right. Why is it that everyone in Bitcoin chooses the opposite of what you recommend Franky, despite you always being right?
If you really believed in what you are saying, you could have transcended all of this nonsense by simply becoming a market participant yourself: with your genius insights, you should be the king of cryptocoins? Yet you choose to hang around here all day every day saying nothing but "you're all dooooooooing it wroooooooong".
Why don't you want to use your superior knowledge to deal with all the better cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin without dictators, their puppets and mindless sheep running the show?
why would i want to become king? there should be no king!! dont you get it yet bitcoin should be remain decentralized not made into a monarchy of the blockstream royal family bitcoin should be remain decentralized not made into a dictatorship of the blockstream corporation with banker backing wake up. have an epiphany. tear up your contract and stop defending blockstreams regime. your only shooting yourself in the foot each time you attack bitcoins decentralization/diversity to defend blockstream |
|
|
|
bigblock blah
bigblock blah
ya.ya.yo!
you do realise you need to re-evaluate "bigblock" blockstream want 4mb this year community have compromised and happy with 2mb this year. maybe you should come up with a different term. EG onchainers vs offchainers decentralized network vs corporate networks try using a term that actually has relevance |
|
|
|
Who's forcing you to use Bitcoin? No-one. It's a service that you use because you want to, not because you are forced to.
carlton you're pretending and hoping blockstream dictatorship exists now. to try forcing 'terms of service' where if people dont like blockstream they can "F**k off". purely as a pre-emptive ruse to get blockstream the dictatorial control it desperately needs(to get continual investment), sooner. even though your contract may be ending soon and blockstream may not get its next financial tranche, if blockstream doesnt become the dictatorial ruler of the network. i feel sorry that you are actually willing to suggest bitcoin network protocol becomes centralized purely for your own personal greed. i feel sorry for you when you keep pretending that dictatorial ownership is active now, purely to try speeding up things to hope your contract gets renewed i feel your on a contract due to noting your different mindset last year compared to this year (and occassional flip flopping) i feel your contract is expiring soon because you have flip flopped your mindset recently, which may be due to knowing you wont be in contract soon so you have become conflicted with your own mindsets. if you are not under contract then i guess you have never been a libertarian and always have been an authoritarian, desiring to become part of a dictatorial regime. you are an obvious sellout, just like gmaxwell and your other chums that care more about a corporation then the decentralized bitcoin network. you "might" be a liberal outside of contract. but it seems sunday nights epiphany, then mondays contractual blockstream rhetoric reveals that you are willing to sell out your own personal views. so which is it. never being a libertarian, or being under contract selling out your (previous) personal mindset. aswell as selling out bitcoins ethos |
|
|
|
The Virtual is Real: An Argument for Characterizing Bitcoins as Private Property Via http://www.thelegrandgroup.com/blogs/post/The-Virtual-Is-Real/"The usage of a bitcoin is necessarily a matter of exclusion because bitcoins are inherently highly rivalrous. By inherently highly rivalrous I mean that if one person uses a bitcoin, it is impossible for someone else to use that bitcoin at the same time. In contrast, other information based resources, like ideas, are capable of being used by a multitude of persons at the same time. Basically, a bitcoin is more like a spoon than a song. If I am eating with a spoon it is impossible for you to eat with that spoon at the same time. In contrast, we may both sing the song." Do you think bitcoin should be considered private property? Also, what is going to happen to your bitcoin if you pass away? Cryptocurrency is offering exciting, new options within many different industries. The discussion within the bitcoin community will need to address these points at some time, and I am interested in hearing your opinion. bitcoin: THE NETWORK PROTOCOL is a song. where individuals agree to the words(rules) to sing(accept) by coming to a consensus, compromising and eventually agreeing if they all as a majority want to improve the song. btc: the unit of measure (the funds) is a spoon. though it can belong to anyone who has access to the spoon(the private key of that ledger entry). but as long as only one person is holding the spoon(private key). then the spoon belongs to the one person holding the key. no single person holds the key to the network protocol. because there is no key to the network protocol. a better analogy is not a song vs spoon. but: a microphone vs a song a spoon vs a family meal |
|
|
|
What if Satoshi didn't leave and stayed with us as bitcoin leader? Can you imagine what will happen under his guidance?
