 Take heart Sir GMAX of Core; the only people feeling fire will be those foolish enough to attack Bitcoin's commanding heights! perfect metaphor blockstream are building castles, with high walls (barriers of entry). using guns(shills) to kill off anyone that wants to be in the bitcoin community. "bitcoins commanding heights". your nailing it.. your mindset really is in a corporate controlled bitcoin. and not a open currency. |
|
|
|
A $1 purchase is not a normal transaction that a normal person makes with an international payment system. I've been complaining about this increasingly loudly since 2012, long before Blockstream was founded.
a $1 purchase is a normal transaction. i can think of a million things people can buy.. the mindset you and others have is that america dominates. do you realise that some countries only get paid $1 every 3 hours as a wage. that you can by a large plate of food for under $1. where $1 if used wisely can buy a couple bags of groceries.. once you move your mindset out of Emerica. and think of the world as a whole. you will see that your own preference is actually pricing 4billion people out of possibly using bitcoin for "normal transactions" EG 1.3billion of china, minimum wage ~80cents so if you think while being in ameria $7.50-$9 is a "normal transaction" then $1 is "normal transaction" to 1.3billion chinese EG 1.2billion of china, minimum wage ~30cents so if you think while being in ameria $7.50-$9 is a "normal transaction" then $1 is "normal transaction" to 1.2billion indians so get your mindset out of the 300million americans and think of the 4billion-7billion world that do think $1 is "normal transaction" amount You just have to get used to the fact that Bitcoin simply isn't meant for microtransactions, and anyone who insists on using it for that purpose just has to accept the higher fees that this usage requires.
but if blockstream expand its capacity. and stop with the fee greed. (it is possible to do without datacenters) EG 2mb+ libsecp256k is fast processing times and more capacity.(that home users can afford to run without special servers EG 2mb+ libsecp256k1 +segwit is even more capacity, and again manageable on home computers. but 1mbsegwit + huge fee's to sway people over to sidechains.. is not expanding bitcoin, but making blockstreams pre-mined coins go from valueless to valuable, while strangling bitcoin. Bitcoin is not, never was, and never will be suitable for microtransactions, and was never intended to be. Bitcoin is a fast, secure, global payment network that obviates the need for banks or other trusted third parties. Using Bitcoin for microtransactions is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If you insist on doing this anyway, please don't complain that a sledgehammer is more expensive than a nutcracker.
bitcoin WAS suitable. for microtransactions.. thats what the 8 decimals are for!. the problem is the greed of fiat lovers pricing bitcoin into unsuitability Remember. Those are the things that I have said. You can't change that, regardless of when I said it.
|
|
|
|
Just pointing out that your suggestion to trade on decentralized exchanges & only use conventional ones to cash out simply adds a layer of inconvenience, without solving a thing.
>concentrate on ways to not even need fiat
Fiat is a tool. Bitcoin is a tool. What you're suggesting is not using screwdrivers by using only hammers.
my point is. "cashing out" is the thing that you cant do without LEGALLY providing ID.(though legit public exchanges) so if you want bitcoin but dont want FIAT ID headaches. find ways to not need to "cashout" to fiat. EG imagine your a British citizen and your prefered currency is Pound(analogy of btc). and the american dollar ramped up their KYC.. would you prefer to find ways around not needing ID. or ways to buy things with pounds without needing to touch the dollar.. ok lets flip it around(incase your american and hate my first example) imagine your an American citizen and your prefered currency is dollar(analogy of btc). and the Chinese Yuan ramped up their KYC.. would you prefer to find ways around not needing ID. or ways to buy things with dollars without needing to touch the Yuan.. |
|
|
|
i think if bitcoin wants to go mainstream, gaming is the best bet.
However, the problem is, just adding bitcoin as an option doesn't help much.
It's like even if companies were to suddenly accept zimbabwe dollars, no one would have the incentive to get zimbabwe dollars.
What we need is bitcoin exclusive games.
well in 2011 they launched dradons taleits more of a interactive faucet/casino, and not so much an action game. there are other 'farm' faucet games http://www.xapofaucetlists.com/p/xapo-games.htmlbut i agree there needs to be more mainstream action based games where the currency is not fiat or ingame 'gold' but satoshi's |
|
|
|
its obvious that the blockstream shills dont want normal people making normal transactions on bitcoin blockchain I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.
remember. Those are all the things that he has said. You can't change that, regardless of when he said it. blockstream shills dont want bitcoin to be an open currency for anyone to be part of. anyone who is against the blockstream plan is essentially being told to STFU and get lost. i think the blockstream lovers have lost complete sense of what bitcoin was all about. they really need to look at the genesis block message and see what the quote was pointing at. corporate control of finance creates crisis, greed and controls that negatively affect normal people |
|
|
|
Don't the fees depend on the TX and are not correlated to the price of Bitcoin at that given moment? I would guess the fees increase exponentially with the bitcoin difficulty to mine it.
