Really? He wasn't good in coding? If now bitcoin is without leader, than why did he leave bitcoin, his creation? PS I think satoshi won't be "it".
I read posts and people says that Gavin and Hearn are trying to sabotage bitcoin, can anyone tell me who are these people? Sorry for my low knowledge in this tast but I am very interested in it.
from 2009 there were many independent people working on bitcoin, they were compiling their own implementations and helping each other with new features and bug fixes. where sourceforge was one of many, but the most popular location of the code. but some had their own locations too, which was advisable as it approached 2010 more people joined and helped. satoshi disappeared by the end of the year when bitcoin gained negative press as drug currency and devs were being slated as government plants. in 2011 github became one of the locations aswell as sourceforge and other places as the main download locations. by the time it got to 2013 (2 years after satoshi left) github became the popular download location. but people still had their own versions in other download locations. 2013 github.com/bitcoin got rebranded into bitcoin core, and suddenly they seen themselves not as independent individuals but as a power house. between 2013-2015 several people got peed off that it was turning into a power house and some left for different reasons a few notable names were either pushed out, deemed negative to the power house, moved off as a bait and switch. and many other dramatic things. mike hearn: owned bitcoinJ and started up XT with other devs and sourced some VC funding (hindsight: was a bait and switch when the bankers were trying to gain control of bitcoin they linked themselves to blockstream, bitcoinj and XT). it was a bait and switch because blockstream-core devs were attacking XT as banksters(hindsight: attacking their own), to at the time hide/distract cores involvement with bankers by pretending something not core was the banker enemy. gavin andresen: moved away from blockstream-core due to the banker politics. and joined XT, but soon found out they too were still part of the same banker politics, so he moved out again and formed his own dev group in classic. other names: J garzik moved to bitpay, then formed bloq, then joined the bankers..., others moved over to MIT, blockchain.info, or other bitcoin related developments. even today luke JR is trying to brand his implementation as Knots, as an alternative to core, while being paid by the same bankers that contract devs in core, bitcoinj, and xt. independent code and non-banker funded implementations are becoming harder to find. even green address and other bitcoin standalone or web based /app based implementations ar coming under the same banker control. so far the main one not attached to bankers is BU (even gavin seems to be tied to bankers now, due to his ties to bloq). but that hasnt stopped the bankers diverting banker intentions of core, by attacking BU as being the saboteurs. as the latest bait and switch to try getting users into the banker dominance camp (wolf calling a sheep a wolf, to scare the sheep into the wolves mouths) |
|
|
|
if every people can cheat the blockchain technology, do you guess that bitcoin dev team will not prevent this and make an upgrade for blockchain technology itself? if there is a hole in one system, then the team will be fix the system and make it secure than before so the chance for getting cheat is reduce. i think its hard to be happen because the bitcoin dev team is a solid team and they will manage it by good.
you do know the "team" your talking about are all under analogy: 'one roof'.. you do know the dozen paid devs are paid by bankers. and their 90+ unpaid interns are hoping to appease the paid devs in the hopes of landing a job with them. dont think core are independent. much like dont think Hilary Clinton is independent from Bill. yes they have different first names, different ages, different job titles, different genitals.. but obviously they are under one roof there needs to be different codebases that can work on the same network but able to mitigate risk of one team creating a bug/dictatorship rule change without there being a logical and independent consensus agreement alot of people are forgetting the security feature known as consensus and instead preferring the bankers single team dictatorship to pre-set and spoon feed rules out to the network. all because people "trust" leadership, rather than having an open system of no leader. the concern is not that a USER can mess with the blockchain.. but a dictatorial dev team can. much like you dont have to worry about someone owning an asic miner messing with block creation. but a dictatorial pool thats why we should be aware of 51% of a pool dominance. thats why we should be aware of 51% of a implementation of node dominance. |
|
|
|
Could 51% nodes attack be mean if bitcoin has got a geopolitical attack?