adam back is proclaiming to be satoshi 2.0 by saying bitcoin is his property.. blockstream want a dictatorship here is a blockstream owned website. re-writing the past to suggest adam back created bitcoin via his "hashcash" prior to satoshi https://21.co/learn/proof-of-work-using-hashcash/#hashcash-the-key-to-nakamoto-consensusall the subtle name dropsin 2004, Hashcash was used by cryptographer Hal Finney to build Reusable Proof of Work (RPOW), a pre-Bitcoin cryptocurrency that likely heavily influenced Satoshi Nakamoto. all the subtle over sellingand it was pioneered by a program called Hashcash. Hashcash is a system that predates Bitcoin by about a decade— Unfortunately Hashcash never became widely used— |
|
|
|
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. ofcourse people are going to reject the stupid idea to split the network.. ofcourse people are going to reject the stupid idea to avoid using bitcoins main feature... the consensus/orphaning mechanism. but as we all know you want anyone who is not blockstream loving, to F**k off.. however blockstream is not the bitcoin owner, nor the network owner... though you want it to be. blockstream should remain just part of the network, working with others on the network collective, to agree on rules using consensus, done via compromising and agreements by majority (consensus) The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right-- though it appears to have mostly been an accidental side effect due to the fact that their hardfork was rewriting their mutable state directly.. It has a benefit of being cleaner, but it is laughable to call it a "safe hardfork", because it eliminates only one fairly boring source of risk. The comparisons so soft-forks do not hold-- normally a softfork does not split the chain at all. And it is safe precisely because any fraying it causes if it causes any is not lasting, and will automatically heal without human intervention or significant disruption. all the upgraded miners will reject those small blocks produced by the minority miners, and extend the chain with small blocks mined by them, thus orphaning those small blocks
As a result, non-upgraded nodes would incur huge loss and will immediately upgrade to the new version, quickly make the hash rate on the new version almost 100% It's unfortunate to see this kind of ignorance continue. You're adopting a faulty analysis that comes from 'assuming the existence of a privileged position', why is it that you assume the non-upgraded are incurring a huge loss? By each system's own rules its own chain is valid and the others is invalid in that sense they have equal standing, but one has the moral authority of being first and consistent with the philosophy of robustness against external influence. Because of this it would be more valid to say the interlopers are incurring a huge loss if anyone is. though bitcoin right now has consensus of many implementations and diverse nodes. you actually want a 'existence of a privileged position' (dictatorship) and people see that you want it. and so are describing scenarios to explain why splitting bitcoin is bad, and why we should use consensus. to avoid a 'existence of a privileged position' (dictatorship) that you desire Consider, the _only_ thing that distinguishes the litecoin blockchain from the bitcoin blockchain is a trivial bilateral hardfork. When litecoin came into being and you were running Bitcoin instead of it-- were you incurring a huge loss? No.
From the perspective of the non-upgraded nodes, the parties with the mutilated protocol simply do not exist. Due to being bilateral, the same is true in the other direction. But none of this creates automatic winners or losers. And in all hardfork scenarios there is plenty of opportunity for everyone to be a loser.
alot of waffle just to replace the word minority with "interloper".. a subtle but failed attempt try making people assume that bitcoin already is a dictatorship by suggesting anyone not a sheep to blockstream, as an invader (interloper) YOU joined 2011, core brand and blockstream brand appeared in 2013 stop pretending blockstram/core have owned bitcoin since 2009 Gmaxwell. its far easier to ask you to go and play with your monero and go program your leaders desire of a banking network over at hyper ledger. that to allow bitcoin to be sucked into the closed dictatorial realm of blockstream bitcoin should remain in the open realm where anyone can be part of it but no one owns the protocol in full. the only reason i see blockstream upping their game of dominance is that they fear not getting their next investment tranche from the banking sector if they cannot become a dictatorship of the network. |
|
|
|
|
google hyperledger,
this is where all the big banks are involved.
but they are not working on using bitcoin just "some" of the technology that bitcoin uses to mak their own private network
there are national banks, commercial banks
UK: Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, bank of england
France: BBVA, Société Générale, Banco Santander,
italy: UniCredit, Intesa Sanpaolo
bank of india
Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank,
UBS. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken, Nordea, Danske Bank, Scotiabank,
Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank,
Bank of America, BNY Mellon, Citi,
HSBC, Mizuho Bank,
Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
and then the more private firms
BNP Paribas, Wells Fargo, ING, Macquarie Group, BMO Financial Group, Natixis, Nomura, Northern Trust, OP Financial Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, U.S. Bancorp and Westpac Banking Corporation.
