if its a "satoshi" round table then its about bitcoin.. if you want to make it about blockchain.. then call it the S-haber round table.. S. Haber 1992 Once hashing functions are chosen, such a scheme could be carried out like a world championship tournament: Heterogeneous local networks could govern local subtrees [pools] under the scrutiny of local participants, and regional “winners”[miners] could be combined into global winners under the scrutiny of all interested parties[nodes]. Global communication facilities are required, and a broadcast protocol must be agreed upon, but no centralized service bureau need administer or profit from this system.
...
we consider the linking protocol. In certain applications, such as a laboratory notebook, it is crucial not only to have a trustworthy date for each entry[blocks] but also to establish in a trustworthy manner the exact sequence[chain] in which all entries[blocks] were made.
Linear linking of one entry to the next[chain] provides the most straightforward means of achieving this. Next we consider the difference between the random-witness method and the tree method.
...
Given these tradeoffs, we imagine that the three methods may be used in a complementary fashion, as the following example illustrates. An individual or company might use linear linking to time-stamp its own accounting records, sending the final summary value[blocks] for a given time period to a service maintained by a group of individuals[miners] or parties[pools]. This service constructs linked trees at regular intervals.[blocktime]
The name "Round Table" is not directly drawn from Arthurian Legend; rather both its title and its maxim comes from a speech made to the British Industries Fair in 1927 by the then HRH Prince Edward, Prince of Wales 'The young business and professional men of this country must get together round the table, adopt methods that have proved so sound in the past, adapt them to the changing needs of the times and wherever possible, improve them'. The phrase "adopt, adapt, improve" is a key facet of the organisation, and is often seen on Round Table literature and regalia.
if its not about discussing ways to improve things. and more about just some social ass kissing and talking about each others deepest secrets behind a closed door.. then they are literally in the closet. so call it an S-haber closet meeting please note this post does contain humour although content has validity. |
|
|
|
|
to all those writing that grabbing random people, to get them interested in buying bitcoin as the goal.. then you are all just looking for a bigger fiat price to exit bitcoin.
meaning you are failing yourself, failing bitcoin and failing the people you are introducing while secretly planning your own farewell.
you need to talk about/think about bitcoins UTILITY not the damn price rise.
lets put it another way your fiat greed and fiat retirement dream can understand.
invite 2 people spend weeks telling them about bitcoins as a fiat investment, trying to tempt them into buying in big. hoping other people around the world are doing the same to cumilatively push up the price.
or
invite two people and spend weeks telling them about the business opportunities and what they can do locally(naturally they buy bitcoin, but thats not the main/end discussion). helping each other get bitcoin accepted by popular shops/stores in your location. where each store displays a "bitcoin accepted here" logo in the window. people start coming naturally to the meetups in increasing amounts. naturally growing the local bitcoin utility far beyond just 2 small inverters..
now you dont need to return to fiat because you can buy your beers, meals and toilet paper and because you are involved in lots of projects locally you can have your own income stream coming in from different places.
wasting hundreds of thousands on mainstream advertising purely for the hopes of getting a few naive 'buyers' is short sighted.. compared to getting organised and making your location "bitcoin accepted" which is beneficial for all and more long term.
and all it costs is a couple cups of coffee/beers
|
|
|
|
All core devs except one want to increase the blocksize to 2mb after segwit is activated, because raising the blocksize before activating segwit opens a can of worms we want to avoid.
Ultimately the real red pill is the fact that we need everything. We need segwit, we need a bigger blocksize, we need lightning network, we need EVERYTHING, or else we will FAIL.
the linear/quadratics issue has never been an issue.. if core implemented some rules properly users dont need the capability of 20,000-80,000 sigops for their single transaction. the solution is not to limit bitcoins whole growth out of fear of one malicious users... but limit users individual sig-op allowance so that malicious users cant do crap. EG say 100sigops max.. definitely not 20,000 EG imagine a single transaction with say 141 inputs imagine 141 transactions with 1 inputs each same data, same destinations same funds coming and going.. but nodes process the 141 transactions easier its pure logic.. dont let one person bloat a whole block with a single bloated tx.. .. set a TX sigop limit so not only does a 'malicious bloater' have to make multiple tx's which no longer cause time delays for the network.. but does make time delays for the malicious user having to make the tx's himself (good for both reasons).. but also allows a better chance of random honest peoples tx getting into a block due to it not being completely filled by a single tx. even things like LN doesnt need 20,000 sigops for one tx. an LN tx is just a 2in 2out tx afterall |
|
|
|
to me in future as much as the number of bitcoin users is increasing hope that banks will start thinking about how to start accepting bitcoin in banks. because in future bitcoin will the main currency of the people and will be using in all over the word equally.
