Good call, though was that chart actual when you posted it? Wasn't the price already higher at the time of your post?

Yes, i believe that was how i fixed it for me too.

Besides, the .com market might be harder for getting bigger discounts. At .de i not seldom received 50% rebates, in fact, after purse took his hefty share, it is only a 38% discount anymore. But at .com you won't see anything like that happen.

Ich fürchte allerdings dass erst einiger Schaden an Bitcoin entstehen wird durch "Fee Market" usw. Das wäre synonym mit einer nicht vertrauenswürdigen Währung da standardmäßig ein Teil der korrekten Transactionen keine Confirmation bekommen würde. Und wer würde schon freiwillig eine Währung benutzen bei der eine Transaktion ankommt... oder vielleicht auch nicht?

Ich denke es ist sogar schlimmer. Hearn und Gavin haben doch wohl schon länger versucht die anderen Devs von einer Änderung zu überzeugen. Die wollen aber nicht. Wie soll ein Konsens entstehen? Es gibt für mich keinen Grund anzunehmen dass sie plötzlich anders denken werden.

Aber ok, wenn genügend Bitcoiner sich über dieses kommende kaputte Bitcoin aufregen und dann eine Fork in Aussicht steht die das Problem löst... dann bin ich ziemlich sicher eine solche Version würde ganz fix genügend Anhänger finden um die echte Bitcoin blockchain auf die Fork zu verschieben. Bitcoin ist woran die Leute glauben bitcoin wäre es.


Was verstehst du unter Konsens? Wer muss einverstanden sein? Die Bitcoiner allgemein, abstimmend durch Nutzung der jeweiligen Walletsoftware?

Noch eine Frage die ich mir stelle ist ob es, wenn zwei blockchains existieren, die andere Blockchain anzugreifen indem man die eigenen Coins auf dieser chain auf den Exchanges verkauft. Der preis würde crashen und man könnte sagen "Seht ihr, das war nicht der echte bitcoin, die leute glauben nicht daran." Das geht natürlich in beide Richtungen. Wäre halt wirklich eine Glaubenssache denn wenn doch die andere chain gewinnt dann hat man nichts mehr bzw seine coins verschleudert.

Keine ahnung was für ein großes Problem das sein würde.


Richtig. Nur erstmal ist es wieder nur eine altcoin die halt bitcoin nutzt. Und all diese Coins die angetreten sind um bitcoin vom Thron zu stoßen sind damit ja noch nicht wirklich weit gekommen. NXT, ethereum usw. Ich denke einfach da wird nicht so großartig viel bei rauskommen mit LN.

Was ich aber finde ist dass es paradox ist. Wir haben eine Währung. Die ursprüngliche und echte. Bitcoin. Und jetzt plötzlich soll bitcoin nicht mehr gut genug sein, es wäre kaputt und wir müssten jetzt eine andere Altcoin benutzen. Ziemlich paradox wenn man bedenkt dass das einzige was es kaputt macht eben ein künstliches Korsett ist.

It only looked strange when one thread was deleted but the other not. And my post pointing that out was deleted then by a moderator. It looked a bit... strange.


Now it seems there is no problem anymore with the refids deleted out.

I don't know it of course. Though i was wondering what was going on with that poster. One refspamthread deleted, the other not. And then the strange thing with my deleted post where i pointed out that there is another refspamthread from that user. Guess finally i have a possible explaination for both things. My post was deleted because grue wanted to merge two posts of mine but copied wrongly. And the second thread was not deleted because a mod thought it should stay when the reflinks are gone.

Yes, i was wondering the same when i looked at the thread. Since normally reflinks have a ?=243 at the end. I'm relatively sure these were real reflinks. In fact it probably wouldn't make sense either to post a link that goes to the 1broker page that works up reflinks. So the links really have to be edited i guess. Maybe a mod thought that the tutorial can stay when the reflinks go away.

Oh wow. Interesting. Did he provide proof? Where's the wallet coming from and why did he chose to crash the price the way he did instead playing the game calmly and earning more that way?

Guess the recent talk of stopping the digging ability of clams was the next bad result coming from that wooden hammer method he used.

Exactly, especially the link to that book or course or what that is. It's a common advertising technique and everyone should be very cautious of that.

Wikipedia is the try to let everyone take part in collecting and providing knowledge. It's not a company or so that provides it. So wikipedia is obviously way more decentralized then other forms of knowledge providing. I did not state that it is perfect, it is not. But they tried to go in that direction.

Um, were exactly did you read that from? I did not write that. brg claimed that wikipedia is unreliable and i answered that wikipedia is the equivalent of a decentralized approach of collecting knowledge. If someone doesn't want to use that then he has to trust centralized approaches of knowledge providing. Where you read from that i would prefer the latter sounds a bit strange. I mean you realize that i suggested wikipedia, right?

And it's funny that you claim i side with corporations. Which would that be then? The bitcoin-xt corporation? I never supported it beside the need of bigger blocks. Or are you of the false impression that iam a fan of blockstream maybe? I can assure you that is not the case, be at ease.

