1. amir was a contributor but nothing big. his fame was just timing of being in early
2. amir says he was on the 'frontline' but then retracts to say he was at a distance.
3. amir says he didnt go there to kill, he went there to use his skills elsewhere (EG set up comms/payments)
4. amir wont defend bitcoin, mentioning bitcoin is going to be twisted into bitcoin used by extremists. personally he should stick to promoting his dash/darkwallet as the extremists preferential payment method.
IF we see amir talk about bitcoin as the payment method for extremists and then mention dark/dash as a separate thing for normal people. dont think of it as a good promo
Bitcoin can be used both for legal transactions and also for transactions that should remain hidden for security purposes (example, buying weapons to fight the ISIS terrorists in Syria). This only makes overall bitcoin more valuable. Its all about having options. |
|
|
|
|
Its clear that this guy is a badass, i doubt any other dev would pick up a gun and fight for their ideals.
But hopefully his intellect is not lost in the battlefield, we need now more than ever, anarchists to defend bitcoin and aim at the right direction. We have Craig Wright, CIA Andersen and the rest trying to take it over.
|
|
|
|
|
Thats pretty crazy. Glad he is ok. Looks like he is back to coding and will continue DarkWallet. Also doesn't buy the Craig Wright bullshit. Hope he helps in fighting the BUcoin takeover attempt.
|
|
|
|
 They would need some months of training. I would pay see this for sure. Unfortunately Buggy Unlimited team got Ver which has some background in judo but that is pretty useless in boxing and Nick Szabo looks like could take some punches, I think he could win with some training. Whalebear can for sure crush the cheaply manufactured chinese mining robot. Not sure about the rest. Peter Rizun looks like he works out.
|
|
|
|
|
Smart whales are using the Buggy Unlimited FUD to cause massive pumps in the market. Who will be the next coin to go %1000+? I dont know but I sure hope im holding some of that shit.
|
|
|
|
frank - as a free market proponent..
Why is it that whenever it looks like BU might actually win - bitcoin price tanks. And whenever it looks like CORE might actually win - bitcoin price recovers. Can you explain that ?
(I have changed the title - as you rightly pointed out - its just a signal.. .. wow.. we have some common ground after all.. )
The explanation is rather simple: Buggy Unlimited jeopardizes the entire system with incompetent developers. The network can crash at any time. Regardless how much (centralized) hashing power is backing it up, if the software is shit then THE ENTIRE THING IS SHIT. The value of bitcoin ultimately depends on how solid the software is, and Buggy Unlimited is based upon a flawed concept and the coders are shit to boot. It will NEVER work. Even if Jihad Wu gets 99.999999999% of the hashrate bought by the PBOC, users will go with Core and new miners will mine bitcoin with the new PoW as ChinaBU collapses. |
|
|
|
|
Now we are back to $1000+, but we will see how long it lasts. Big moves in the altcoin market, millionaires have been made in the last few days. Big big pumps in a couple altcoins. The HF FUD is being used for that.
|
|
|
|
|
How else can TPTB kill bitcoin other than divide and conquer?
They buy the miners and make them fight against the majority of nodes.
This causes a lot of tensions which push us to a HF. A HF to inferior buggy software by a "chief scientist" that is approving of a 51% attack on the other network (of the team that they pretend to keep leching code from)
The whole thing is insanity. This HAS to be an attack. No rational actors would jeopardize the whole project like this (while blocking the solution). Notice how the biggest twitter idiots (Roger, Falkvinge or whatever the one eyed guy is called) are all crying about how they can no longer make "safe 0 conf transactions". Those guys don't understand anything.
|
|
|
|
|
With all its problems, PoW seems to be the best we have. As far as I can remember, PoS never solved the "nothing at stake" problem.
With PoW you have miners vs whales.
With PoS... you have whales.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the bottom was 8XX, now that the hard fork fears are going down and bitcoin unlimited is pretty much dead beyond any reasonable expectative, I can see more and more people jumping back in the Bitcoin train. Looks like ETH already peaked and BTC bottomed.
|
|
|
|
you think Jihan is the threat. lets put the shoe on the other foot. without consensus. this is what would happen to a 1mb+ block maybe jihan produces without pool and node consensus. even he knows to not waste 10mins of electric for 3 second reject 2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
you have been sold into a script that holds no value of truth or no value of a scanerio that would work. maybe spend more time understanding how bitcoin works, to defend bitcoins decentralisation. then you wont be defending one brand incorporated and now wanting a centralised TIER network. segwit is the threat. read code, not reddit scripts.. it will enlighten you You are on record shilling BUcoin which is based upon a "Economic Consensus" concept which doesn't work and you should know it if you knew how to read code. You would also not run software that keeps getting bundled with exploits to the point incompetent developers had to resort to closed source patching. Stop trying to sound smart. Smart people are on github not on bitcointalk 24/7 giving lessons about what is or isn't great code. Segwit has been peer reviewed by every expert on the field, it remains objectively the best step forward. EC has been peer reviewed by every expert on the field, it remains dogshit. You should stop thinking you are special and start outsourcing to people that actually knows how things work instead of thinking every expert on the field (including neutral people like Andreas) which all agree on segwit being the best, being part of some sort of conspiracy or they being all idiots and franky1 being the number 1 coder in the game, when all you have to show is posting all day on a forum and 0 code. Give me a break. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah. Same shit as always by this paid nerd. Get a life.
