger then 2 and always try to make it sound like 2 is bigger than 4.. then no one should take any notice of other word twisting crap thats said
|
|
|
That is a weak argument given the intellectual caliber of the people he "conned".
you need to know his whole back story. 1. in something like 2013 he told a friend to set up a trust. and the collateral was a bunch of PUBLIC KEYS he did not show proof of signatures of the PUBLIC keys. he relied on his friends naivity to only check the balances of the PUBLIC KEYS to get a total value to use as collateral. 2. emphasis the friend did not understand bitcoin so thought showing public key was like showing a bank statement as proof enough of holding. 3. then using the TRUST which is then falsely insured for multiple millions of dollars of value. (although it held 0 assets and just a list of random early adopter public keys). that TRUST fund was then used as collateral to then get other investments by FALSELY suggesting it was secured by million of assets. due to an insurance policy insuring the trust. 4. the now invested fund was then used to make other investments.. 5. australian authorities questioned the trust so he legged it to england.. then craig contacted media and started his own 'i am satoshi' whispers because the australian government were doubting his trusts assets. 6. later people have seen that the proof is not proof. but publicly available data.. this has made the first trust funds assets factually reduced to zero. meaning the initial investors will want to drop out. which is snowballing right now like ripples in the water. each level of investment has now realised their funds are not secure. 7. now craig wright is trying to get patents and do book deals, etc to try raising capital and creating assets to bulk up the empty trust to try and salvage some value of that empty trust. purely to avoid civil and possible criminal charges if he ever got deported to australia to have to answer for his actions. he thinks if he can replace the PUBLIC key fake asset with patents and book royalty contracts to then give the trust real value, he can avoid civil/criminal actions by showing the trust holds real value.
|
|
|
Craig Wright has failed to place evidence that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. He even stated this" "I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot." He also offered public apology since he doesnt have enough evidence to back up his claims. I don believe Craig Wright to be Satoshi Nakamoto. he isnt satoshi, he just didnt think the community would recognise the signature MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4= as being a publicly available string of text for the last 7 years he thought people wouldnt pick up on it so quick. so had to play backtrack i feel sorry for all the investors he has conned
|
|
|
I cant ever see them getting a differant ledger of the ground, do you think that they might run something like a hyperledger as a 2nd layer on top of bitcoin? might be possible in the future.
hyperledger will replace the banks backbone databases.. bank customers wont see/realise it changed, but the bankers will see the changes in their secret systems and how bank customers data is stored, valued and passed around (behind closed doors). hyperledger wont be an open platform where bank customers can be independant nodes.. or have independant privkeys.. it will all be multisig managed by the banks (imagine it like LN HUB smart contract concept but managed by the bankers) however the american bank branches for instance would be nodes, of each banks "brand" sidechain. where the different banks/branches(of thousands of nodes) then link upstream to a collective chain for a national FIAT sidechain... which each national fiat sidechain upstreams again to the IMF SDR (the main hyperledger) top of the pyramid chain.
|
|
|
all the main players of the GBBC are heavily into making hyperledger. they just like to mention "bitcoin" to pretend they are going to make hyperledger an open ledger like bitcoin.. yet its just going to be fiat2.0 instead
|
|
|
I didn't think Craig Wrght was Satoshi at first. He sure has a shit personality. He is a real fucking proper wanker if you ask me.
he is not satoshi. the article says "relates to craig wright" which made me look back at the research rabbit hole of who first introduced craig wright at a conference a few years back.. that RELATED person being nick szabo.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrEto re-open the can of worms of Szabo maybe being satoshi. eg "nick got craig to play along as craig being satoshi, to take some finger pointing away from nick himself" where the first finger pointing years ago was due to szabo's pre bitcoin 'bitcash' concept that inspired satoshi, years after bitcash was conceived. but knowing coindesk is writing the article.. im sure the other old inspirations will mention adam back due to coindesks attachment to blockstream. then a further 2 cents. adam back will proclaim he is satoshi, just so everyone should rush and buy into his LN commrecial hubs concepts... blockstreams scripts are easy to predict.
and this is why craig wright fails the "who is satoshi" he is into law and forensics and see's bitcoin being used https://youtu.be/4GuqlQvFYJo?t=1m40ssatoshi hated the idea of identifying people/corporate marketing of data
|
|
|
knowing barry silbert of coindesk also has ownership stake in blockstream im guessing it will be a story of how adam back(blockstream ceo) is "one of the 4" satoshi's by talking about his 1997 hashcash.
it could also be looking at craig wrights first appearance in the bitcoin scene via a skype call at a different conference a couple years ago where nick szabo introduced craig wright.
thus saying its a 4 way team of nick szabo, craig wright, adam back and a mysterious 4th party.
sidenote. adam back and szabo's concepts from years prior to bitcoin did inspire the single entity of satoshi. but adam back was not involved in bitcoins development, neither adam or nick the user behind the name satoshi,
nick did do something for bitcoin but again did not use the satoshi name.
in short its one mysterious single party who is satoshi.. and the other 3 are non-satoshi's, but just trying to get some notoriety for different reasons .. well thats my 2 cents
|
|
|
I think that is overly exaggerated. If my node is currently connected to several old nodes, I don't expect that to change post-Segwit activation. However, I know that I may be wrong. I have not looked into it.