banks wont start accepting bitcoin. banks will use hyperledger. but PEOPLE can choose to avoid banks and hold bitcoin instead. in short. WE DONT NEED BANKS!!! banks will be held to regulations of only trading something they can 100% trade, control and audit. this will be a FIAT 2.0 done on the hyperledger. people will use non banks to swap back into fiat2.0.. EG OTC(over the counter)traders/decentralsied exchanges banks will in the future lose the retail market arena(consumer<->merchant spending). and banks will be used only for the tax payments to public services and treasury .. and behind the scenes private fiat market stuff like derivatives, bonds, etc. if all banks accepted the bitcoin may be all transaction is easily we dont need banks to transact.. if we hand our bitcoins over to banks we might aswell just use FIAT.. i know there are some idiots that want banks to accept bitcoin purely for the fake theory of driving up the price (not the utility) so that some penny grabbing sig spammer can cash out to fiat to buy 10 loaves of bread instead of just a slice of bread. but bitcoin should not join banks purely for someone one time get rich quick dream before exiting back to fiat.. bitcoin should remain separate and hedge against the banks. and be about bitcoins utility and free open alternative to the banking controls.. not the damn fiat price for all of those only caring about the fiat price. then you might aswell just admit your love of fiat. and go play with it |
|
|
|
bruce have fun in miami just be sure to highlight the 6 points i make in post #7 and the hardware wallet wristband idea in post #11oh and lastly. can the devs really try to do a different TX priority calculation that actually works for the purpose its intended. EG not biased towards rich holders able to spam blocks every block just by holding 144btc with a 250byte tx while pushing developing countries out as 'spam' if they held 0.1btc and required to wait a week for their 250byte tx to register as priority EG instead of the old (total tx value*confirmations)/tx bytesize with target of 57,600,000 which is a richman/poorman emphasis calculation. change it to be something more fair and actually practical at solving the problem of tx's(bloat and regular spending spam attempts) EG ((age/txbytes)*(blocksize/txbytes)) where the target number is set based on mempool demand by a separate target calculation which is more about bloat control.. NOT income snobbery.. where low coin maturity(age) and higher byte size penalizes them and it also factors in future blocksize increases over time to actually gives more of an allowance in the priority as blocksize buffer increases. but dont worry about my example. just tell the devs to sort themselves out and do some code rules instead of using fee's as the motivator. because fee's dont motivate people to be more leaner with their tx's or less spammier.. it just makes honourable people pay more due malicious spammers.
i say this below with a slight edge of humour although its content has got merit to think about: if anyone starts rebuttling about gigabyte blocksizes. please slap them with a reality stick or a wet fish and remind them that the actual proposals offered are actually workable and within reason.. no one has proposed gigabyte blocks.. not tomorrow, not next year not even the next decade. if core actually help the community with dynamic block release starting at 2-4mb this year. to allow unbiased non-bandcamp creating equal and free choice.. then later once activated if nodes cannot cope with a certain size(EG 8mb+) in say 2020 the nodes will not flag desire for a certain size (EG 8mb+ in say 2020) meaning a consensus wont go beyond what is capable by the majority. consensus itself can solve the 'what if it gets too big' problem by the nodes who are struggling, not voting to go big. it does not need devs with secret agenda's holding it bake using fake doomsdays to scare the community... let the nodes decide.. thus pools wont push the activation if they know nodes cant cope(yep i said nodes, not devs). 2-4mb is already deemed safe so no point holding back 1mb. and it will grow naturally when the majority can cope with more. there is no point limiting natural growth purely with potsmoking fuelled fake stores of unnatural and stupidly irrational growth doomsdays. when the community have only proposed rational and safe numbers..(2-4mb) bigger edge if humour: maybe next year rename is to the 'satoshi roundtable' to 'blockchain closet' to emphasise its no longer about bitcoin(satoshi) and its also behind closed doors |
|
|
|
ha ha ha, failed sig spammer.. i have reported you to the sig campaign owner. dont expect any income |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not something to be impose to someone. Uses it who wants. Bitcoin replacing a bank would force the population to use bitcoin instead of another currency they could want to use. I believe bitcoin doesn't want it happens.