Facts remain:
1) BUcoin is shit software and no one supports it
2) 1)
Now go out for a walk, it's friday.
lol there are more implementations than just BU, so why fear BU? Because BU has been the selected software-trojan horse by deep pocketed agencies and states to bribe the chinese mafia into mining it. "President and secretary of bitcoin" lmao. Chinese state-funded goon Jihan Wu, Bribed Ver and CIA agent Gavin Andresen want to obviously turn bitcoin into a political machine. Remember this? http://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/Same shit all over again. Too bad users will never compromise their holdings by supporting anything that isn't the reliable Core software, no matter how much they pay Jihan Wu to mine that trash. |
|
|
|
BU is sort of like a bloodless proto-coup attempt.
A coup implies that somebody is in charge. If somebody is in charge of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin is doomed. Someone is in charge of BU:  Chinese state-funded good Jihan Wu, Bribed Ver and CIA agent Gavin Andresen want to obviously turn bitcoin into a political machine. Remember this? http://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/Same shit all over again. Too bad it will never work. Users will reject the buggy trojan horse software AND the miners that support said buggy trojan horse software:  |
|
|
|
So a couple of chinese idiots with a lot of hashrate given by the chinese government in order to deploy the BUcoin trojan horse think their plan will work when literally nobody gives a fuck about the BUcoin software because it's a buggy mess,
proof that if a miner tries blocks over 1mb, WITHOUT consensus... its rejected and trashed in 3 seconds 2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16) so that debunks everyones scripted FUD rhetoric of how dynamic miners have control.. 3 seconds gone. P.S dynamic implementations need NODE AND POOL CONSENSUS. segwit are the ones that bypassed NODE consensus. and segwits Bip9 can drop its pool thrshold below 95%. oh and core can UASF ban hammer and change mining algo to get that threshold even lower.. its core with the deadlines and threats.. all while other open and diverse implementations have just run for the last 2 years with no deadlines no ACTUAL threats and just ltting the community have a free open choice.. take it or leave it will ellect a president and secretary of bitcoin (LOL) and will base their scaling roadmap in a flawed concept (Emergent Consensus).
What can go wrong?
ADAM BACK CEO blockstream Gmaxwell CTO blockstream Gmaxwell moderator or technical discussion Luke Jr moderator of other aspects. core came into existance in 2014 and incorporated their lead company in 2014.. allowing 100 unpaid interns to kiss ass hoping for a scoop of the $70m and a glossy blockstream namebadge if they kiss ass Blah blah blah. Same shit as always by this paid nerd. Get a life. Facts remain: 1) BUcoin is shit software and no one supports it 2) 1) Now go out for a walk, it's friday. |
|
|
|
So a couple of chinese idiots with a lot of hashrate given by the chinese government in order to deploy the BUcoin trojan horse think their plan will work when literally nobody gives a fuck about the BUcoin software because it's a buggy mess, will release closed source patches, will ellect a president and secretary of bitcoin (LOL) and will base their scaling roadmap in a flawed concept (Emergent Consensus). What can go wrong? |
|
|
|
|
There will be no hard fork because BUcoin has no real support from the community. Sooner or later Jihad Wu will retract and the current altcoin bubble will pop in your face and everyone not holding BTC will be left behind.
|
|
|
|
Why Satoshi doesn't express his opinion about BU, segwit, hard forks and other crucial things like these?
I think it would be very important to hear his voice and to know what he thinks about it, because those crucial things could even lead to a Bitcoin implosion.
But if he doesn't express his opinion maybe he just don't care about Bitcoin anymore or maybe he's already dead, as many people believe...
Satoshi already said he didn't want his software forked: A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case. The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time. It would have been an explosion of special cases. The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates. The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.
The script is actually a predicate. It's just an equation that evaluates to true or false. Predicate is a long and unfamiliar word so I called it script.
The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script. Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address. Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.
The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc. If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we'll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
BU = menace to the network. So yeah there you have it. |
|
|
|
|
There is more: the closed source binaries weren't signed, which means, any hacker could hack the bitcoin unlimited website and perform a man-in-the-middle attack infecting your computer and stealing your BTC. Pretty simple actually, with the morons in charge of BU.
|
|
|
|
|
if Core are evil banksters trying to centralize the network, why are they giving #1 top priority to guarantee that the nodes can be run by independent parties so even any broke guy living in his mom's basement can run his own node thanks to the conservative block size approach? That is diametrically opposed to wanting to control the network.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see how Bitcoin Core is a a "bankster cartel".
In any case, Bitcoin Core has guaranteed my money stays safe for years, I can't trust any other altcoin or developer team.
Diversifying is a gamble. Altcoins pump and dump almost on a daily, might as well hold on BTC.
BTU is trash and not a real treat.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