SBI Holdings of Japan, Hana Financial of South Korea, and Bank Itau of Brazil, Toyota Financial Services, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs,J.P. Morgan,
State Street, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Morgan Stanley,
there are more. but feel free to research how many fingers of worldwide banks are involved in hyperledger. it will shock you
|
|
|
|
Max Keiser works for RT. im sure he will arrange something so RT reporters can still get paid (via bitcoin) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin can and does have more than one code running on the same network. Not all alternative clients propose changes to the rules.
Now tell me you can have more than one set of consensus rules functioning at once. Sure, BU has different consensus rules, but it's only applying those rules within what Core allows. Any rules an alt client has that contradict Core's rules won't actually end up expressed in a way that changes blockchain behaviour. So any alternative rules are just sitting still, not functioning within the boundaries they set. They function within Core's boundaries, and it's basically as if they do not exist, as to all intents and purposes, they do not. lol you dont understand consensus. please dont waste 3 hours writing comments about your love of a core dictatorship. if you really want to use your own time: spend 2 hours researching and understanding and then spend 5 minutes realizing the epiphany you keep forgetting. it saves you time, it saves you wasting time. it teaches you something. meaning overall you are better for it. if you instead just reply wasting your time with your dictatorship mindset. then it appears the epiphany you had has been lost. please dont waste your own time repeating the dictatorship rhetoric without understanding how consensus works please research bitcoins consensus mechanism. it will help you |
|
|
|
Dear franky1, you are talking nonsense as usual.
Bitcoin cannot have 2 codes competing on the same network, that is called an altcoin ,and you have 1000+ of those already. Only 1 code can run on 1 network.
If you don't like bitcoin's current code, go an create your altcoin.
LOL 1. bitcoinJ (java) is running on the network, as are Nbitcoin(C# and VB), BU, XT, knots, classic and a dozen other implementations with different code and different rules set locally in their nodes. 2. the network is not in one place. its made up by different locations with all their different code, the network survives by a consensus of rules where orphans take care of the different locations that dont fit the rules. 3. a node accepting any block below 2mb will work happily while another node wants only 1mb. as long as miners only produce under 1mb blocks, all code can work together, and currently do. the 2MB proposal is not 'all blocks have to be over 1mb' but anything under 2mb is acceptable. 4. mining pools wont even attempt to do anything outside of consensus because it will hurt them due to the orphaning mechanism (make their block and reward disappear) 5. no proposal has shown desire of a split. they have shown desire of consensus. 6. you are avoiding decentralization and open system to pretend bitcoin is centralized to core. fail on you 7. its consensus (compromise and agreement) that allows the network to upgrade. without agreement there is no upgrade. it continues unchanged. 8. dictating what a rule should be and forcing a split to the opposition is how altcoins are made. by a 'workaround' to avoid the orphaning consensus mechanism. 9. it is only core that are suggesting(not as official proposal) right now they wont meet consensus and any opposition should split. your statement and other dictatorship lovers statement prove such. you need to learn about consensus, decentralization, and open networks. i feel sorry for anyone thinking bitcoin is owned by one corporation the network has no owner. it has consensus. anyone who agrees to the consensus has authorisation to use the network but here is your opinion summerised. [blank] due to realbitcoins opinion lacking fact, thus meaningless |
|
|
|
Franky, there has to be a monarchy in Bitcoin development, there cannot be more than one set of rules running simultaneously. Saying that off-chain and on-chain are in competition with one another as scaling solutions defies your own laboured rhetoric that on-chain works for some transaction types and off-chain for others (commit-aggregated or pre-chain is a better label for what actually happens in Lightning, anyway).