you are talking about 2 things.. geo.. and politics firstly. geo 28% of nodes are in america.. lets say america systematically cut off the internet right at the ISP of 1500 ISP customers..(yes its possible) it wont really harm the network as there are still other nodes spread out in 90 countries. so the blockchain is still distributed. secondly..political 4400 of 5400 (83%) are running bitcoin core of different aged varieties (27% running latest version of core) lets say there was a known bug in core.. or a trojan in core since version 0.8 that has a political reason to be there to activate when core decided the time was right.. 27-83% of nodes can get affected. its not just about geographic diversity.. but also the implementations need to be more diverse. 3 main groups. or 8 total groups is not enough diversity especially when core devs have been very loud about getting other implementations to fork off so that core can dominate bitcoin |
|
|
|
How do you pretend that "everyone is going to cheat the blockchain"? In order to do any relevant changes you need control of 51%+ of the network, this is already hard to do, now you explain me how everyone is going to perform a 51% attack? this makes no sense sorry.
your not quite talking about a 51% mining attack but a 51% node attack. not so hard to do if over 51% of nodes are all running the same code. though even at 51% its just going to cause a wash of orphans where some accept some reject the rule. it requires a large majority to accept it without much of an issue. but even at over just 51% it will gt accepted once the wash of orphans counter each other until there is an ultimate single agreed blockheight usually including the need of a large majority of miners to accept it too also alleviates the amount of orphaning before the single agreed blockheight becomes apparent yes a softfork mechanism can be used for bad aswell as good. especially if the softfork is being wrote by just one dev group who want all alternatives to fork off to ensure the softfork activates unobstructively |
|
|
|
FYI Satoshi was not particularly good in coding, Satoshi's code was sloppy, but it was effective.
You mean effective in creating bugs, like the one that broke the Bitcoin supply? No. That is entirely different. He's not the only person to blame there, as the code was reviewed by others.
love it when lauda can argue with himself and counter his own point with his own defense |
|
|
|
|
kprawn i can see your tying to wake up from the propaganda.
but here is something you need to understand about bitcoin.
bitcoin is not a single dot
.
nor ever should be
imagine it like 52 dots(i CBA to use 5200 dots for this demo, but i think you understand the idea)
.............
.............
.............
.............
out of those dots
the majority are run in separate locations by separate people
out of the dots some are fully uptodate(coloured), some are out of date(black)
when it comes to 'locations' needing to be targeted by DDoSers there are upto 52(but not exactly) dots required to hit
when it comes to 'locations' needing to be targeted by file deletion virus there are upto 52(but not exactly) dots required to hit
but,
when it comes to 'diversity' needing to be targeted by bug risks created recently, there are 17 redpurpleorgange, 4 blue, 1 green, (rest are individual)
when it comes to 'diversity' needing to be targeted by trojan risks created recently, there are 17 redpurpleorgange, 4 blue, 1 green, (rest are individual)
when it comes to 'diversity' needing to be targeted by old bugs, there are 42 redpurpleorgangeblack, 4 blue, 1 green, (rest are individual)
when it comes to groups control of rules,
42 (red, orange, purple and black) coded by one group.
6 (blue and black) coded by another group
2 (black) by another group
and the final 2 are individual
when you start to realise 52 dots are not 52 dots, but instead clusters(points of weakness) of less dot. and that instead of a 51%mining attack but a malicious 51%dev attack can happen. you start to see where the risks lay.
location is diverse, but dev diversity is not.
when you realise 42 of 52 dots are coded by a team that has banking interests.
and that team are trying to get 10 dots to fork off to an altcoin. to have 42 of 42 control.. you see the problem
strangely those 10 dots. have never wanted to fork off or wanted the 42 to fork off. they just want there to not be a >51% dev attack/dictatorship.
and instead improve diversity(no >51% single control) where rules only change when the dots(not groups) can in the majority consent to a logical upgrade independently and without group dictatorship.
right now the group that coded the 42 dots, want 42 of 42 dots to all be running red software. and other dots be on a different network
right now the group that coded the 6 dots 2 dots and other 2 dots, want more groups, more diversity and more independent dots
where by each group happily communicate together on one network and change the rules when each dot is happily agreeing to a certain setting independently (consensus)
|
|
|
|
Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?
I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation. If you want to make a counter statement, go for it. I am curious to know how a rage quit from Hearn and Gavin's competing technology are not hurting Bitcoin. To go public and telling people Bitcoin is a failed experiment, is definitely not my idea of someone trying to support the technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/mike-hearn-senior-bitcoin-developer-says-currency-failed-experimenttry not to cast the same brush of hearne against other devs.. hearne works for r3 too.. hearne was another bait and switch |
|
|
|
Ok Franky you make a good point there, but would you care explaining what their motives would be, to do this? Do you think they will deliberately code something that might cripple Bitcoin in the future to pave the way for Hyperledger? If they are doing this, why are people accepting this and what prevents them from shifting to a better implementation or even a Alt coin, if this happens?
