Either pay $2-$5 as normal fees or shut the fuck up mate, if anyone wants fast network plus low fees they should build their own mining farms and beat BU to the ground.
Tell this to BU devs; why don't they take Core software and then only increase the block size in it without changing any thing else.
I'll bet they'll have some answers for that, yes they want their own version to be accepted blindly just because it solves the block size problem.
If anyone has issues with Bitcoin they should use altcoins with fast network and low fees and let Bitcoin be.
Next stop is $2800 just like when price jumped from $1100 to $1800 we shall see another leap from $2100 to $2800.
Core software isn't what it used to be. It suffers from several regressions in the past version. For example, their OPT-IN RBF is a messy hack that should be ripped off and discarded as crap. Also, Core nodes don't relay double spends which keeps merchants in dark until the double spend gets confirmed by a miner. Their software used to be okey but it's now not even worth to be called Core. When Gavin and Mike stopped contributing to the Core reference client all progress stopped unfortunately  |
|
|
|
Once Bitcoin gets bigger blocks and segwit is history the altcoin bubble is going to crash so hard  How is it going to get bigger blocks, when there is no consensus? I don't care much about SegWit and BU. But this situation can't go on like this. A lot of harm has been done already and the altcoin users are making the maximum use out of it. Very simple: market demand. Blockstream lies about having the economic majority on their side. Their devs don't even use BTC in their everyday life. The real economic majority are people who use Bitcoin, online casinos and merchants, all of them want smaller TX fees. The block size is bound to be increased either via forking or whatever, it will increase. There's simply so much demand for it especially now when BTC is trading higher and higher every day. Soon BTC will cost so much that no one would even care about the potential drop in price due to forking, besides holders will get to keep coins on both chains. |
|
|
|
I can soon start digging out my old threads to smear that shit in the faces of all those duckfucking non-believers. It's a shame the Core devs have gone rogue at the current times when BTC is entering into the next adoption cycle.
Have you predicted higher than 2k? I didnt have that prediction but I did believe it can grow more. With the amount of bitcoin to be mined getting lower and lower it will become rare. As far as I know rare items are supposed to be valuable. Bitcoin did soar that high amount and keeps on doing it. I guess there are still many investors coming even with a high price. I've predicted 5k and 17k. 5k is probably going to be the next bottom after we reach 17k |
|
|
|
I can soon start digging out my old threads to smear that shit in the faces of all those duckfucking non-believers. It's a shame the Core devs have gone rogue at the current times when BTC is entering into the next adoption cycle.
Do you mean core dev prevent the next adoption for bitcoin?It Looks so weird. Bitcoin has a good rally, It does not need to take a day to get over $100 increase.Bitcoin to the moon. HODL!!! Of course, where have you lived, under a rock? The BlockStream bankster funded Core quasi dev team refuses to increase the block size limit which would decrease TX fees dramatically. They don't do it because they don't want BTC to scale on chain. They have patents that would only be profitable if the Bitcoin network switched to their SegWit pseudo-solution. Total corruption in action. Mike Hearn and Gavin were visionaries who foresaw this issue long time ago, it's a pity that people (me included) fell for the troll army and censorship back in the day when Bitcoin XT was proposed as the solution for Bitcoin's on chain scaling. The reason shitcoins like Ethereum, Ripple and Litecoin are in a crazy bubble right now is the high TX fees of Bitcoin. You give BTC bigger blocks and all of sudden all those worthless alts will be worthless again. We don't need Ethereum to have smart contracts for Christ sake. Ethereum is like pets.com during the dot-com bubble. |
|
|
|
|
He will be back. The Core parasites will be kicked out from the community. Mike quitted the SegWitCoin not Bitcoin. Only back then we were confused and thought that SegWit had something to do with Bitcoin. Now we know that SegWitCoin is an altcoin and true Bitcoin is the one with the longest POW chain.
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not... Segwit is coming. (get ready for >10k$)
It has come to the point that the community don't give fuck anymore if there will be a chain split or not. Many USD whales saw this and started to buy bitcoins like there is no tomorrow.
Segwit will be activated.
