 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
|
I would argue that, after some of the more recent revelations of the motivations that the BU devs have and their plan for BU in the future, Bitcoin Unlimited is most definitely an attack on the nature of Bitcoin and potentially on the entire network should most of their plans come to pass in the way they are describing them.
Since Segwit is the only other viable option, I would encourage other devs to front other ways so that we can have some competition and make sure the network gets the best.
Hi, It's not an attack. Some people don't like SegWit: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179And think that a simple block size increase is better for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Users, nodes and developers do not have any special authority on Bitcoin.
Edit your comment/quote. I did not say -> Users rejected it, twice. |
|
|
|
Many new users download the first google result, and many take a lot of time to update software.
So it's FAR from true that many users don't want BU. There are only 10% BU nodes today. And it's already been demonstrated that a majority of those are run by 1 person from the same cloud hosting service. I am running core 0.14, but because of core don't care about users and don't update to 2(m3gaByt3s) and because of c3ns0rsh1p in this forum, I will download and use B1tcoin Unl1mit3d today.
Users have had the opportunity to switch to a 2MB blocksize client, twice. Users rejected it, twice. I think many believed that core would eventually come to a consensus with miners and raise to 2MB. And now many of them are realizing that this is not gonna happen. |
|
|
|
There is a real risk that BU will start adding sybil nodes to the network, to push BU nodes up to 51% or more (it should be obvious now that an overwhelming majority of genuine Bitcoin users do not want BU).
Many new users download the first google result, and many take a lot of time to update software. So it's FAR from true that many users don't want BU. I am running core 0.14, but because of core don't care about users and don't update to 2(m3gaByt3s) and because of c3ns0rsh1p in this forum, I will download and use B1tcoin Unl1mit3d today. |
|
|
|
"One of the biggest risks of using segregated witness as a scaling solution (which was surfaced at the conference) is that to obtain the scaling benefit it will require not only new bitcoin core code, but also new code to be written by each of the major wallet providers who are generating transactions. It is unlikely this will be done in time to avoid the scaling issue we are currently facing." https://blog.coinbase.com/what-happened-at-the-satoshi-roundtable-6c11a10d8cdf |
|
|
|
he must be a paid troll..
yes. He creates a lot of noise on the threads with nonsense and things completely unrelated with OP subject. And this should be a good reason to ban him. Meanwhile we should do like jonald and put him on ignore list. He cares so much about number of comments, then maybe he is trying to reach 1000. |
|
|
|
This thread looks like the thread where all the smart people hang out. I've been watching for awhile and learning what I can, but I haven't committed any of my money to anything here yet. I wanted to get in soon but now I am scared. Is this a good time? Should I download the BU client or the core client? Does it matter who wins?
You should do more search and download the one you want to support. I would not buy bitcoins now. And you must think and not just assume it is true. For example:
"Good ideas don't need censorship." Roger Ver I think any rational people agree with this quote. You don't need to be BU supporter or whatever ... |
|
|
|
Also, assuming you are not a fan of Adam Back, I should point out he was an original cypher punk (as I understand), and quoted in Satoshi's whitepaper, seemingly obviously trusted and respected by Satoshi.
Nonsense, as all your comments. You can't assume that someone trust another only because it is quoted in some paper. The only thing you assume is that Satoshi respects/trusts Adam Back's Hashcash work. |
|
|
|
That is the problem with Core, they all think they are smarter than Satoshi, but none of them actually are. They talk big and play the act, but their decisions kept running Bitcoin into the ground, then instead of fixing it they act like they're proud of it.
So true. How can someone not be impressed after reading Satoshi's original paper? With all the perfect design and foresight he had? Of course there are better CODERs than Satoshi currently in Core, but I doubt anyone there has a better ECONOMIC VISION that Satoshi had!It's a lot of pretense and arrogance to think they are better than Satoshi. |
|
|
|
Roger Ver, open your eyes please.
The reason why the price is going down is because we don't like the BU threat that will give the power over the blocksize to just 5 mining pool operators (or effectively 1 ASIC manufacturer.) I like bitcoin for it's decentralization properties, not because I trust Jihan Wu so much. I will never accept the idiotic idea called "emergent consensus."