They will hurt their reputation with a Bait n switch like this and people will not support Hyperledger, once they realize what they have done.
blockstream dont care or need "bitcoin rep".. no one is paying them bitcoins to code bitcoin. they dont want rep from the bitcoin community long term. motive: they have $90mill and banker rep..which is their long term thing they want to keep. they see bitcoin as just "the experiment" done voluntarily and that calling it "an experiment" shows their mindset of desire to fail as for the bitcoin community by people supporting the idea of LN, sidechains.. people are NAIVELY supporting hyperledger(the banks), without knowing it. (guess who is going to run the sidchains. guess who is going to dual-sign as the hub people channel to) actions: much of it rvved up in early spring this year with the R3CKED campaign. gmaxwell while actually paid by R3. was shouting to everyone to hate gavin, and hate all other implementations. including classic, bu and dozen others.. Edit. i separated out hearne*, bitcoinj and xt, the next paragraph explains why bitcoinJ is now blockstream friendly so dont expect unbasied diverse code. *hearne is part of the r3/blockstream bait and switch blockstream also bought up a few other wallet services and blockexplorers into the banking cartel.. (check out hyperledger partners/members for familiar names) bitcoin knots is blockstream friendly. programmed by a blockstream contractor (Luke JR) to fake an unbiased implementation but obviously coded segwit instead of his pledge for true capacity. anyway, the plan was and still is to get all non blockstream controlled nodes to FORK to an alt. using any tactic they can to gain dominance.. gmaxwell was pushing anything not blockstream friendly as the nasty bankers or centralizers or bigblockers(hypocrisy bait and switch). fully knowing where gmaxwell was getting his own funding from and knowing his own end goals. as for the term bigblockers.. funny that blockstream now want 4mb weight for the confidential features while still limited transaction capacity in the base at 1mb. (1mb base, 0.8mb witness, 2.2mb other features=4mb weight) 4mb is more then 2mb.. so cores 4mb is the real bigblockers hypocrisy has been loud here february 9th 2016 https://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2016/02/linux-foundation-s-hyperledger-project-announces-30-foundingThe intent to form the Hyperledger Project, an open source project to advance the blockchain digital technology for recording and verifying transactions, was announced at the end of 2015. Founding members of the initiative represent a diverse group of stakeholders, including: ABN AMRO, Accenture, ANZ Bank, Blockchain, BNY Mellon, Calastone, Cisco, CLS, CME Group, ConsenSys, Credits, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), Deutsche Börse Group, Digital Asset Holdings, Fujitsu Limited, Guardtime, Hitachi, IBM, Intel, IntellectEU, J.P. Morgan, NEC, NTT DATA, R3, Red Hat, State Street, SWIFT, Symbiont, VMware and Wells Fargo.
Global Business Leaders Contribute to Hyperledger
Since announcing the intent to form in December, the Hyperledger Project has received proposed code and technology contributions from several companies, including Blockstream, Digital Asset, IBM and Ripple. Other community members are contemplating contributions of their own.
started in january 2016 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.0yes blockstream R3 and hyperledger had contracts signed late 2015 even before blockstream paid and organised the scaling bitcoin event, which resulted in THEIR "roadmap" for bitcoin. and in january they seen there were people who did not like the banker plans.. so blockstream "flipped the script" to make the ones not liking the banker plans, into being accused of being the 'bankers' to hide blockstreams own banker controls and contracts.(bait and switch) gmaxwell even with getting r3 funding was treating non blockstreamers as banksters by getting involved on the r3cked campaign. wanting anything not blockstream to fork off to an alt so core can dominate. blockstreams only reason to control core but simultaneously pretend not to control core. is so they can dissolve and abolish core when the endgame has played out and keep the blockstream business unaffected by it. anyway i digress into the future. lets get back to the past.. the whole try pushing gavin, garzick, hearne, and many others into altcoin land revved up in januray onwards https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425;sa=showPosts;start=260page 14 with gmaxwell jumping in the r3cked campaign alot. other implementations want to use bitcoins consensus of diverse majority work together to upgrade the network as a single chain, while staying diverse, decentralized and independent nodes.. but gmaxwell hates the idea of not having blockstream and 90 unpaid spellchecker interns in total dominant control of bitcoins future 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
|
|
|
|
|
its not bad form
its just expected that if someone wants something done within an hour you try to make sure its paid ontime by outbidding the other transactions to get into the next block.