Each country can have its own currency and allow their population to use crypto currencies, there is no problem with this, everyone is happy.
yep free choice away from the bank is the right mindset. we dont need bitcoin to become the one world only currency or it will become as corrupt as fiat, once governments, IMF and banks start controlling it. leave banks to play with their dead/debt money and just have bitcoin as an alternative open and free choice. |
|
|
|
just addition. I think we need some semInars because in a seminar, people can ask more and listen the explanation of bitcoin because I think not every people like to read. and sometimes a few people will throw pamphlets. I sometimes see that. so it will be effective to tell them eather than ask them to read.
yep meetups, start as a gathering of a dozen seminars are for groups of dozen-100 conferences are for 100-more this is the way to get the word out locally. by discussing it in your area and learning and starting projects locally. these things dont need large funds upfront. they can be self funded. EG price of a coffee, then as things get professional, price of a entry fee to cover the location hire for the day/weekend. where the ticket sale or coffee sale covers the costs. it also does more than just a pamphlet. it inspires idea's gets people forming projects, businesses, plans. start small and free. as a meetup, once a week/month what ever you choose, advertise it for free meetup.com and local sections of forums you think are best suited. use a free location like a cafe/bar for a small group.. then as things expand then self fund via the group you have |
|
|
|
to me in future as much as the number of bitcoin users is increasing hope that banks will start thinking about how to start accepting bitcoin in banks. because in future bitcoin will the main currency of the people and will be using in all over the word equally.
banks wont start accepting bitcoin. banks will use hyperledger. but PEOPLE can choose to avoid banks and hold bitcoin instead. in short. WE DONT NEED BANKS!!! banks will be held to regulations of only trading something they can 100% trade, control and audit. this will be a FIAT 2.0 done on the hyperledger. people will use non banks to swap back into fiat2.0.. EG OTC(over the counter)traders/decentralsied exchanges banks will in the future lose the retail market arena(consumer<->merchant spending). and banks will be used only for the tax payments to public services and treasury .. and behind the scenes private fiat market stuff like derivatives, bonds, etc. |
|
|
|
just came across a documentary about bitcoin called "banking on bitcoin" cited as created 2016 sorry if this streaming site gives a couple annoying pop-ups. most sites do these days if anyone can link a less annoying site, ill list it https://123movies.cloud/film/banking-on-bitcoin-18789/watching.htmlreview interviews with lots of people mentioned everything from cypherpunks, a bit about how bitcoin works (no big technical detail, so noob friendly) mtgox, silkroad, bitinstant, VC's jumping in, bankers starting altcoins. and a few speculations on who is satoshi summary fair 50/50 unbiased. mentioning major events and history of bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
CRA does know about bitcoin.
but
some of the call centre guys at many government agencies are just temporarily employed staff that just take notes and ask supervisors.
their training is usually 1 hour basic knowledge and 1 day shadowing another colleague.
usually you are passed on and told to review the website or seek advice from an accountant/specialist. or asked to be put on hold while they consult their supervisor/a manual
EG even the staff at KFC dont know the colonels secret ingredient. or the calories per chicken breast. or even the type of fat its cooked in. they are just customer facing low paid employee's
|
|
|
|
-snip-
Introducing CoinCare - we insure your bitcoin from volatility.
-snip-
I still don't get this, you said you insure our coins from volatility. What exactly do you mean to say? Let's say like, if the price goes below the rates at which we lock our coins at your place, will we get the coins based on another currency or something? What's the difference then? this was the OP's announcement in another topic Hello everyone,
I'm looking for opinions on a concept that I would like to release.
The issue for the majority of potential bitcoin users is the price volatility, which gives them uncertainty investing in the currency.
So what if there was a way to ensure that your investment is safe for a fee per month as an insurance package?
As an example, if a coin is worth $1000 and the user wants to protect it from dropping below $500, they can purchase an insurance package for a low monthly fee that would purchase the bitcoin for $1000 if it dropped below $500.
Is this something that you think would be beneficial to the bitcoin community and to the general risk side of the currency?
