stop publicizing the hoax.

i think someone in australia posted it yesterday when it hit midnight.

april fools

remember the link is not to the official news site but their sideblog that any random ass can write.

lol.. time for you to get a day job, im for more capacity without corporate control. that goes for both clasic and blockstream, im pretty sure you endlessly defending blockstream wont win you any part of that $55mill they have. so end the dream and start living the reality. start researching bitcoin instead of being spoonfed glossy leaflets from corporations.

1mb max block size PLUS segwits projected 170-190% increase = 1.7mb-1.9mb of real data with the now useless 1mb max block size..

so logically a 2mb max block size PLUS segwit. has a 3.4mb-3.8mb of real data with the now useless 2mb max block size..

after all whats the point of the buffer named max block size.. if the real data is bigger... it kind of makes the variables purpose meaningless in regards to its name

blockstream wants to tone down their doomsday and then over exaggerate other doomsdays. but the 2017 end result for blockstream is actually more then 3.8mb max potential because confidential payment code adds another (proposed) 250bytes per tx.

so blockstreams end total capacity if everyone switched to their features is 5.7mb for about 7600 transactions..
where as traditional transactions can be 8000tc for 4mb

the guy is a hoax.. the only reason he wants to pretend to be satoshi, is because he ran a financial scam to create alot of fiat based on a contract that supposedly contained bitcoins as collateral.

now he has to try keeping the ruse going.. not only to reduce his prison sentence but many other negative things happening in his life.

all i can say is all of these industrial experts would probably be bribed to say its satoshi..

but signing a key, whether its pgp or bitcoin address.. is the only real way.

he does not need to sign contracts and NDA's he just needs to move one of the coins from the known satoshi addresses, or signs a message.. thats it.

better summary..
if MILLIONS of people can UPLOAD game streaming while playing an online game. while also using voice chat... then the worry about 7000 people uploading 4mb when they relay transactions and blocks out is minimal to non

technology is not going to suddenly jump between 2016 -2017.. because the technology required is already here.. blockstreamers delay tactics are meaningless illogical crap. bitcoin can grow. without it going down the dark path of offchains

after all we are not going to gain 900million users overnight either so 2-4mb (2mb+segwit=3.8mb) is more then enough.

as for the 12 month delay.. again meaningless.. those who are full nodes dont need to take a year to upgrade. it can be done sooner

well Andreas has been around far longer than uphold. so its an easy win for andreas


after all you cant sue someone just for saying a few words. otherwise i could be sued by an american gadget company and a uk telecoms company, just by talking about apples and oranges.
should mcdonalds sue anyone that says the word im loving it.
should skittles sue anyone that says the words taste the rainbow

it would need to be proved the context of its use directly negatively impacts the company. (phishing site making exact copies to scam people), which is hard to achieve.. for instance even the eccentric Donald Trump wont sue someone just for slagging him off..

so to me its not about a lawsuit at all.. its about grabbing a big bitcoin advocates name to publicize a randomly unknown business.. hoping millions of twitter users and media readers will learn the word 'uphold' purely because its desperately trying to grab onto andrea's fame

in short alot of drama to get 15 minutes of fame.

i know i should be more tactfull. but when he thinks he knows everything, but proves he has never read a line of code, thinking its wrote in java... and doesnt even know how long it takes to sync bitcoin. it makes me wonder where he is getting spoonfed his info

hey numbskull. its not a 75:25 split.

its a 75:25 "heads up guys something is changing soon. upgrade or be left with clams"
where the grace period wont stick to 75:25 but allows time for people to be prompted to upgrade and make it a higher amount of people moving across.

put short. if 90% have already moved across then it does need a whole year to move 10%.(eg 600 nodes) after all with all the bug fixes and emergency upgrades of the past we have had more then 7000 nodes upgrade in hours-days.. not months-years.
same can be said at 75% too!!!

the only reason for the year delay is to stay with blockstreams original agenda of increasing capacity just to offset the tx:mb ratio that would become bloated due to confidential payment codes. so they have to add more real capacity just so that people are not crying about only getting
3800tx for 2.85mb(750byte/tx) rather than
4000tx for 2mb(500byte/tx) or
7600tx for 5.7mb(750byte/tx)

so try to think outside the blockstream mantra box, and think for yourself about reality, not the glossy images hand delivered to you. spoonfeeding you half truths

agreed they want their side chains.
its people in the blockstream camp hoping NXT or monero will be a sidechain.. (fools),
hoping that they get to be billionaires by hoarding worthless alts.