if however it was paying a landlord rent. that had to be paid by end of day then its less necessary to be the very next in line.
the issue is not that humans are of "bad form" for not paying enough of a fee. its that the fee rules themselves are biased and failing the community.
the banker contracted developers have botched a few things and instead of limiting spam using real code rules, they use economics.. they let the price act as an auction like mechanism. only offering ~5040000 slots every 2 weeks (~360000 a day(~2500 every 10 minutes))
where there is no selective way to guarantee it even gets in the very next block or no selective way to guarantee paying a certain fee to get into a certain block.
EG imagine
the recommended rate might be 0.0001, you outbid it 0.00011.. 3minutes go by and 3000 people paid 0.00012... 3minutes go by and 3000 paid 0.00013
now your tx is not getting in the next block but 2500 people paying 0.00013 do.
you think, ok only 2-4 blocks wait. but every 3 minutes new people are adding more transactions into the waiting list. now its at 0.00015 minimum and a list of 60000 peoples transactions have outbid you.
-imagine no new tx's get added on and the outbidding stops-(explanation waffles on if we continue adding more to waiting list)
your tx is not getting in the second block block but 2500 people paying 0.00015 do. even the 500 people at 0.00015 that didnt get into the first block, the same as the 3000 at 0.00014, the 500 at 0.00013 are getting frustrated and asking when is their chance
your tx is not getting in the third block but 500 people paying 0.00015 and 2000 paying 0.00014 do. again ur frustrated, the guys paying 0.00012, 0,00013 are frustrated.
now your tx is not getting in the fourth block but 1000 people paying 0.00014 and 500 paying 0.00013 and 1000 paying 0.00012 do.
still there are some paying 0.00012 getting frustrated as are you. but you think maybe you have a chance in the next block
-imagine new tx's get added on and the outbidding starts-
though transactions of 0.00012 have been added in fourth block. the average of 0.00015-0.00012 sets the networks estimate at 0.000135
and 3000 people pay 0.00014 to out bid the estimate.
now you and 0.00012 are really pi**ed your dropped to the bottom of the pile again
and although they just made their transactions. 2500 of them 0.00014 paying guys get in the fifth block
this auction of highest first. along with individual nodes also having mechanisms to not relay transactions unless they have a minimum fee does not help the price to be selective or reactive in respect of low demand times (averages dont drop instantly) but outbidding up is live reaction/selection.
such as the network of nodes are now using a pricing mechanism of an average of blocks pricing. meaning if one block had high demand. and the next block had low demand. the price does not instantly drop, instead this average delays any drops while the 'live auction' is reactive to push up the price quickly/instantly when demand rises. which has a bias of pushing the price up faster than down.
alot of people dont understand economics. and the devs trying to push a economic policy into a technology is already causing issues. there are technical ways to reduce spam, without resorting to economic policies. especially economic polocies that are not equally fair on the demand scales
alot of people dont understand that bitcoin is world wide. so when someone in usa's district of columbia treats 7cents as 30 seconds of minimum wage labour. someone in cuba sees it as 84 MINUTES of minimum wage labour. so some people dont understand that the fee actually affects people differently.
treating people from cuba, el savador, georgia, uganda, etc should be treated as spam if they dont want to pay more than an hours labour to use bitcoin... is bad
treating them as unimportant is arrogant. and only seeing bitcoin as something that should be used that can afford it. is where one of the many losses of bitcoins original ethos is disapearing to.
oh and if your reading this and about to defend banker paid devs decisions to use economics as a spam mechanism and then suggest third world countries wait for LN or sidechains. guess what. LN are conceiving a prepay of 0.006btc($4 right now) just to open a channel for 10 days
yep thats right upfront fee locked in thats the equivalent of cubas minimum wage of 84 hours.
as for side chains. them same banker paid devs are proposing demurrage (negative interest rate).
so inshort do not blame yourself for not paying enough. when its the devs that are doing all they can to add economic mechanisms to limit usability while pushing up the cost of use.
|
|
|
|
the simple solution is to never believe anything you read in media and to find non-media proof/evidence/research from real sources.
