Do you even understand Bitcoin? If you want proof-by-proxy then either go to Barrycoin or Jihancoin.
Oh, i understand Bitcoin very well. Bitcoin relies on a consensus-mechanism called "Proof of Work" and as such it's the miners that effectively decide what happens. You don't like it? OK, but what other consensus-mechanism do you propose? "Proof of Node"? "Proof of Reddit Account"? You see you are right that Bitcoin means NO backdoor decisions, yes. But then you should also understand that in the Bitcoin ecosystem it's PoW that decides and nothing else. And who decides if the PoW is valid? Learn Bitcoin mate. How do miners at the moment decide which block is valid and which isn't? It's the same principle that sorts out doublespends or any other malicious block. Majority of PoW decides what Bitcoin-block is correct and which isn't. |
|
|
|
Do you even understand Bitcoin? If you want proof-by-proxy then either go to Barrycoin or Jihancoin.
Oh, i understand Bitcoin very well. Bitcoin relies on a consensus-mechanism called "Proof of Work" and as such it's the miners that effectively decide what happens. You don't like it? OK, but what other consensus-mechanism do you propose? "Proof of Node"? "Proof of Reddit Account"? You see you are right that Bitcoin means NO backdoor decisions, yes. But then you should also understand that in the Bitcoin ecosystem it's PoW that decides and nothing else. |
|
|
|
^^ thank you.
edit: and even after the classic block was mined, Luke continued to write the software they agreed upon whilst having his name dragged through the mud.
Luke? Luke states to this very day that 0.5Mb is enough. LOL |
|
|
|
"Core" signed nothing, and there is no such thing as "Core" when considering a singular entity.
I never said "Core" signed the agreement. Read again:
Also we had a solution early 2016, remember? The miners and some core devsagreed for 2MB+SW. What happend? Core just openly gave a fuck about that agreement. Seriously, to blame just one side is rather biased.
We had an agreement already and (like you also correctly stated) this agreement got neglected by Maxwell, Friedenbach and others just hours after the other Core devs signed it. So who is to blame for that mess? Why opt out of SW+2MB? If there is no such thing as a unity called "Core" then you will never be getting closer to any agreement as they where in the beginning of 2016. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't call it Bitmain-fiasco. I would call it: "Ignoring the necessity of scaling for 3 years fiasco."
Until this day you have peeps like LunaticLuke that say openly that the high fees are good and the blocksize should be shrunk to 0.5MB.
Also we had a solution early 2016, remember? The miners and some core devs agreed for 2MB+SW. What happend? Core just openly gave a fuck about that agreement. Seriously, to blame just one side is rather biased.
Don't be an idiot. You're presenting an absurd view pushed by bitmain, ver trolls and /btc. If you'd care to do some research into this you'd realize you've been misled. An "idiot"? LOL, OK what part is "idiotic"? Did they sign the agreement? Yes. Did it say SW+2MB? Yes. Did Maxwell and others openly state just hours after they signed it "We dont care." Yes. So what part is misleading? |
|
|
|
Ja, Bitmain hätte wahrscheinlich manches besser kommunizieren können. Aber ich finde das Post sehr klar, sehr positiv und sehr bedacht.
Anstatt dich über Bitmain zu ärgern, wäre es angebracht, dich über r/bitcoin aufzuregen, wo SegWit2x nur angegriffen wird, wo Propaganda gegen Bitmain gemacht wird - die ja mittlerweile sogar du für ungerechtfertigt hältst - und im allgemeinen nur Lügen und einseitige Meinungen verbreitet werden. Zumindest würde ich mir da, wenn du SegWit2x unterstützt, dieselbe klare Opposition gegen UASF, r/bitcoin und Core wünschen, die du gegen die BU-Bewegung demonstriert hast.