No-one except you is presenting the false dichotomy that a scaling solution should be either the one or the other.
Arguing for changing the leadership is legitimate. Spreading lies about the present leadership is not a legitimate way to achieve that, if the truth isn't good enough, then you lost.
leadership? seriously you running back down the (centralized, authoritarian, monarchistic, dictatorship) rabbit hole soo soon. here, this may recover your epiphany. dictatorship: 1 guy/corp makes the rules and the sheep have to blindly follow or move away never to use bitcoin. consensus: there are many rules (proposals) but unless there is general agreement by the indepenadant-open network. the rules dont activate this requires the several implementations and thousands of nodes and dozens of pools to come to compromises until there is general agreement across the network, for the network to then grow EG 2mb base 4mb weight is a compromise where everyone wins separately, i would have said you were just authoritarian(until u mentioned leadership). EG whoever agrees to the rules equally has authority to use whats within the rules. making consensus(the protocol) the authority, owned by no-one but used by anyone where independent compromise, results in eventual general agreement(consensus) to make changes. but you presume ownership. not just authorisation(example: your github argument) EG saying that core should be the only decision makers and own bitcoin outright and everyone should blindly just follow core. this is not a libertarian ideal. its a dictatorship ideal in short when something is suppose to be international, without borders and has an ethos of decentralization. claiming outright ownership by just one corporation is the opposite of that ethos. please dont run back down the dictatorship rabbit hole |
|
|
|
“understanding of their right usage”
Understanding and discussing about right usage of bitcoin sound nice but and elaboration of anonymity removal mechanisms are the top priorities in this regard. Anonymity removal mechanism? Doesn't this mean tightening KYC policy for bitcoin exchange and withdraws? I think if anonymity is destroyed in bitcoin transaction no deference will remain between dealing with centralized banks and bitcoin. if russia want to strengthen the rules of businesses that touch the Ruble. they have all the rights to do so. this does not affect bitcoin. just the businesses at the edges of bitcoin that are located within russia or exchange using rubles. but i hope russia and any country discussing bitcoin, do not prohibit holding bitcoin from even being held, or do not try regulating that just holding bitcoin, requires all holders to register their holdings. which i would say is next to impossible to enforce anyway. from what i have been reading over many months of the actual drafts, they have been centered around the middlemen exchanges, (though media and outside speculation has mis-interpreted the drafts to scare people to think it includes holders too). |
|
|
|
|
my comments about your apparent flip from:
the authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship of wanting blockstreams dream of offchain as the payment layer, onchain as the settlement layer
to
the liberal freedom that people should have freedom of choice by expanding onchain capacity, to allow choices to expand unhindered
is on topic.
and if your sudden realization and epiphany is genuine, then i sincerely applaud it.
though i still have a feeling its just a temporary ruse. and only time and your future comments about your ideals can uphold your new mindset, or reveal it to have been temporary.
i have the feeling its a subtle plan to make a later point, that your change of mind cannot be defined in the left or right category, which even "realbitcoin" cannot define as 2 separate states.
but i truly do hope you are genuinely dropping your authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship. and if so. i truly and sincerely applaud your realization
|
|
|
|
I agree entirely with everything you say there. The "all-or-nothing" absolutist position of saying all transactions should suddenly only be handled by payment channel hubs is something that Franky has managed to drum into everyone's head. The trouble is, I've never actually seen a single example of anyone saying it, not even Poon and Dryffas who conceived the LN concept.
lol firstly lets correct who started the drumming and provoking this next quote is just on example of carltons drumming that started the beat off I cannot see why we cannot do both? You could have the Core protocol serving as the settlement layer and a side chain doing the Payment network.
We already have off-chain service providers doing a good job at handling the payment side.
This. perhaps you can tell me in what manner you think LN contributes to decentralization. The way I see it, it will inevitably end up a hub/spoke system - meaning more centralization. Also with node and path discovery being mediated by (other?) centralized actors.