BEFORE the 2013 inception of blockstream, tx fee's were tagged roughly against the fiat value.. basically when bitcoins fiat price rose to cause the tx fee minimum to be more than 1cent. the decimal was moved down so that the tx fee remained below 1 cent. but now the corporate shell has done away with that standard and although miners do not need tx fee's as a income stream for atleast 20 years, the corporate shell are giving into greedy and ignoring the communities desire for something better than corporate greed. so while blockstream hold the keys. dont expect fee's for normal bitcoin transactions to be less than 1cent ever again. you have more chance of getting your satoshi out by converting them into altcoins |
|
|
|
this is good for bitcoin. and i hope more businesses want to use bitcoin. Lauda has taken alot of flack recently for being a blockstream shill, maybe he will wake up when he sees 75million people may jump into bitcoin and so more capacity of 2mb+segwit. is the way forward rather than 1mb+segwit+sidchain. especially revealing mindset of Lauda was when i pointed out his own words I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.
so it was my message that prompted lauda to moderate his posts.. that aside, lets get more people to want bitcoin, not altcoins. and try to keep bitcoin as the better currency of use |
|
|
|
Everyone just has it out for Blockstream simply because they contribute to development [does that make sense to anyone?]... could be GCHQ (just kidding). Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything.
That there is a sockpuppet campaign is an objective fact, and not up for debate. The Core devs are clearly doing hypocrisy. In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus. dont forget to add "paymentcodes" to bloat transactions (defeating any positive segwit would have achieved reducing bloat) to hide transaction values.. which is more about breaking node validation ability. i do love how the blockstream sockpuppets try to say only one person is getting paid from the $55mill.. but atleast i now see why so many people are sucking up to Sipa and blindly following his plan. (hoping for a payday if they kiss enough ass) the thing i do find funny is that segwit archival mode (fullnode) data transmission is the same as a 2mb limit proposal. i find it funny that blockstream thinks that libsecp256k1 wont be included in other implementations to fix processing time. then i find it funny that the blockstream crew want to force people off of bitcoin blockchain and get users onto valueless altcoins and security risk offchains. rather than doing what the real community want, which is to expand bitcoin (not blockchains). i have nothing against sidechains, but the methods blockstream are doing it, are obvious to push people off of bitcoin. rather than making it a free choice to jump back and forth. this is done by no longer fixing the tx fee to a sub 2cent value that moves down in decimals if the fiat price increases, to keep transactions cheap. thus attempting to make bitcoin less useful for normal people. the blind suggestion that segwit helps more people become fullnodes, is fundamentally flawed. most users will not enable archival mode and so when the 5000 peers connect together, not all of them will stick with being archival mode. as they are told "everything is fine compatible mode still works", users lose no function.. but there would be a lack of peers set as archival node to be able to get the full data to validate. (one of many bait and switch plans) along with pushing part of the community onto sidechains, more users wont be using bitcoin fullnodes but instead running elements fullnode. blockstream looks good on glossy paper. but in the reality of real life usage scenario's, all of those dreams evaporate and what is left is a incorporated bitcoin that normal people cant use because it has been outpriced with tx fee's and bloated with "paymentcodes" and other stuff. if only blockstream thought logically that tx fee's are not even required as a income stream for atleast 2 decades, they would not be pushing for tx fee rise... oh wait they would, as they need the rise to push people away from bitcoin. blockstream really do need to look at the genesis block message and remember what bitcoin was all about. as i feel that blockstream payday's have blinded people away from an open currency and swayed people over to the bad code and corporate strategy to create profit at the expense of controlling normal peoples finances. by saying i want 2mb does not mean im in the r3 boat. i hate them for the same reasons as the blockstream corp. all i want is clean code that remains where bitcoin is the open currency for anyone to be part of. a 2mb implementation with libsecp256k1 does not cause doomsday scenarios of needing datacenters to run fullnodes... its just that simple if blockstream shills reply about the malle-fix. that too can be done in a dozen different ways too. without all of the hidden corporate agenda that would push normal people (the million+ population) away from hoarding bitcoins. everyone knows that in april if they want to remain as full-node status, they are going to need to upgrade, so its not as soft as the glossy leaflet pretends. if you dont upgrade you wont be fully validating node. and if they do upgrade, some will choose not to run full archival mode, so blockstream will be cutting the full node population down. while not (longterm) increasing capacity because of the other features that add more bytes to a tx (after segwits promise of less bytes). i see soo many bait and switch plans that end up pushing normal people down a one way street that moves away from hoarding bitcoins... and that is the thing that i do not find funny |
|
|
|
The idea that blockstream controls core and has a secret agenda to manipulate core is complete and absolute bullshit.