Two big mistakes: 1) Prices are down because they didn't increase the blocksize to 2MB. If they had, all this discussion would not be happening and the bitcoin price would be USD $2,000.00 2) If miners would like to collude, they could do it now. They don't need a bigger block in order to do it. So I think your argument is a bad excuse. |
|
|
|
|
even with >51% hash power, how the attacker would be able to build a longer chain with the 10 minutes interval?
the original chain would have less power, but the difficulty would adjust.
hmm they would be able to make a longer chain because the difficulty takes time to adjust, making the honest chain unusable. This is very bad, but I dont see how they can create a longer chain after the difficulty adjust.
|
|
|
|
why bitcoin.org doesn't show the output for sha256sum? https://bitcoin.org/en/download> sha256sum bitcoin-0.14.0-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 06e6ceeb687e784e9aaad45e9407c7eed5f7e9c9bbe44083179287f54f0f9f2b bitcoin-0.14.0-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz how to verify? I tried: > gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc gpg: Signature made Wed 08 Mar 2017 03:43:28 AM BRT using RSA key ID 36C2E964 gpg: Can't check signature: No public key I checked the output of sha256sum with the file provided by bitcoin.org and they match. But shouldn't the site display the hash? I was just concerned with man in the middle attack.  |
|
|
|
why bitcoin.org doesn't show the output for sha256sum? https://bitcoin.org/en/download> sha256sum bitcoin-0.14.0-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz 06e6ceeb687e784e9aaad45e9407c7eed5f7e9c9bbe44083179287f54f0f9f2b bitcoin-0.14.0-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz how to verify? I tried: > gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc gpg: Signature made Wed 08 Mar 2017 03:43:28 AM BRT using RSA key ID 36C2E964 gpg: Can't check signature: No public key |
|
|
|
Printing currency by itself isn't a negative.
What is bad is printing currency to overcompensate for inefficiencies in state budgetary management.
Thank you for your reply. So when is it good to print money? All the paper money printed by one country have to cover the value of all goods and services produced by that country for one year(the GDP).If more money are printed = inflation,if less money are printed =deflation. It`s good to print money when there is deflation ,which means that the money supply isn`t enough. Anyway,every central bank makes mistakes with the monetary policy and that`s why i`m a bitcoin fan.  Thank you davis196! |
|
|
|
Hi folks. this is a must watch video even if you are an expert in economics, because it's also very funny  The American Dream - Understanding Money and the Banking System https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6zpfE7WjHIShare with your friends and family! =) |
|
|
|
Great animation really enjoyed that, new most of it already but think this is a good video to show to friends and family who may want more info. in my opinion we are at the long term debt peak, about to go over the dip in the next few years.  Great animation really enjoyed that, new most of it already but think this is a good video to show to friends and family who may want more info. in my opinion we are at the long term debt peak, about to go over the dip in the next few years. Exactly. It's nice to share. I shared on Facebook, but I think nobody watched it. There is another video better than this one. I'll post in another topic because I think the video deserves it. =D |
|
|
|
Printing currency by itself isn't a negative.
What is bad is printing currency to overcompensate for inefficiencies in state budgetary management.
Thank you for your reply. So when is it good to print money? |
|
|
|
It's a wonderful video with a very simple explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0I think the practice of printing money seems so wrong, creating money from nothing. I have a feeling that you are just avoiding dealing with the problem now, and it will be much worst in the future. What do you think about this? Do you think we could have a functioning/good economy without creating money out of thin air? |
|
|
|
Thank you Xester and Kakmakr. Thanks again franky1. |
|
|
|
yet by you saying bitcoin is like gold, and gold is stable. and/or bitcoin should be more like gold
then gold should halt its ability to change how many transactions in a certain time period can occur.
golds tx/s has been changed, does change. will change
1940's only physical tx taking days to move.
1980's computer age. gold transactions move via computer transactions. and also physical gold coins. from banks pawnn brokers etc
millennium gold vending machines and even electronic stores.
These aren't examples of the nature of gold changing. And you are wrong, bitcoin isn't beyond nash, nash spoke many years in the future beyond the advent of bitcoin. This is clear, and he was clear about this. |
|
|
|
|