Now the problem is how do you know where the real sources are, since most of the information we get comes from the media? if they mention a company or a quote. search for that quote. if they are not mentioning anything factual then deem it as just their unbacked opinion for instance, the OP links an article. you could research Michael J Casey Digital Currency Initiative at the MIT Media Lab. book:"The Age of Cryptocurrency" and come to an opinion yourself about how informed this guy is. and how accurately coindesk may have quoted him |
|
|
|
nope the article has not got it quite correct imagine digital currency in laymansa single entry simple clear but stored on a computer instead of paper so its "digital" obviously the other 2 terms im about to explain 'cryptocurrency' and 'blockchain' are obviously using computers so they too are digital by default cryptocurrency in laymansa single secured entry message:"ABCDE has $1" signature:"G0bl3D1g00p l00k1ng B45ed 0n s1gn3ed m3554g3 wh3r3 ABCDE is the publ1c k3y 0f 4 crypt0gr4ph1c k3yp41r" where the data/entry is validated using cryptographic keypairs making a signature of the message to validate the public key is valid to the message blocks in laymensa cluster of entries - hint: yea you may spot another word for a cluster of data packaged up being refered to as a block of data. block 0:"
ABCDE has $1
DEFGH has $2
"
hash:6b74e0c07d0d81191564fc3c82b95933
or block ABCDE:"
ABCDE has $1
DEFGH has $2
"
signature:"G0bl3D1g00p B45ed 0n crypt0gr4ph1c k3yp41r wh3r3 ABCDE is the publ1c k3y"
its important to note a block does not need to include cryptocurrency entries. the clustered data can be anything. its important to note a block does not need to use hashes to package the cluster of entries into a block. it can use cryptographic keypairs. if using hashes, it does not need to be a single hash, it can be a combination. also it doesnt need to be any specific type of hashing algo. i used MD5 as an example hash in previous and next examples. which doesnt matter blockchains in laymensa cluster of entries, packaged together as a block, but also including the hash of the previous block to link the previous block to current block block 0:"
ABCDE has $1
DEFGH has $2
"
hash:6b74e0c07d0d81191564fc3c82b95933
block 1:"
ABCDE has $2
DEFGH has $3
6b74e0c07d0d81191564fc3c82b95933
"
hash:90e6edf62aa0c664516cdde9b7f9f144
block 2:"
ABCDE has $3
DEFGH has $4
90e6edf62aa0c664516cdde9b7f9f144
"
hash:fda9666b2c4ab12c7b11953875a5fefe
some systems can be a blockchain but without the cryptocurrency element. some systems can be a blockchain but without the hash element and instead have something else in each cluster that links to the previous such as a cryptographic keypair signature. some systems can be a cryptocurrency but without the blockchain element. all together there are atleast 10 main elements that bitcoin uses. together. where as some idea's of cryptocurrency /blockchains may only use one or two (as shown above) bitcoin instance uses atleast 10, some are 1) cryptocurrency entries 2) blocks 3) sha256 hashed blocks 4) blockchains hashed together 5) proof of work blockchains and other things on top. and yes 3-4-5 are three separate security measures that different systems networks can include not include or choose differently. blockchains can still be blockchains even without POW or sha based hashing but by not using the same amount of measures or the strongest form of each measure will make it less secure then bitcoins security level. other elements include 6)rule checking 7)distrubuted rule checking 8)distributd storage and so on |
|
|
|
9d not allowed..?? ok lets see what 9d could be to then work out why its not allowed hex=9(10)+d(14)=24 or simply alphanumerics 9(9)+d(4)=13 i was initially thinking were people hinting it was a simple swap where, hex(9d) to decimal= 10+14 = 24 = X but the others kept saying "you run out of letters using 9d".. yet 24 possibles is less than the 26 letters of the alphabet.. guess that was too simple of a swap. so its obviously not a straight hex to decimal then decimal to alphabet.. then there were people saying "grids" yet even the 3 grid system have more then 24 possibles. it has 27 possibles(3grids x 9=27).. again not causing a problem if a 9d was used so what grid system has less than 24 possibles to wipe out 9d as an option if converting via hex so what grid system has less than 13 possibles to wipe out 9d as an option if converting via alphanumerics so im guessing throw out the hex idea and go with alphanumerics. and have a grid of 12 possible results.. ive ruled out Grid1:
|A|B|C|
|D|E|F|
|G|H|I|
Grid2:
|J|K|L|
|M|N|O|
|P|Q|R|
Grid3:
|S|T|U|
|V|W|X|
|Y|Z| |
how about this?  any closer? in short does 6a - 7a - 8b equal ogq OR vy4 before i go through the whole thing? what im still trying to understand about the hints. is the involvement of the web address as part of the answer is it just hinting to type the answer into the address bar instead of the word game keypad or the answer includes the address |
|
|
|
to force a controversial hardfork by launching a huge FUD campaign were a total failure. However the constant disparagement of Core developers by an army of trolls and paid shills were a significant emotional burden for progress. I'm grateful, that Core developers did withstand the psychological pressure forced on them and did what's in the best interest of all freedom-loving Bitcoiners.