segwit AND 2mb combined will be coming soon.. but not soon enough,
nothing bad will happen. but instead of stagnating (staying the same) for a year, if done sooner then bitcoin can grow and expand unhindered.

here is a summary of some numpty's prophecies

"bitcoin needs to double capacity and increase the fee to cover the miner income loss, meaning 4000tx needs to be $1.25 each to cover the $5k loss"
(i know facepalm right)

"miners will die off after the blockreward halving. its going to happen and no one can forsee it because its never happened before"
(i know facepalm right)

"the hard drive costs for miners would be billions of dollars, which miners cannot afford after the reward halving"
(i know facepalm right)

so lets clear this up
1. the bitcoin fiat price will rise to cover sotoshi losses
2. there are more miners AND pools then there were in 2012. the last time the reward halved.
3. lets say we have the max filled blocks of 5.7mb (2mb+segwit+payment codes). thats 300gb a year. or 1.5tb for 5 years.. basically $100 for a 2tb hard drive can hold that. and it wont be full in under 5 years because even with 5.7mb max potential. the reality will be a slower usage of that capacity growing slowly over time. secondly unscrew an ASIC and you wont see a hard drive. miners do not need hard drives(just pools) and so its not going to increase the cost of mining

exactly.

the article refered to a video but i bet the person behind the mask in the video is not the same person that hacked the twitter accounts etc. just some person making propoganda.

it can easily even be media itself donning the costume and making a video, just to have something to write about

firstly the brussels thing was not an ISIS thing.

they guys involved did not grow up in the middle east. they were actually local to brussels and funded using the Euro.. exactly like the paris attack

im not sure if its anonymous pretending to be white haters by taking glory for hacks that never happened. or if its media trying to say that bitcoin is bad because terrorism was funded with bitcoin. even though it was actually funded with euro's..

sometimes i think people like the OP should research the news rather then spread it around and popularize it, even when admitting to not know the full story.

the article is not really about bitcoins use of terrorism nor is it about providing proof that it is used (bar a crappy google search).. but has the intention to say that bitcoin is easy to steal and is stolen quite a bit.

so in my opinion its just another fluff piece trying to say "bitcoin is bad" in as many ways as media can find

well the thing is to allow for a 2mb+segwit buffer increase. knowing that the user numbers are exaggurated and no way will 900million people (blockstreams visa scenario) be jumping in over night nor in the next couple years. also knowing it wont be instant hard drive bloat over night, but more so slower growth like the 2013-2016 slow growth from 500k-950k

so even with 2mb+segwit which offers between
2mb of traditional transactions for UPTO a potential future of 4000 tx.
5.7mb of segwit+CPC for upto a potential future of 7600 tx
(remember im talking about 2mb+segwit combined rather than 1mb+ segwit or 2mb as separate choices)

yes thats right by having both, means lots of capacity and freedom to choose which type of transactions you want. rather than being pulled in any one direction.
again, we are not going to see an instant jump to between 2mb - 5.7mb. it would be slow.. but atleast we wont be hitting our heads against a wall demanding more limits for a while. and stop this endless oliver twist game "please sir can i have some more", which some blockstreamers want by only doing a 1.1mb maxblocksize and increasing by just 0.1 every couple years.

it needs to be extra BUFFER.. and then let the miners slowly increase in smaller amounts underneath the hard cap.. again just like 2013-2016

if a spammer was to make 3800 transactions at lets say 10cents. thats a cost of $380..
thats not really a deterrant for spammers.

how about 5700 sticking to normal traditional transactions with a maxblocksize buffer of blockstreams 2.85mb acceptable bloat.. and fees were 10 cents.

guess what.. thats $570..

which proves that doing normal transactions and increasing the real blocklimits means both more capacity per mb and more cost combined to fill the block, meaning slightly better deterrent.

