|
Beg your pool operator overlords to fix it for you!
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a life lesson for you: Ignore what people say and watch what they do.
Mining pool operators clearly have no interest in scaling Bitcoin at this juncture.
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are in full damage control mode today, huh? I see all the familiar faces (all 4 of you) posting like madmen.
|
|
|
|
why are pools bad? isn't it easy to change pools?
To keep it short, and since you love all things satoshi, it's supposed the be "one-CPU-one-vote". Pools can potentially be zero-CPUs-many-votes. At least mining farms require a sizeable hardware investment. Yes, I know many pools are some combination of both. Don't get me wrong either, I'd prefer both pools and mining farms go the way of the Dodo. Also, I consider a hash rate provider (gets work from the pool operator) to be less valuable to the network than an actual miner (creates his own work). I remember back when I mined full time that when a pool would go down most miners weren't even set up to fall back to solo mining (or even a back-up pool), even though it was readily accessible with the mining software of the time. Anyway, there are several reasons why centralized mining is simply bad for Bitcoin, and it should be easy enough to research this on your own. |
|
|
|
In 2011-12-13 I would post pictures of SD cards that could easily hold the entire block chain (which is still true) as my ignorant example of why blocks could be much bigger. I actually argued that there should be no limit. Then as Bitcoin gained in popularity and blocks started filling up, I noticed how much bandwidth my node was using. Finally it's 2017 and I've since had to upgrade to internet speeds that are better than most of the world's population in order to run a full node without impacting other internet use. I guess I just missed the part where I get paid millions of dollars to adjust my viewpoint.  Lets have a more productive conversation than arguing about the scaling roadmap. Why do you run a full node? Satoshi seems to not mention anything about non mining full nodes. To me, all non-mining nodes really do is relay. Sure, they can verify the miners' blocks but you don't really need that many nodes to do that, and other miners can also do that. I run a full node for several reasons. I enjoy the privacy it affords my transactions. I enjoy the security of verifying the block chain for myself. I like to provide others with the option to enjoy both those things. If only large data centers ran full nodes, they could easily collude to censor transactions. Satoshi was a genius. No doubt in my mind. Either that or a group of people well versed in many different fields. However, that does not make him perfect, and relying on his now outdated comments on how to move Bitcoin into the future would be a mistake. His ghost lacks all the data we have amassed since he left us. Also, sometimes inventions outgrow their inventors and become something they never expected them to be. Satoshi's biggest failure, in my opinion, was not hardening mining against centralization (pools are actually worse than huge server farms IMO), and I've spent a large part of my time on Bitcointalk trying to get people to wake up to that fact. |
|
|
|
Jonald Fyookball, you sound like a real noob/troll and paid shill just like Franky1.
oh yeah, and why is that? Because I don't support the core scaling roadmap which turns Bitcoin from p2p cash into a settlement network? or... what ? No, because you post thread after thread trying to get as much visibility as possible for your narrative. If you ignore about 4-5 people on this forum, all talk of BU disappears with them. |
|
|
|
In 2011-12-13 I would post pictures of SD cards that could easily hold the entire block chain (which is still true) as my ignorant example of why blocks could be much bigger. I actually argued that there should be no limit. Then as Bitcoin gained in popularity and blocks started filling up, I noticed how much bandwidth my node was using. Finally it's 2017 and I've since had to upgrade to internet speeds that are better than most of the world's population in order to run a full node without impacting other internet use. I guess I just missed the part where I get paid millions of dollars to adjust my viewpoint. |
|
|
|
|
I would dismantle the government and quit.
|
|
|
|
Are you OK with Bitcoin Dev being taken over by a company? Are you OK with spreading falsehoods in order to forward your agenda?  |
|
|
|
I kept his account unlocked because I thought his family members might want to look at his PMs or something, but this is looking like his account was almost certainly compromised. So I locked his account.
The person who controls his account gained access via email-password-reset, so his email is probably also compromised.
Good call. |
|
|
|
|
If only one chain survives, you don't need to do anything. Your coins are still your coins and they function on either chain that forks from Bitcoin's currently existing chain.
If two (or more) chains survive, you need to learn how to disassociate coins in order to prevent replay attacks.
|
|
|
|
satoshi would have been against BU or any other attack in the form of a second version (which goes against the majority of current nodes and so on)
If you respect what Satoshi said, you must respect this too. He said, quote: "They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."What miners think is true Bitcoin is Bitcoin according to Satoshi. You can't cherry pick some quotes, respect all of his vision or none. Which rules and incentives to be enforced are chosen, however, by the economic majority. The miners will be enforcing a rule set worth exactly zero if people aren't willing to trade other items of value for their coin base rewards. |
|
|
|
Perhaps we should raise the block size limit and leave Satoshi's creation alone?
If Core/Segwit is a corporate takeover over Bitcoin, then, exactly how does this community rise up and stop them?
If the economic majority supported simply raising the block size limit, it would have been done yesterday, last week, years ago. What you are calling "this community" is just an extremely vocal minority. Every single metric besides pool operators shows that a very tiny group wants BU or even a simple block size increase. If you ignore a mere 4-5 users (and 0 activity shill accounts) on this forum, you would see practically zero threads about increasing the block size or BU on this forum. So... you want to "stop" what a huge majority of the users actually want. Good luck with that. I suggest you do like the other big blockers do and switch to Ethereum. Since it makes complete sense to bitch about Bitcoin's utility and then switch to something with far less utility. LMAO.    |
|
|
|
|
Good lord man, are you getting paid per thread or are you just a special snowflake who needs constant attention?
No one cares.
Good luck buying coffee with your altcoin BTW! Bahahahahahah....
The logic is fucking brilliant. Bitcoin blocks are too full and fees are too high to use it as a daily currency, so I'll sell my bitcoins for an altcoin that no one anywhere accepts (or will ever accept) as a currency.
Hahahahahah... oh lord.
|
|
|
|
Wall... what wall? I don't see any walls  . It must have been something in my eye. |
|
|
|
The slaughter of bearwhale.
Maybe bearshark? |
|
|
|
|
The biggest improvement I can imagine is finding a way to return to decentralized mining.
|
|
|
|
|
Wall observed! Bitstamp. Being eaten as I type. Somewhere around 650 coins. Not too shabby.
|
|
|
|
this is what happpens when you try to load a >1MB block:  It was hilarious before you changed it, so I changed it back! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