I agree, although I think it's not the correct to say that the overall network topology will be be more centralised, just that one task the network performs will be divided into 2 layers (the miners on one layer finalising tx's, lightning hubs one layer below setting all the transactions up). And it's pretty much true that miners and exchanges could easily become the dominant players in lightning hubs, but it can't stay that way forever, because neither exchanges or miners will be around in large numbers 20 years from now. tl;dr all Lightning does is split the transaction market up, not much point complaining that the same big Bitcoin companies will get all the business, because they do already now. theres loads of examples of carlton and his ilk talking about the blockchain "layer" as the settlement and then offchain/sidechain "layer" as the payment anyway lets put a line through that
onto the more important part i noticed carltons comments today have left me positively shocked and amazed. firstly that carltons own words defeated him.. but secondly.. and more importantly carlton suddenly today has had an epiphany and suddenly wised up to what others have been saying to him since last year (though i feel its just another flip-flop bait and switch, wolf in sheeps clothing, short term thing)finally carlton, after about a year of saying the opposite, he has finally actually opening his mind and accepting onchain capacity needs to grow to allow freedom to use for onchain transactions and not just using the space for settlements. i say this with genuine admiration, thank you carlton for waking up. i hope this new epiphany also includes no longer having rage debates where onchain TX fee wars are good and should raise the price of a tx. i hope this new epiphany also includes no longer having rage debates where the blockchain should just be a 'reserve currency'/settlement for offchain/sidechains to be the payments. (as displayed above about ) its good to see you are finally this very day showing you may actually drop your 'dictatorship desires off offchain being the future direction of capacity,' to instead think of bitcoin as an open network for anyone to use requiring actual onchain growth. i applaud you for seeing the light.may you continue learning and actually seeing what many others have seen last year. and realise that your old mindset should be left in the past. but please while your at this realization. do not try pretending you have not been the drum beater with all your involvement in "2mb is an altcoin", "bigblockers are invading", "R3KT campaigning", "2mb F-off", all evident you previously did not want more tx onchain capacity and instead wanted that limited onchain space used for LN settlements, aswell as demonstrated by fighting the bad fight to try getting segwit popularized to head in that direction. but as i say i am glad you are now accepting that onchain capacity should grow to allow freedom of choice. lets just hope you stay on this new 'eyes opened' mindset and you dont retreat back to your bad habits of the last 10-14 months please dont go back to the dark side. otherwise today has been a waste of time for you if you are just baiting and switching. |
|
|
|
But the adoption to new version will be real problem in this one also, miners and node operator need atleast few days or weeks to consider/test/implement new version in their machines and if small blocks start getting rejected by new version than loss for them will be really high.
Size limit debate is really high and if size is increased network may get spllited, which will be even bigger problem.
"and if small blocks start getting rejected by new version than loss for them will be really high"  ? firstly a proposal like 2mb base is NOT saying all blocks have to be over 1mb and under 2mb. it means all blocks under 2mb are good. meaning old blocks fit the rules too this is why XT, BU, classic and other nodes are running right now with the rule enabled and nothing is crashing. because a 0.01kb block, <-> 0.995mb block are all in the 'under 2mb' category. separetly no pool is going to dare to make blocks bigger than 1mb due to high orphaning risk at low consensus within the network right now. and they wont do anything without high consensus. orphans hurt miners as it removes their income. so they wont do anything to risk that. so relax the doomsdays are propaganda I hope they could have a dry run at least for several months before it is implemented.We cant afford to crash in the middle of implementation as more people will be affected and possible millions of dollars will lose.
the dry run is already happening.. before even using the node to flag a desire.. the code they developed, reviewed and audited needed to be developed, reviewed and audited just to get to be able to flag their desire. and when 95% of them raise their flag they have to keep it raised for a while so the community see its legit... then the grace period starts for the other 5% to have some extra time just to be gracious. its not an overnight thing where grace periods are triggered anytime soon. while this is happening miners are doing their own review to then do their own flag as a second stage. then when the nodes are active. miners start flagging their desire and at 95% for a certain time(1000blocks some say) then a miners grace period starts for the other 5%, just to be gracious. again its not an overnight thing where grace periods are triggered in a day. it takes time to make code, review and implement just to even start off the %% even before the grace starts. if all the nodes implementations, including core compromised to: 2mb base (majority of brands) 2mb base 4mb weight(in cores brand case). similar to what we thought every implementation agreed to 10 months ago at the large consensus roundable with activations of: stage one activation: nodecount 95% graceperiod stage two activation: minerblockcount 95% graceperiod (taking many months to get to) EVERYONE would get EVERYTHING they ALL want, and guess what it wont be a rush job. |
|
|
|
|
this was tried a while ago.
