Ha, I remember that. You almost sucked the ass right of poor Adam Back. I'd say he felt like he had found a lost puppy.
You are a sham, Lauda.
This is complete bullshit and an outright lie. I was in a private channel, definitely not in one where the likes of you are. You would be surprised where I can pop up. |
|
|
|
You still don't understand HF implications. A rushed HF would break a huge part of the infrastructure.
learn consensus you are soo deep down the reddit script rabbit hole that you can only think of 2 things 1. softs best case scenario.. 2. hards worse case scenario. you are now even in favour of letting core "break a huge part of the infrastructure" simply because you dont understand just because they say its soft is meaningless soft just means they used a backdoor exploit to bypass real consensus. going soft does not mean its safer. just means that in theory they can bypass some of the communities right to vote. that is all. hard just means full community vote. without bypassing going hard does not mean its riskier. just means that in theory it requires full consensus of the communities right to vote. that is all. no one (apart from core) has wanted intentional splits or controversial splits. wake up to who is throwing the "break a huge part of the infrastructure" bombs. Its getting tiresone listening to the fear-mongering about HF -v- SF. Its all about politics. A well organised HF is not problematic. It only becomes problematic when it is contentious - and the only party that have made it contentious by their intransigence ( and lies and double crossing) is Blockrtream/Core. Its political because they sold a specific use case to AXA which required Bitcoin to be subverted into a settlement layer, for transactions occurring on a TBD second layer. LN was the star turn in that role for 12 month ( but I think the veneer is finally starting to crack on that cheap trick) Segwit (which in itself is a good feature) was butchered/hacked so that it could be deployed as a SF, purely to support the narrative of "HF is dangerous!!" But I think the message is starting to get though now. People can see the degree to which the narative is being controlled on this forum and /r/bitcoin. Blockstream labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a shill is getting transparent. When your only argument against someone is to call them a "shill" you have lost the argument. |
|
|
|
And yet you hold the pretense that you are an authority .  Where was this stated? Can't you just stop trolling for a single day? Seriously , what is your rank in the Bitcoin Core Troll Army?
I briefly joined the slack sometime in 2016 I believe, and shortly left after. It was not productive. I'm part of nothing in these political games. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the names that I've mentioned earlier. Ha, I remember that. You almost sucked the ass right of poor Adam Back. I'd say he felt like he had found a lost puppy. You are a sham, Lauda. |
|
|
|
And that's because I think it is unlikely the scaling problem won't be addressed. The situation is already heated enough as to assume it will be addressed before end of year. If it wasn't then we would have a real problem.
or you could look at it the other way and perceive that a fork back down is an endorsement for core to carry on as they are. they can point to their solution and say the only thing holding it back is miners. those miners will also know that forcing through a fork ain't gonna go down well. more deadlock. i really hope not though. I am speculating on miners finally coming back to their senses and start signaling for segwit activation. The ball is now on Jihan BU's court. That wont happen unless core capitulate on scale. Core wont capitulate ( they are in slash and burn mode now) Their future depends on fee market and LN ( which is still miles off) They might as well fight on or burn bitcoin. I suspect they may fail at both. |
|
|
|
|
* Calls thread Armageddon Avoidance
** goes on to describe Armageddon.
Go Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
I wish you could understand the difference between
A. signaling readiness for a new feature, and
B. voting for a new feature
A little learning is a dangerous thing, or so they say. So tell me iCE, whats the difference between A. Acquiescence and B. Engagement |
|
|
|
Wrong
If I was an organisation like Western Union or the IMF (who can print fiat money, so it's essentially cost free to them),
Hey Carlton!  So the IMF can 'print' money? lol. You really have no idea, do you? You're very naive
To engage you in 'debate'? Probably. |
|
|
|
I think, in the grand scope of things, the way the bug was handled is the bigger issue (even though the bug itself was terrible). Every step of the way BU handled the situation poorly. The code was apparently barely reviewed in the first place.