How, exactly, does blockstream "drive" the development of Bitcoin Core? Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons. 1 out of 7 certainly does not mean that they have control, in fact, that is very little control. The other 6 developers are not affiliated with blockstream and they would revoke the access rights of sipa if he decided to commit things for blockstream that is detrimental to Bitcoin.
Furthermore, blockstream was founded by several developers who worked on Bitcoin Core before blockstream existed and those people have contributed greatly to Bitcoin Core. This isn't some company that was founded by a bunch of people who then hired Core devs to do their work, this is Core devs who wanted to do something and founded a company for it.
your analogy is much like saying.. "its not like burglars wanting to break in and steal the family jewels, blockstream was a family business, it is their house" but its more like "someone in the family is now stealing the family jewels. he has now told his friends if they hand him some cash, he will leave the door unlocked so anyone can sneak in" while also pointing the finger at the 2 cousins he pushed away and said dont trust them they know bad people, they are the ones after the family jewels, not my friends |
|
|
|
I already have a lot of satoshis lost around several bitcoin exchanges. I can't withdraw those satoshis because they don't even worth the fees.
Like me there's thousands of others in the same situation which would make a lot of BTC. So I take it that exchanges keep these satoshis for them.
What do you think? Should exchanges be responsible for the fees and return every satoshi to their owners?
usually you would swap the bitcoin satoshi's for litecoin or ripple and then withdraw them. and then combine them into one exchange to convert back to bitcoin to a worthy amount to withdraw as bitcoin |
|
|
|
All of this anti-Blockstream FUD fixating on who wrote the code, why they wrote it, where they wrote it, what they were wearing when they wrote it, what they ate for breakfast, what club they went to last night, and where their pets' vet went to elementary school is an irrelevant distraction.
yet your 19page topic flaming anyone who wasnt blockstream, was relevant? im guessing you, carlton, Lauda and ciyam are getting a nice bounty win from that $55mill I don't recall such a topic. Link please... Oh wait, shouldn't you already be busy digging up all those old posts where I supposedly " portrayed myself as anti-capitalist?" Or are you so butthurt about Blockstream's $55MM war chest that you are resorting to just making shit up? to answer your 2 questions, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.0 |
|
|
|
All of this anti-Blockstream FUD fixating on who wrote the code, why they wrote it, where they wrote it, what they were wearing when they wrote it, what they ate for breakfast, what club they went to last night, and where their pets' vet went to elementary school is an irrelevant distraction.
yet your 19page topic flaming anyone who wasnt blockstream, was relevant? im guessing you, carlton, Lauda and ciyam are getting a nice bounty win from that $55mill |
|
|
|
To me it seems like this argument is pushed by Gavin's supporters to make it seem like there's a conspiracy edging them out. But even if the theory is true, what evidence do you have to show that blockstream is not good for bitcoin, can you compare it to bitcoin XT or Classic o say that it is better or worst? No. It's not even out yet and as long as there is no urgent need for larger blocks (which there isn't) some people better stop pushing that narrative.
i dont support gavin. but what if blockstreams agenda, all along was to make gavin and hearne the scapegoats to take peoples attention away from the blockstream corporatization. we all know that gavin and hearn wouldnt succeed. even if us normal folk just wanted more capacity without the corporate bait and switches.. we knew gavin and hearne was not the solution. but now we know blockstream isnt either. so now you know it too.. what are you going to do to: But if they're caught on the act it's very likely that their privileges will be stripped.
how will you strip their privileges? |
|
|
|
blockstream shills reveal the bait and switch to move common bitcoin users off of bitcoin and into their pretend money. I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.
its becoming obvious that they dont want bitcoin to be a useful currency for everyone/anyone. sounds so much departed away from satoshi's reason for creating bitcoin and is moving closer to the corporate crap that the genesis quote was trying to highlight as being wrong with this planet |
|
|
|
As usual, Franky: get out of town with that garbage
The processing that gets done when a Skype call or Netflix streaming session gets downloaded is low compared to Bitcoin blocks. Cryptographic proofs need satisfying to validate the new block and it's contents. The way it is now, the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change. That kind of burden (a doubling then raised to the power of four) could see nodes checking transaction signatures and resolving coinbase merkle roots for the entire block interval i.e. <10 minutes.