the issues:
90% of signers didnt even live in an area the retailer served and a few retailers felt it was an empty gesture.
people crowded together and then spammed the emails of the company because the petitions were not working.
the retailers released standardised "we do not have plans to add bitcoin as a payment method in the near future"
if your going to make a petition site. atleast try to get people to suggest the retailers they will actually use themselves, rather then retailers they hope will create some free PR by mentioning bitcoin.
the best advice i can think of is not think internationally. think local.
find other bitcoiners in your area and host a meetup. find out where most people in your area shop the most and will actually USE bitcoin there regularly.
then find the most confident person or savvy person in your area who knows how to get someone to be bitcoin ready in 5 minutes, to go speak to that store.
usually the best place to start is a local bar/pub by making that the local venue for the bitcoin meetups/social events. start with a fiat bartab and gently introduce the staff to bitcoin. suggest asking the staff if they are asked to pay with bitcoin they show a QR code on paper they have in their pocket or stuck to the backing card of the orderpad. treat it like a game, relaxed test, trial. dont go to a-hole bossy about getting staff to do it. and then the staff can deem it as "paid" when they see a payment appear on a bookmarked link on their phone.
happily able to then take the fiat out of the bartab instantly. then let all the local bitcoiners start getting excited when you walk back to the table(s) and tell them they can now buy their drinks and meals with bitcoin.
works even better if the confident savvy one of the group is a bitcoin buyer. he puts fiat in a bartab, and by the end of the night he has bitcoin via the others in the group buying drinks, essentially making him the exchange while everyone else feels they are paying for their meal in bitcoin.
after a few regular social meetups the savvy guy can either carry on indirectly buying bitcoin this way. or help the bar setup an account with a payment service to get paid direct without any of the bartab funds going back and forth
then when you want to expand to other local retailers think smart. independent gas stations, independent grocery stores would be used more regular than a once a decade furniture /decorating store. also i mentioned independent stores because national chains dont give local managers much athority/ability to make new options available.
but in short. if you are not willing to do your part to make bitcoin useful where you live. dont expect bitcoin to grow legs and come running to your town.
|
|
|
|
realbitcoin.. seriously if a right wing liberals is a left wing authoritarian if a left wing liberals is a right wing authoritarian then you are not making a point can you stop using wings out of context.. im actually going to say before carlton meandered off topic he had an earlier rational point The left/right isn't a political spectrum, it's a divide and conquer tactic, whereby liberalism gets split into economic liberalism and social liberalism, and then one side is fed arguments about why the other is the source of all problems.
The best approach is to never use the left/right concept, as you're always going to look like a reflexive partisan, one step away from using the non-argument "you're just one of them!"
This is why libertarianism and the various other anarchy inspired political ideologies are popular among Bitcoiners; they appear to be left-right blind, taking ideas from the left or the right as long as they promote liberty.
|
|
|
|
|
quantum computing is not that efficient at solving binary logic problems because it is constrained QC to binary logic.
thus sha256 is not really at big risk due to only being what has been calculated as 2x efficient per process.
however.
quantum computing is able to utilise its new metric more efficiently for issues such as the elliptic curve.
so if i was told QC was up and running and about to try breaking bitcoin.. i would suggest changing ECDSA algo before worrying about SHA
though changing both would be best. but definitely ECDSA first
|
|
|
|
Yes this it 100℅ true in all aspects of digital world and most real world items.
I've had a steam account worth well over 10k and i was a small pawn In trading items with people and I was sold stolen items and they then banned my account.. so from this I have learned we Own nothing that is on the internet hits why it is best to keep little coins in banks or only exchanges and online wallets
and not let the private key slip into other peoples hands. otherwise they have authority to sign a transaction |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