ya.ya.yo!
lol you do know that its only gmaxwell and chums wanting other implementations to controversially split. so core can swap out freedom for control the other implementations want to consensually upgrade the network within a single network of diversity and independent choice. seems you have been fed the wrong information. oh and look at who is paying the core devs.. 93+ banks are now in the same group with contracts with gmaxwell and his chums. goodluck trying to bait all of blockstreams faults as (fake) faults of anything not core related. it is obvious to see you want dictatorship not freedom or diversity. |
|
|
|
You don't need to believe everything this website is telling you, the internet is freedom of speech. You could continue to read the website, but simply make you own judgment from the story and make you own opinion.
You can validate the information from other reliable source.
but some people still have the mindset of the good old days where they think 'media' get paid to do the research and then explain it to the lay person accurately but in a simple form. things have changed its now used to twist accurate information and not make it simple which hides the truth and then blames people for reading it without the people doing the checks themselves.. you're never going to convince a media outlet to change its ways simply by no longer viewing them with a loss of a 0.001cent pay per clickbait fee , especially if they are funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars privately.. the 0.001cent click income wont rivel their private income to run a story the simple solution is to never believe anything you read in media and to find non-media proof/evidence/research from real sources. |
|
|
|
I was just wondering, where Bitcoin would have been, if Satoshi was still around?
FYI Satoshi was not particularly good in coding, and Bitcoin is probably much better off without a leader (although Satoshi may be around under a different alias). You mean effective in creating bugs, like the one that broke the Bitcoin supply? much like Pieter Wuille implemented levelDB before actually doing any backward compatibility bug tests to see how it would effect the blockchain in 2013.. and whooops it split the chain.. 0.8 leveldb bug  in short pieter wuille is not your god either, even if he is paid to be |
|
|
|
Satoshi was not a dictator, and his biggest mistake was to allow Gavin Andresen to participate in this experiment. If Gavin did not run to his masters, Satoshi would most probably still be around. Satoshi realized when these agencies got involved the experiment would fail, so he went dark.
Satoshi is not here to fight for Bitcoin, and it is now our duty to defend it against the people who wants it to fail. We should consider this as phase 1 in the attacks, because the other Blockchain based Ledgers are still under development and when they are done, we will see phase 2. ^hmmmmm^
the banking cartels dominance is already apparent, hyperledger is a "phase 2 attack".. guess whos building it.. blockstream the banking cartel want bitcoin to fail. they are doing it slowly and purposefully much like boiling a frog by putting it in cold water and slowly heading it so that it doesnt jump around, rather than throwing it in hot water. and shocking it to jump around instead of limiting sigops to control spam or other CODE/tech methods.. they use fee wars and use that as bait to promote LN (rustyrusssel of blockstream heading it up) right now half a dozen third world countries wont use bitcoin because a TX fee alone is more than an hours labour in their country. as for the switch to LN. those making it(blockstream/banking cartel) had a round table meetup in milan and suggested a 0.006btc deposit fee to use LN for 10 days.. as an acceptable fee https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.htmlthem trying to figure out how to stop spamming on LN. go to "results" and the spreadsheet shows using fees. (prepaid tab) 0.006btc prepaid. locktime 864000seconds (10 days) at todays prices thats over $4.20 prepay fee (100 minimum wage hours labour in developing countries) standard tricks of banking cartels, use economics to control everything. rather than rational and acceptable code economics: based on stats of real world uses of an average person using a credit card or buying something from a shop, is 42 times a month. (14 times per 10 days) that 0.006 deposit (over $4 at todays valuation) just to use it 14 times(average real world usage)... is yet another barrier of entry. so dont think LN is the utopia you think it is.. as for the next bait and switch they will propose (more reasons not to expand real bitcoin onchain capacity) will be sidechains. look at blockstreams patent for BITCOIN sidechains http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&s1=%22bitcoin%22&p=1&OS=%22blockchain%22&RS=%22bitcoin%22yes By being linked to Bitcoin's currency via two-way pegs, they are trying remove the openness of what people can and cannot do with bitcoin by making any bitcoin sidechain property of Gmaxwell and adam back by default. and guess what else. these sidechains are "demurrage" meaning