I have a platform ready to launch, let me know guys.
guaranteeing to pay out in dollars if the price tanked below $500, he will pay his premium customers $500 a coin |
|
|
|
Franki1, do you also smell something fishy here?
yes, but im trying to hold back on pointing out the fish until he digs himself into a hole. then i can throw the fish inside and let it stink. im seeing how much he knows and how much he is willing to reveal first. |
|
|
|
|
below was a summary of the last years debates using actual numbers, stats and ideas admitted by core devs.
but wrote without their hiding the details under the carpet games, so yes it will have my biased comments
segwit
yep.. limit the transaction count.. dont expect more than 7tx/s
(same numbers suggested as expectations 2009/2013) but due to feature bloating we only get 3tx/s pre-segwit today..
meaning if 100% of users use segwit only expect 7tx/s again. if less than 100% use segwit expect less than 7tx/s but more than current 3tx/s
meaning a one time gesture of pretend growth. but in reality just resetting expectations back to normal of 2009-2013 temporarily again.
much like the pretend "fee discount". just resetting expectations of fee's back to 2015 average cost.. temporarily again
increase bandwidth,
although core believe 4mb is now "bandwidth safe" how that will be utilised is not 4x tx count, but...:
1mb txdata, 1.1mb witness, 1.9mb future extended features = 4mb weight
EG:(1 for input-output.. 1.1 for signature.. 1.9 for confidential commitments/other features)
yep we wont get 4x tx count.. only at best 2x CURRENT average. and only IF 100% use segwit.
user advantage/disadvantages
old transaction users (long term holders) wont benefit from it and infact penalised more because their old tx's would be treated as the cost of more than 1 segwit tx(based on bytes). and as described above only 7tx/s is achievable if EVERYONE moved across to the new transaction type.
meaning even though the maths of 2009-2013 suggested 1mb blocks and 250byte/tx yielded 7tx/s
current feature core estimates suggest 2.1mb blocks of todays 500byte average will yield 7tx/s, with 1.9mb spare area in weight for extended features later (but not extra transactions beyond 7tx/s when future features enabled)
couple months ago stats: feature core estimates suggest 1.8mb blocks of todays 400byte average will yield 7tx/s, with 2.2mb spare features area in weight for extended features later (but not extra transactions beyond 7tx/s when future features enabled)
or later on
full bloat/feature heavy core estimations suggest 4mb blocks of 1kb/tx will yield 7tx/s
yet the community have instead asked for a compromise
2mb blocks yielding 7tx/s (no segwit, no extended features)
or
4mb (2mb base 4mb weight segwit, but no confidential commitment features) of 7tx's - as a compromise to allow segwit
but with a dynamic block consensus utility to not depend on dev spoonfeeding.
so that the community can later. say 2018-2020 have:
4mb blocks 14tx/s
or
6mb (3mb base 6mb weight segwit, but no confidential commitment features) of 10tx's - as a compromise to allow segwit
...
but nah
core dont want 4mb blocks for 14tx's, heck they dont even want to allow more than 7tx's even if they think 4mb or even 2mb is ok
they prefer 4mb blocks of 7tx's and bloated features raising the average tx to 1kb each.. but having a bit of grace/gesture period of a possible 2.1mb bandwidth of 7tx's.. before the extended feature bloating begins.. which will happen before 100% of users switched to segwit, thus users wont get to see/benefit the one time boost potential gesture, before bandwidth increases to 4mb but tx numbers remain at best 7tx's.
above was a summary of the last years debates using actual numbers, stats and ideas admitted by core devs.
|
|
|
|
|
banks wont disapear. however they will centralize.
EG
in the UK a few decades ago.
halifax,Lloyds,TSB,Bank of scotland
were all separate banks. but to save on having 4 bank branches per town. they all merged due to some mergers and acquisitions and become one entity.
barclays done the same taking over, woolich and even america's lehman brothers..
so although you WILL see less bank branches in the streets of your town. that does not mean there is less banking control over peoples lives. infact there is more.
barclays for instance is heading up/managing the payment system of Apple pay in the UK. (one touch payment)
barclays is going to go one step deeper and offer smartwatch/wristbands as more convenient methods of payment without having to type in values/destinations or even pin numbers.
and yes barclays is neck deep involved in hyperledger. so expect the new IMF (hyperledger) to be changing the banks background tech to hyperledger and for fiat2.0 to be smartwatch/applepay based payment methods. not requiring bank branches.
this is why bitcoin needs to stop trying to push user adoption via sales pitches. but to get devs to allow onchain scaling and also get devs to revamp hardware wallets to be more like NFC smart watches. so that bitcoin is useful and usable by anyone..
otherwise it wont compete against the tyrany of central banks
|
|
|
|
Hey Frank,
Sorry our address, terms etc are all included in the quotation - I will work on putting them on display on the website.