möchtest Du eventuell mal Deine sponsoren offen legen? wäre jetzt ein guter zeitpunkt transparenz zu zeigen. oder siehst Du das anders? Ist dir eigentlich klar das genau diese Unterstellungen die ganze Diskussion überhaupt haben erst so ekelhaft haben werden lassen? Und somit Bitcoin als solchem Schaden zufügen. ich sehe mittlerweile bei Herrn Bergmann eine penetranz welche sich sogar in persönlichen ratschlägen äussert (oben fett markiert). Herr Bergmann ist erst seit einiger zeit hier im forum aktiv. meine frage nach seinen sponsoren erscheint durchaus berechtigt oder nicht? Wenn es ausreicht penetrant eine Meinung zu vertreten und hier schon seit "einiger Zeit" aktiv zu sein, dann dürften hier wohl so einige gesponsert sein.  |
|
|
|
EDIT: manche chinesen (Bitmain) sind nicht dumm (auch wenn sie etwas behindert aussehen)
wtf?! |
|
|
|
Ja, Bitmain hätte wahrscheinlich manches besser kommunizieren können. Aber ich finde das Post sehr klar, sehr positiv und sehr bedacht.
Anstatt dich über Bitmain zu ärgern, wäre es angebracht, dich über r/bitcoin aufzuregen, wo SegWit2x nur angegriffen wird, wo Propaganda gegen Bitmain gemacht wird - die ja mittlerweile sogar du für ungerechtfertigt hältst - und im allgemeinen nur Lügen und einseitige Meinungen verbreitet werden. Zumindest würde ich mir da, wenn du SegWit2x unterstützt, dieselbe klare Opposition gegen UASF, r/bitcoin und Core wünschen, die du gegen die BU-Bewegung demonstriert hast.
möchtest Du eventuell mal Deine sponsoren offen legen? wäre jetzt ein guter zeitpunkt transparenz zu zeigen. oder siehst Du das anders? Ist dir eigentlich klar das genau diese Unterstellungen die ganze Diskussion überhaupt haben erst so ekelhaft haben werden lassen? Und somit Bitcoin als solchem Schaden zufügen. |
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't call it Bitmain-fiasco. I would call it: "Ignoring the necessity of scaling for 3 years fiasco."
Until this day you have peeps like LunaticLuke that say openly that the high fees are good and the blocksize should be shrunk to 0.5MB.
Also we had a solution early 2016, remember? The miners and some core devs agreed for 2MB+SW. What happend? Core just openly gave a fuck about that agreement. Seriously, to blame just one side is rather biased.
|
|
|
|
Maybe we could ask Yassin and his ydx for the beginning?
I already told him about XEL some weeks ago. He was very interested, but at the moment he seems busy with his "IPO". |
|
|
|
The risk of impending chain split could be a factor.
Tada! 100 Points to you. The UASF outlook is scary for the markets, as is an eventual #Flippening with ETH. That combined with a very long run with lots of hype and the usual "My friends, family, coworkers asking about BTC" and you have more than enough reason for a strong correction down to 1500$. |
|
|
|
Nope, i expect they will go one step beyond and will add IOTA.
They're a considerably classier operation than Bitfinex and would give a decent amount of signalling before doing that. Let's see. |
|
|
|
Is Bitstamp referring to lightning network transactions.
Yes. Because the're adding Litecoin this week. Nope, i expect they will go one step beyond and will add IOTA. |
|
|
|
SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT YASSIN SCAMMER.
which scammer? |
|
|
|
Doesn't make sense how bitcoin is crashing but ETH/BTC is going down aswell...
makes perfectly sense. the dethroning of BTC could be the end of the cryptobullrun we saw since 2015 |
|
|
|
|
I now applied @xtester's OP proposal. I hope the "important contributors" part with the profile-links is OK. Otherwise say something and i delete it.
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to get one of the mods on BTCtalk to close the original thread to avoid confusion?
I already made a report, lets see if they react. |
|
|
|
A new thread was long overdue!  Done! You can take this Elastic OP design by @xtester as an example. I liked it agree, i will make some edits and use it! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