So, your simple presentation is a little too simple. Please try to improve.
keeping it short and sweet. processors and ram are much cheaper,faster, more capable and common now than 2 years ago. and will again be better, faster, cheaper in 2 years. we are not stuck with 2009 technology! or 2013-14 technology. but i do like how lauda's example of the processing crisis is referencing raspberry pies rather than normal computers, that atleast made me laugh. maybe i should complain that segwit wont run on a ZX spectrum as an exaggerated example to show lauda's mindset. and i do like how lauda in the post says that he doesnt think normal users buying normal stuff deserve the security of exahash network.. very bait and switch(common users off of bitcoin) mindset. which shows blockstream isnt about bitcoin being for the community at all |
|
|
|
|
dont diss bitcoin core. or they will call you a corporate shill.. oh wait................................
ok, lets try something else.. 2nd time lucky
dont be part of the community asking for a simple 3 line of coe updateto expand bitcoin, because.. blockstream is there for the benefit of the community.. oh wait.................
ok i got it, third time lucky
dont rebuttal the code using logic, because blockstream is all about the code logic.. oh wait.. dang it, even in this case blockstreams defense is illogic rebuttals that make no sense. and are just said to confuse noobs into surrendering to the roadmap..
EG
blockstream: increasing to 2mb hardfork will require data centers .. community: but, segwit full archival is between 2-4mb blocks
blockstream: users cant handle the data.. community: skype videocalls are 30mb UPLOAD every 10minutes from a home PC
blockstream: but the other implementations have corporate agenda.. community: so do you, you even wrote your agenda to move people off bitcoin in a roadmap (liquid, sidechains LN)
in short it was always a 3 corporate shell game.
3 shells and the name of the game is "you have 2 chances to throw away the corporate ball under the shells, the 3rd shell stays"
(secret all 3 shells R3, toomin, and blockstream have corporate balls) though for months they have pretended they are here only for the community
|
|
|
|
Hey! I did a lot of thinking & this thread is a follow up to the one I posted a few days ago here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347010.0bitcoin business idea
THE NEW & IMPROVED BTC BUSINESS IDEA
[/size]
3). Store card bitcoin purchase Let me know what you think! Would like some input on this! people can walk into walmart and buy maybe an amazon card.. go to purse.io and other giftcard selling websites and trade that card in for bitcoin. the funny thing is that purse.io has about a 30% premium. EG $100 giftcard is only offered $70 of bitcoins. and people are actually selling their giftcards for those low amounts they then sell that $100 giftcard on for <$90 (yes bitcoin customers get a discount/bargain) and purse.io still makes upto 20% in the middle i would say however, trying to get your own 'giftcard' on the shelves/racking of the major retailers is going to be the hardest thing you will ever do in your life. i would suggest you research into purse.io business plan and ask them some questions. as they are far ahead in the bitcoin<->giftcard industry. |
|
|
|
You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point (bolded) above. By ignoring that fact, and combined with the fact that Core is the currently used implementation, you've convinced yourself that any change away from Core is tyranny.  This is wrong and a misunderstanding of my views. If Classic had set up a 90 or 95% consensus threshold I would have a lot less arguments against it. Even if we disregard a lot of things in the current situation, I just can't accept a network split. I would never show my support to anyone who wants to do something harmful to the network. 51%, 75%, 90%, 95%,...those are just different shades of consensus. looking at the charts of the pools, lets take the 75% of peer consensus into an example or two: there are 14 notable wedges.. it you go clockwise and count 11(over75%) thats over 90% of the hashrate.. great but if you count anticlockwise its only 33% of the hashrate.. not so great. so any consensus by itself is a never ending debate where the goal posts will be moved again EG miner peer consensus & community peer consensus EG miner peer consensus & miner hashpower consensus EG miner hashpower consensus & community peer consensus. in short, many people that dont want radical change or those that have a one track mind and think they already own the world. will never be happy until they win. (goes for both camps.. bankers and pricewaterhouse) |
|
|
|
Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.
Exactly. I've asked the 'big blockist' and 'forkers' before and got no reply (aside from insults). Currently there are people that run nodes on Raspberry Pi's. Obviously this won't be possible in the future unless there is an updated version but we can disregard that. Where is the cut-off point, Pentium, Dual Core, Intel i3? They'd be willing to waste a lot of valuable resources and heavily reduce the node count just in order to be able to process small purchases on the main chain. I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network. people have replied to lauda. but he ignores and then deletes posts because it proves his agenda wrong. EG Skype videocalls. 30mb every 10 minutes.(upload) netflix HD tv shows 500mb(download) yet millions of people can use those services without being a datacenter..
i have made a valid comment in reply to the questions asked in a valid post. if this post gets deleted then so should the posts i have quoted as they are all linked. if only my post gets deleted then it shows Lauda is trying to hide the truth to pretend there is no rebuttal to his mindsethonest question time now lauda. just choose A B or C which statement fits your mindset A. i know data is not a good excuse to not fork.. but im not sure of how orphans work or blockheights work to bring the network inline so im scared of forks B. i know how forks work but im paid by blockstream to try ensuring blockstream dominates and has control C. im not paid by blockstream i am just emotionally tied to the core developers through friendship and want them to be rich and powerful |
|
|
|
No taxes man, don't do that shit  and now you have just voided your own "anti-corporate tax avoidance" morals.. because you yourself think that tax avoidance is acceptable.. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