your holdings of the sidchain token slowly disapears over time, and they get to keep the bitcoin that they lock you out from. so while screwing with transaction fees decades befor they are important. is crippling bitcoin so while delaying/holding off on REAL bitcoin capacity growth they are crippling bitcoin know your enemy blockstream came about in 2013 bitcoin-core came about in 2013 before blockstream it was bitcoin-qt, which anyone could tinker with gmaxwell and many others have been paid to go against the bitcoin ethos and instead forfil contractual obligations know your enemy dont give core(blockstream contractors and 90+ unpaid spell checker interns) ultimate power of dictatorship. instead get bitcoin back to being a decentralised and diverse open network of free-choice and no barriers. we should not rely on those offchain plans as the future of bitcoin. especially in the hands of the bankers. especially when its so obvious what the end game is |
|
|
|
Just to be clear here, you want another fiat currency that can be manipulated by governments < Flexible Cap > so that they can print < create tokens > without limits, like they are doing it now with Fiat money? How will that be a improvement on the current system?
Governments have already shown that they cannot be trusted with the creation of money. They print it like toilet paper and it decrease in value. You need something like Bitcoin, with a fixed amount of tokens and participation from the public to determine it's value/cap for it to be successful.
i dont want that. im just explaining what the banking cartel are doing. too many people are defending blockstream and seeing hyperledger as the way forward for bitcoin. im just throwing info out to show what the banking cartels are doing. not what we should be wanting. i want bitcoin to remain as an asset currency with no barrier to entr, no barrier to utility as the open choice to stay separate and away the risks of the banking cartels hyperledger knowing your enemy is better then not knowing it and pretending you will win the battle by default. i find it strange how people ar playing into the bankers hands and wanting to squeeze bitcoin into a limb of the banking cartel as for increasing the supply.. this is already being proposed by blockstream they are changing the real hard coded units of measure in the future. but hiding it from sight at the users GUI/frontend. satoshi CODED bitcoin to produce 5000000000 units per block initially, then halve every 210000blocks. it was only a human mind. not code that converts this unit of measure to 50btc for human GUI purposes currently at code level we are making 1250000000 units of measure a block as part of LN. and future bitcoin node code that will change to 1250000000000 units of measure a block but at GUI level it will be 12.50000000,000 meaning although people can say there are still 21mill (GUI measures of btc cap) at code level 2100000000000000 units of measure will be 2100000000000000000 units of measure thats right bitcoin loses its fixed 100000000 unit of measure status extending mining beyond the year 2140. but hey lets now watch blockstream/banker defenders call it a good thing because the GUI tells users its still a 21m cap. even if there are 1000x more individual units that can handed out. when this kind of thing is don on wallstreet, its called share dilution. |
|
|
|
Disclosure: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in Blockstream. digital currency group and blockstream are both in the 90+ bankers hyperledger collaboration |
|
|
|
Yeah, I just now started looking at the stuff on the main website; and under the finance section the biggest thing that popped out to me is when it said it's goal is to "increase transparency" in the financial market. That is perhaps the worst, most malicious thing that we could hand over on a silver platter to governments. This is the kind of things tyrants dream of; a way to always be able to see who's sending money where and have a way to stop them if it doesn't please them. They could single handedly control people by forcing them to make it illegal to purchase anything from "Mom and Pop's general store" and force them to buy things from "Walmart" if Walmart CEO's give political figures incentives for doing so and passing those type of laws. Cryptocurrencies need to be permissively transparent... not forced to be transparent on default. its not about transparency as in every customers account balance is transparent to the public. its not to make customer accounts "public".. but sell customer details privately (including access to balance and spending data) to the highest bidder. much the same as how google and facebook sell personal data. even when users have their profiles private to the public that data can still be sold behind the scenes theres other parts that they can be more transparent about how they make their money (previously as loans<-> money creation) so thy can sell this money creation and monkey making, as a sellable service itself. rather than the previous hidden policy that meant they had to keep bank secrets a secret |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