you are aware that by offering terms of repayment in dollars. your automatically required to comply with american law. meaning you are going to need an MSB licence. yep even insurance companies need an MSB licence. lets say you set up a business on the Virgin islands. having a US bank on the US side but an office ok the british side of the Virgin islands. you would still need to comply and register here U.S. Virgin Islands Money Transmitter License Department: Division of Banking & Insurance Website: http://ltg.gov.vi/division-of-banking-and-insurance.htmlremember MTGOX.. although having offices in japan, the banks were handling dollars.. and when they got real 'popular' the US regulators stepped in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox#2013and within 6 months MTGOX started its exit strategy. and ran off within 10months of regulators poking at mtgox.
anyway, i wanted to see your 'info' so sent a quote. 1. seems to be a manual system so im guessing your just plucking a number out of a hat rather than having a automatic quote calculator. 2. your thankyou page "Go back to CoinCare" does not hyperlink back to homepage.. seems like you rushed out a website GUI without much care/attention to detail seems your not well researched in the regulatory requirements of being a financial business (handling/offering fiat) |
|
|
|
|
in other words
OP is selling 'the blacklist' of people conned into pyramid/HYIP/scams
only problem is..
if his list had any real utility, he would be using it himself to scam them, and become rich.. instead of needing to try scavenging pocket change by selling the list.
OP do yourself a favour
hand that list over to law enforcement so they can inform those on the list that they are victims of scams. and then the law enforcement can investigate who victimised them
|
|
|
|
I don't care on what the Unlimited Altcoin and his leader Roger Ver runs on. It's the attempt of a psychotic egomaniac to destroy the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin network for personal profit.
You're the one who needs to wake up. But I doubt it will happen, because then you will no longer be on Ver's payroll to spread his propaganda.
lol im about bitcoin diversity to help its security on one chain.. not band camp ass kissing. funny part is that you need to research your centralization mindset, as its obvious you care more about protecting blockstream then you do care about research and/or bitcoins diversity consensus of one chain. let me guess your going to rebuttle gigabyte blocks and terrabyte chains..(irrational made up doomsdays to sell a myth) your going to ignore that pruned/no-witness clients will dilute the node count your going to proclaim you love core as your kings and deserve to be in control your going to ignore that no one should be in control where everyone should be on an equal playing field your going to scream how having bitcoin governed by banker paid devs is a positive and how independent consensus should be avoided |
|
|
|
im pee'd off that the military(government/banks) have paid a private contractor(blockstream) to take over control of the worlds jet manufacturing(bitcoin devs)
its no longer independent manufacturers(diverse devs) independently making jets(code implementations) to defend us in a civil war(citizens vs government/banks) its now all controlled by the military(government/banks) that citizens are trying to fight against
It's almost painful to read this hogwash. The blockstream-takes-control-over-bitcoin legend was constructed by Roger Ver to push people towards his altcoin schemes. The true enemy of a decentralized Bitcoin is the raving lunatic Roger Ver. He even admitted publicly that he doesn't care if Bitcoin becomes another Paypal. The simple reason: He hopes to profit from Bitcoin splitting up, because his altcoin investments might gain value in this case. That's why he is pushing for big blocks and a controversial hard fork. what you say sounds like something you have been told by a blockstream lover.. nothing original and nothing researched. bitcoin unlimited has been running on bitcoins mainnet - wake up bitcoin unlimited has never proposed an intentional split it has wanted and continued to want to use consensus to have just 1 chain - wake up it is blockstream devs that want blockstreams opposition to fork off. - wake up Gmaxwell proposed anyone not core should ForK off What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other. I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this. gmaxwell proposed auto rejecting blocks simply because those blocks dont vote for core If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.
kind of funny how gmaxwell wants to cause an intentional split just to activate a soft fork.. very counter intuitive as also shown above, gmaxwell is so desperate and depraved he calls anything not core an altcoin... makes me laugh that he stoops that low to confuse his sheep blockstreams tactic is to look at their own malicious acts and them point them malicious acts at someone else to hide what they(blockstream) are doing. if you want to look at who is involved with the banks check out the hyperledger members and who is being invited to the 'satoshi roundtable' secret discussions. https://www.hyperledger.org/about/membershttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1745409.0letting in a few non corporates into the discussion is just an empty gesture, done for an empty pretence of unbiased discussions. much like having unpaid interns(volunteer) spell checkers in core, pretend to be unbiased but ultimately them interns/volunteers are kissing blockstreams ass hoping to get a job with them one day if they can prove their loyalty and devotion. bitcoin needs diversity and consensus.. its blockstream that want to be the main controller of code decision.. its why they called their group CORE. because they want to be at the CORE of bitcoin. they want to be the code 'engine' of bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