What if BU Fanboys decide mine their own chain? So be it. They can do that but they will stay as an altcoin (BTU) forever. They can keep signaling for BTU if that's what they want. We'll find our soon enough.
you already got your stinking segwit on LTC, not going to happen on BTC. 10k prices would already be here if the block size was increased and segwit dead and buried. Go back under the bridge you troll. |
|
|
|
|
I can soon start digging out my old threads to smear that shit in the faces of all those duckfucking non-believers. It's a shame the Core devs have gone rogue at the current times when BTC is entering into the next adoption cycle.
|
|
|
|
Once Bitcoin gets bigger blocks and segwit is history the altcoin bubble is going to crash so hard |
|
|
|
Wow this anon tech looks damn solid..
But how do you see yourself compete against other anon tech like ring-sig, zksnarks or masternodes?
all of those have a block chain. byteball is superior to blockchain based cryptos because byteball has no block chain! block chain tech is in a bubble and byteball is going to burst the shit out of that bubble |
|
|
|
Segwit provides bigger blocks you dummy. Oh well guess Bitcoin has to weed out the idiots at some point. People like you are the reason I divested 20% of my coins into LTC, because they at least are not being hampered by the idiocy of people who think Segwit and Lightning are the devil. Still I'm optimistic that reason and cool heads will prevail and Bitcoin will get Segwit this year. We'll see.
Oh well guess Bitcoin has to weed out the idiots like you at some point. I mean how bad can it get? You are now outright lying. You should divest 100% and GTFO of Bitcoin altogether. Then we can get bigger blocks and lower TX fees. All you segwit fanboys go to LTC, you are clearly anti-Bitcoin minded and don't belong here. |
|
|
|
Altcoins are in a bubble, that's fore sure. Bitcoin has not even entered the vertical rise stage of a bubble cycle. But altcoins have their own dot-com bubble. Ethereum is probably going to be the pets.com analogy of the altcoin bubble What you do here is that you will sell the overvalued altcoins and you buy into promising undervalued coins. Look at the market cap and try to see the growth potential. For example, Eth is already inflated as fuck, it is very unlikely that ETH will x10 in value, right? How about some undervalued coin with good fundamentals on the other hand? Those small market caps can easily x10 in value. What happens is that smart investors sell their overvalued shitcoin stack (ripple, eth, dash...) and they buy into coins that can still x10 in value. |
|
|
|
|
I'm never going to make any segwit TXs, it's complete bullshit, longest chain is the true bitcoin. If by chance the segwitcoin has any worth or better yet if it manages to temporarily be worth something then it's free money. Besides, I'm already prepared for the doomsday scenario by having accumulated a big amount of cheap GBYTEs (ByteBall distributions). ByteBall will dethrone ethereum and dash because it has better smart contracts and better anonymity. I win whatever happens. But I hope Bitcoin gets bigger blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
ByteBall is the ETH/DASH/MONERO destroyer. I'm lovin' it.
|
|
|
|
*Why I Stopped Using Cryptox.pl and You Should Too*
1. It's unreliable. Their website, bitcoin wallet, and Byteball wallet are all flaky.
I needed to sell some bytes for bitcoin one day and my deposit never showed up the entire day. So, essentially my coins were lost when I needed them the most. Of course the price also went down during that time, screwing me more. I contacted @grzem and he was just a total jerk, acting like what happened didn't matter, "and just wait longer" he said.
2. They're greedy. Less than .01 BTC (~$20) is considered dust and will be taken from you if it happens to hit your Cryptox account.
Bitcoin fees are getting crazy and everyone knows it (almost $2 now). So, I was using my Cryptox BTC address as the payout address from the Byteball chatbot exchange. So, when I sold bytes, the BTC would be sent directly to my Cryptox account, and I could buy more bytes. But on the chatbot, you don't control how much someone buys from your order, so small BTC transactions come out occasionally.
This morning I received some hostile emails from Cryptox staff, prolly grzem himself.
I asked for a URL link to their Terms of Service because I could not find it. They sent me a 1 word reply, "Information." Basically, their crappy site doesn't even have URL's so he cannot link me to one. Now I see that if you click Information in the sidebar (never even looked here because I was only interested in Byteball) and then Fees, then look at the chart Other Fees you will finally see something about BTC Deposit Minimum Transfer Amount .01.
Wait, what? Why would this be under Fees???
3. Now there are better, more trustworthy exchanges to trade bytes.
I'm going to switch to Bittrex and Cryptopia.
4. Did I mention Cryptox staff are jerks?
Ain't nobody got time for that.