even if we kept the fee's at 4cent.. blockstream 2.85mb =$152 bloat cost... and natural safe 2mb blocks= $160 or natural 2.85mb blocks=$228

u can increase the fee to whatever you want. but natural normal transactions with a maxblocksize increase is always going to allow more capacity and more combined cost to spam. than blockstreams roadmap

so lets say it another way..
lets say we want it to cost a spammer $1000 to abuse a block..(knowing its more about the total cost for a spammer to abuse a block, while also ensuring users dont pay much individually)
blockstreams roadmap = forcing the users fee to 26cents per tx
natural transactions same bloat = users pay 17.5cents

so blockstreams road map in any way you view it wont give capacity bu will force prices alot higher. while doing the natural capacity growth allows more capacity which in itself would end up costing a spammer more.. but without the physical data storage being any worse then blockstreams idea's

if your talking about mining. then to be part of it you need to be in a pool. you cant solo min any more. so its not individual. people work together and share the profits.
if you are talking about nodes. they do not have independant chains. they share data with each other.

if you are talking about the code. there use to be several implementations all suggesting features and sharing idea's..

but now blockstream wants domination. and to force low capacity to increase a fee war.. thus bitcoin went from social communism and is becoming corporate capitalist.


even in a social communist regime nothing is free. but people agree and barter with each other for the greater good.. capitalist is the opposite where people become selfish and want control and power to use and abuse others for personal gain.
eg mining farms as oppose to pools
eg dictatorship codebase and trying to destroy any opposition

agreed with that. but bitcoin is becoming less "we" and more "them", where blockstream and fanboys want to dictate how many users can happily use it. how many should be able to use bitcoins mainchain and how many should F-off to sidechains and less secure offchains. while dictating that fees should jump astronomically to prevent more users wanting to use the main chain.

the real funny thing is that blockstreamers said that 2mb onchain would b megabloat that no one will want.

yet a 1mb+segwit+confidential payment codes only allows 3800 transactions for 2.85mb
but 2mb traditional transactions=4000tx for just 2mb..

so of blockstream think 2.85mb is safe for their roadmap. then 2.85mb of traditional transactions would allow 5700 transactions a block.

can you atleast see the logic
blockstreams roadmap = 2.85mb for 3800 tx potential
logical natural buffer = 2.85mb for 5700 tx potential..

or more safely 2mb for 4000tx potential

by the way if you want to knitpick the numbers. i actually used the numbers that blockstreamers spout out about. so becareful as you may offend your own friends

you have got your metaphors mixed up
i think you are following the Fox news definitions of communism and not the reality of the worlds definition of communism.

bitcoin is socialist communism (opensource, no barrier to entry community minded).. but is becoming corporate capitalist. with blockstream wanting dominance
i find it real funny how the blockstreamers are altcoin fanboys. so maybe when consensus moves to 2mb.. you altcoiners can play on the minority chain in your small little club and call your chain clams 2.0

yo numbskull

more capacity = more people without a price war..
keeping capacity = price war and less people

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists. you have been drinking too much of the blockstream kool-aid and now you want bitcoin to be a fiat coin..
please detox yourself and think for yourself for once

so in that case dont let Lauda be the judge. either of what people should say or what sites they should be visiting. especially when he lacks the basic knowledge that bitcoin core does not write bitcoin using java

anyone should and could go where ever they like, and not be spoonfed by those with an agenda, especially if its proven they dont know everything themselves.

i think Lauda needs to go spend more time in the croatian thread and try not boosting his ego like his friends are doing

my excitement was definetly highest up until 2013.. but now its started to wain.

even though i have loads of bitcoin, im not even worried or care about the short term spikes or drops. i se the long term future of bitcoin and so the short term price drama means nothing to me anymore.

instead my emotions are more concerned with the whole corporate control of blockstream and classic.
i wish that there was no control and instead EVERY bitcoin user had all the featres and excess capacity buffer so that every implementation can work together seamlessly without contention and without being so close to the edge that it needs radicals to move people in one direction or another.

EG bitcoin was making 500k blocks in 2013 and no one was crying about capacity risks of 1mb because they all know 1mb was just a buffer for potential future growth. the same mindset should exist today. 2mb+segwit should allow both real capacity potential due to a buffer higher than demand. and also allowing the features to be used by choice rather than force.