Connection behavior is the same pre and post segwit activation. Having the network topology change all at once would be an unnecessary risk. the topology change has already occured. matt corallo's Fibre as the green gatekeepers (aka gmaxwells upstreamers) in relation to the left side image of (few pages back post) the network visualised in a simple representation the diversity recognition and acceptance behaviour can be white/blacklisted pre or post activation (nice bit of sweeping under the carpet word play from gmaxwell).. as jetcash has already proved by banning them already.. does not prove or disprove that it cant happen after segwit release but topology vs diversity are different things the diversity post segwit still to be determined after activation, once (cores own words) white listing old nodes (gmaxwells downstreamers) becames a more apparent thing. i do laugh how gmaxwell makes half a statement to hide the full context i find it funny how he isnt even commenting about https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/because he knows the topology is already in the format i mentioned on the left side pic of (few pages back post) the network visualised in a simple representation, and the image in previous sentance of this post
|
|
|
Almost 70% support to SegWit. Franky's conspiracy theories doesn't work. We are doomed /Satoshi:0.13.1/ 1466 (25.95%) /Satoshi:0.13.2/ 1228 (21.73%) /Satoshi:0.13.99/ 118 (2%) 49.68 = ~50 of nodes implicitly.. but far lower explicitly. also nodes dont get a vote.. pools 23% so neither pools or nodes are at 70%. plus if you take away the pools count from the node count. less than 50% nodecount. yep pools were already counted as part of the ~50% yep if you excluded pools multiple nodes the count goes down. (so dont imply missing 23% hashrate can add on 20% nodecount. as thats not how the measures work. they are independent of each other and measuring different things(my assumption of how you may have come to your wrong 70% figure))
|
|
|
short summary of the OP..
to prevent communism (the rich holding all the wealth and the rich) splitting the network.
the op proposes splitting the network and moving to PoS so that the rich hoard all the funds and control it all.
PoS is not a way to even the playing field. its a way that the wealthy control what block gets signed and the wealthy get the reward.
there is no 'trickle down' economics of PoS.. infact PoS is the communism agenda. where those at the top get more..
it makes me laugh that he says the threat to bitcoin is from the poor. and so he want to shift control to the rich.
typical fox news viewers do that.
time he stopped smoking and done more research on real life and real facts. instead of the twisted info he has been handed.
cant ven get the left and right correct. thats how twisted and misinformed the OP is. here is a hint.. nazi=communist=far right. (rich set the rules and demand control and hoard the funds) PoS
liberals, socialists = left (everyone plays a part and has a say and can share the rewards) PoW
|
|
|
i think you need to go research some more. take some time, learn bitcoin, run some scenarios. look how the reality of bitcoin works.
P.S ethereum was not consensus(95%) or controversial(low%) .. it was intentional split, using a ban node feature to avoid the correction mechanism(orphaning) that keeps things on one straight ill spell it out for you, so your research is google friendly
--oppose-dao-fork
enjoy your research
|
|
|
think up a new scenario that concentrates on, 'when all else fails' and nothing can be trusted. that your 'proof of origination' can be the proof without trust, without other requirements to be needed.. and be the sole safety feature that still makes the evidence valid. (in short remove the if's and but's)
I doubt there is a solution to the security problem that doesn't come with if's or but's. All one can do is make an attack more expensive. how can you have a proof of origination.. if it is not 100% proof, because it requires X/Y/Z if's and buts to be met before you can treat it as proof. its only proof when there is no way to 'if or but' the evidence. take the security video scenario. instead of ifs or buts of needing the video to be securely stored in a vault that even staff cant access.. imagine it like it doesnt matter if there are 5000 different copies of a video. or if 100 members of staff can get to the video.. a proof of origin would be the way to know exactly which copy is the original no matter how the original was handled, physically stored, etc
|
|
|
lesson 1. if 50,000 nodes appeared.. and then intentionally split.. all they are doing is making clams 2.0
lesson 2. coins are locked to private keys. not software. so while they play with clams 2.0 your funds are still on your private key
lesson 3. making bitcoin about politics and race just makes you sound like a Fox news presenter shouting "bomb them bomb them bomb them"
|
|
|
lol
oh look trendon shavers2.0 wanting people to hand them atleast $1000 and not touch it for upto 15 years... pfft
im laughing at all the red flags.
|
|
|
|