I bought the majority of my BB holdings (at 50$ range) from cryptox.pl, so I am thankful for their existence. Now that I have accumulated enough I couldn't care less if they disappeared  and yes I also had troubles with that exchange. |
|
|
|
|
Sooner or later bitcoin will upgrade to larger blocks. There's just too big demand from economic nodes and end users. I hereby predict that this event alone will burst the altcoin/eth bubble. Then the true BTC bubble will begin as there is nothing left to stop the adoption.
|
|
|
|
Yes, nothing to do with Bitcoin, but media all over the globe FUD about Bitcoin,
Exactly. If Bitcoin was not that prominent cryptocurrency then cyber criminals would use other altcoin. If we won't have cryptocurrency at all, they would use other means of payment like they tend to do in the past: bank wire transfers, premium text messages, pre paid voucher like Paysafecard and more. It is idiotic when you blame Bitcoin for ransomware (which NSA or CIA leaked in the first place). Also, MS Windows should be blamed. |
|
|
|
I introduced a friend to bitcoin in 2016 and he bought 20 bitcoins at $455 somewhere in January 2016. He now sold all of them at $1005 per bitcoin. After bank fees and trading fees, he made a profit of about $10 000 in a year.
The best interest rate he could get back in January was about 10% per year. So his profit from bank interest would have been +/- $910 for 2016.
Even after Tax has been deducted for Capital Gains, he will still Net a profit of about $7000 for the year. He is a very happy chap now, and I got a expensive lunch out of this deal. ^smile^
#Disclaimer : These are calculations done by him, so I do not know how accurate they are. Just thought I would share it with you.
Would you risk about $10 000 now, to possibly copy his success? Those were very uncertain times, when he had to make that decision back then.
your friend is going to regret for the rest of his life that he cashed out |
|
|
|
You would have to modify Bitcoin Core to accept double spends since Bitcoin Core will not allow double spends into its mempool for obvious reasons.
- snip -
Even if you do that, it will still be very rare that you will see a double spend attempt. This is because nearly all of the nodes you will typically connect to will refuse to accept and refuse to relay any double-spend attempt. Therefore, you will not hear about the double-spend attempt from your connected peers. To find double-spend attempts you'll need to do 3 things... - Find or write software that will accept transactions from bitcoin nodes that are double-spend attempts
- Connect to as many nodes as possible so that you are more likely to be connected to one of the few nodes that is relaying the double-spend attempt
- Keep a permanent history of all transactions that have ever been received and not confirmed, even weeks, months, or years after most nodes would have dropped them from their memory pool
Even if you do all of that, you will still miss some double-spend attempts, but if you are connected to enough nodes you'll have a good chance at finding a significant percentage of them. The problem is, as an attacker I could do the following: - Connect directly to nodes run by a few of the largest mining pools
- Connect to a very large number of non-mining peer nodes
- Broadcast a transaction (TXN_A) to the non-mining peer nodes
- Simultaneously send a double-spend attempt (TXN_B) directly to the mining pool nodes
If I did that, then most of the network (including your double-spend monitor) would hear about TXN_A. Since most nodes won't relay the double-spend attempt, it is very likely that your double-spend monitor won't hear about TXN_B (unless you happen to be connected directly to the same mining pool nodes as me). Meanwhile the mining pools will refuse to accept TXN_A (since that will appear to be a double-spend attempt to them). Eventually TXN_B will be confirmed by one of the mining pools, and you'll receive the block with TXN_B in it. At that point, your node will remove TXN_A from its memory pool since it is no longer valid. Notice that TXN_B never made it into your memory pool. As far as your node was concerned, the TXN_B didn't exist, and then it was confirmed. Thanks for a good explanation! My wrong assumption was that nodes don't reject double spends. It's funny because the network cripples itself by doing it anyway, I have already built a mechanism of maintaining good connection with the network including mining pools. All I need to do now is switch from core to XT? Alternatively, would I discover double spends with the Core client if I restarted it very often and deleted its mempool file from disk? ... and if I connected to random nodes on each restart |
|
|
|
|
I have implemented a program that monitors all mempool entrants and checks whether any of them spends outputs that have already been spent by some other unconfirmed TX. For some reason, my program never detects any double spends this way. Does anyone know why? I'd guess it is because the BitcoinCore full node implementation does not allow double spends in the mempool, it's as if they were invisible. However, blockchain.info seems to detect them immediately and reliably so I know it has to be possible. Any tips and hints would be extremely welcome. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