Well, at this point it sounds stupid to repeat myself. You claim again and again that the max blocksize limit is part of a scientific experiment. Only because it is one for you doesn't mean that it was intended as one. In fact there is no hint at all that it was meant that way. You circumvent that fact by repeating your opinion that this is a scientific test. Sorry, but on that base discussion can't take place. It would be a waste of time with forseeable result... which would be none.

I agree with you, IF this would have been a scientific experiment then you would be fully right. But it isn't and was never. And even when you and a couple of other people believe so, it doesn't change that fact.

I know about these manipulation accusations. The thing is everyone can see that things change already. Yes yes, i know, it's the sun or some natural rhythms... ah... i'm tired of this. I suggested wikipedia because one can easily see at least the common answers to all these claims of falsification and so on.

*lol* At the end you made me laugh again. Ignorant caveman. Well, i think i don't need to explain to yourself what it means when someone, in a discussion, turns to personal attacks instead answering with facts only. Though i like your colorful fantasy, so i prefer to take it with humour.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

You are right... the asic tech is not much further to develop i think. So it might be that alot miners will be switched off. Though when at past times more and more miners were switched on, leading to shorter conf time for some days, then it would be ok when the same happens in the other direction. What i doubt is that everyone will switch off instantly. That never happened and will not most probably. Especially not in the average timeframe of 1 week until the next diff adjustment takes place. Miners tend to observe first before they act.

I might be wrong though but that's how i see miners.

I think you might need to register again at amazon.com.

If the goods are imported into your country then you have to pay custom. If you let the buyer buy at the amazon version of your country then you most probably don't have to pay because it doesn't get shipped over the border.

User Indamuck created a tutorial for trading at 1Broker. I have read the first part and it was so basic info that it was practically worthless because everyone can see it himself when registering on 1Broker. Though there were reflinks everywhere. It looks like he edited the post later and took out a lot reflinks but still there are a lot in there. Normally these links are followed by a number, i don't know why it's missing. I think there was one when he posted it but i'm not sure. At least that /m/r.php is the url to the refferalscript. Don't know how it works without a number.

Since the tutorial was nothing more a user could create who just registered on there i waited for the second part. He had claimed he will post it later that day. Nothing happened. I asked in the thread and nothing happened. I sent him a pm but he did not react. Nothing after a month.

The tutorial is here, by the way: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102823.new;topicseen#new

Then i found this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1146165.new#new where Indamuck claimed he was able to identify Moderator Cyrus being an Ass Clown. While reading that thread i came to the impression that the tutorial of 1Broker was deleted and i agreed with Cyrus decision since it was really nothing more than refspam. Only then i realized that it was another "tutorial" he was speaking about because the 1broker tutorial still existed. So he did that more than once. At least 2 Tutorials filled with reflinks, one thread deleted because of that and a second part not coming and ignoring everyone asking for it. Looks like the purpose was met by placing the reflinks.

I made a post about that in that thread, claiming that Indamuck did that more than one time and that the other thread still exists. What happened? My post was deleted. Funny isn't it? Me claiming that he spammed more reflinks were deleted by a moderator. Which brought up the question if Indamuck somehow is related to staff. I made a post about it, second post in thread is the deleted message, here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156938.0

No staff reacted. I pm'ed this moderator bear... don't remember the name now but did not get an answer. Later i contacted cyrus about my deleted posts but he did not delete the "tutorial".

Now when i see the last post in that thread, it's mine, there is a line and the text copied again. I'm pretty sure that i did not draw that line and cyrus claimed that grue had edited that post the last time. So in light of that an explaination might be that i posted 2 posts one after another. Grue might have wanted to put them together, drew a line but accidentally copied the content of the first post and not the one from the second post under the line. Then deleted the second post. Might be an explaination...

Don't know what to say about the tutorial part.

Falschen Empfänger eingetragen? Sollte man damit nicht sogar Probleme haben wenn man selbst die Überweisung an eine fremde Kontonummer schickt? Ich glaube dann ist das das Problem desjenigen der gesendet hat. Die Bank hilft da nicht automatisch da es nicht ihr Fehler war und man es freiwillig gemacht hat.

Aber wenn sowas möglich ist dann bin ich sicher helfen die. Schreib dem Support doch einfach mal. Die antworten.

Of course that's possible to happen, even though it should be rarely the case. Well, at the end we think around a topic that is highly speculative and most probably not a real problem. Nothing like that will happen when blockhalving happens. The same way nothing big happened with the other halving before.

I did not say that wikipedia does not get manipulated. We know that media agencies have their people in there, even admins, that can change the text slightly so that the products or companies they have to advertise look better.

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever. I think bitcoiners should be able to value decentralized efforts.

I probably missed some part in this fast going thread but the last posts sound like you might be the digger? Or is he still unknown and avoided the community for some reason?