I think you need to readjust your shit code parameters there, buddy. If you think for one second that crappy "assert-as-input-checking" is unique to BU or Classic then you are deluding yourself. This sloppy coding style in endemic in the bitcoin codebase (wbat is now called "Core"), and any attempt to characterize it as a BU thing is dishonest. Have a read of this for some examplesIt's a shit show, and I'm expected to trust these people with the Bitcoin network?
Welcome to Bitcoin! Thank$ for your fiat. |
|
|
|
Funny, over the years I've observed a pretty repeatable pattern with alt coins: 1) What always precedes an altcoin's parabolic rise is delusion and hubris 2) What always follows it is: - a mega crash, usually caused by a hack, serious flaw, unknown bug, insider theft, etc. - a community left in shock, disbelief - finally acceptance - and then an excruciatingly slow decent into eventual quiet irrelevance And how do you see bitcoin being any different, considering the overwhelming instinct of those involved to absolutely screw each other over? Because the shark scammers that PnD'ed Bitcoin in the beginning years have run out of hacks, flaws, DDoS attacks, media-created FUD, etc. to work with. Bitcoin is more rock-solid, distributed, and secure now than it has ever been in its 8 year history. The only thing they have left is to try and divide the community and slow things down. But that's losing it's effectiveness now too. Ask James Hilliard. If you think bitcoin doesnt contain zero day vulnerabilities, think again. And thats not even getting into the general network fuckery that any sizeable player (like James in conjunction with random hackers) can bring into play. It only workes when the invested are making money. screw everyone else.  |
|
|
|
Funny, over the years I've observed a pretty repeatable pattern with alt coins: 1) What always precedes an altcoin's parabolic rise is delusion and hubris 2) What always follows it is: - a mega crash, usually caused by a hack, serious flaw, unknown bug, insider theft, etc. - a community left in shock, disbelief - finally acceptance - and then an excruciatingly slow decent into eventual quiet irrelevance And how do you see bitcoin being any different, considering the overwhelming instinct of those involved to absolutely screw each other over? |
|
|
|
I have no idea what your jurisdiction is, but aren't you encouraging someone to break the law here? Which... again depending on your jurisdiction, may also be illegal.
Your filthy statist talk is not welcome around here!!  Back to MSNBC.com with you |
|
|
|
Kore is like the Ku Klux Klan
THEIR REIGN OF TERROR IS ENDING
Shattered dreams meets harsh reality  Why dont you ask questions at youre noob BU dev? They almost took the whole Bitcoin down to $0  Sooooooooooo.... antifragile. |
|
|
|
I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.
105 core devs. 5 of whom work for blockstream. just stop. 5 developers who account for the vast majority of commits. And dictating road map. Seriously, just stop. |
|
|
|
If Peter Todd was malicious and greedy he could have made mega-bank on this by keeping it to himself until they forked and then shorted majorly the BU fork and killed it dead anonymously without telling them what was happening, they wouldn't have had a clue what hit them ... and made a killing too.
He is malicious. He didnt 'discover' it - he simply saw the hotfix and went for damage. Welcome to Bitcoin. Anonymity never entered the equation. |
|
|
|
It's still unlisted. What's your point? Ten minutes ago it said it was unlisted on an orange disc in the middle of the empty price chart. It still says unlisted on the left but the orange disc has gone. It's a change. I don't know what it means but it's a change. Somebody's working on the page. Ack! the orange disk..its a TRAP! ...(just when you think you can get away this happens) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Ffr1U7KMY edit: Ack! (x2) A hard-FORK would have saved you from one of those... |
|
|
|
A possible scenario is that someone found out the ETF was going to be denied.
They bought a shitload of bitcoins to drive the price up to $1350 then shorted the shit out of it driving it down to $1180. This resulted in a bunch of people assuming the ETF was approved which drove the price up.
Close. But no cigar. (yet) |
|
|
|
This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources  +1 And so, the future of bitcoin was written. |
|
|
|
7 green candles in a row on the 2 hour...
Even the daily is 9 out of 10.
Is this Gentlemen?
I've been watching for a sell flag, and then I get a - Sell flag.... |
|
|
|
I smell money... Again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
