That's why improvements are always in the pipeline.  As was said above, Bitcoin is still effectively in Beta.  All the stuff that makes it easier to use for ordinary people to use is still to come.

If you can't explain how an Automated Clearing House works on a technical level, then surely credit card payments are too complicated and no one will ever use them.  Except that people do use them and have probably never even heard of Automated Clearing Houses, let alone be able to explain how they work.  Given sufficient time, Bitcoin can reach that level as well.  Play the long game and see the potential.

We do care about Bitcoin.  That's why we keep debunking your terrible ideas where you keep trying to turn it into some sort of voting democracy crap.

We do care about the code.  You have no code.  Stop talking as if you have all the answers, when what you have in reality is absolutely nothing other than whiny desperation and bitterness that the world isn't as you'd like it to be.

We also care about personal freedom.  Something you have illustrated time and again that you would happily trample all over to get what you want.  You are not, and will never be, in a position to tell us what we can't do.

a)  No one gives a flying fuck when BCH mined its first block.  If any forkcoin announces a launch date without changing their network magic, whether their first block has been mined or not, their nodes can and should be disconnected from the BTC network.  If you can't understand the reasoning for that and the risks it would present to the network if it wasn't done, then you clearly aren't technically astute enough to comment.  That, or your overwhelming bias is preventing you from forming a conclusion that's even remotely sensible once again.  It's honestly difficult to tell with you.  Are you a zealot, or just ignorant?  Maybe it's both.  I'm honestly past caring.

b)  Even if people did care about when BCH mined its first block, the amusingly long time it took was primarily due to their non-existant hashrate at launch.  Hence the need to further alter consensus rules with their Emergency Difficulty Adjustment.  That chain would have been dead by the end of the first week if they hadn't altered it.  The end result, whether being disconnected before or after mining their first block would have been the same.  They were the minority chain.  It would never have unfolded any differently, no matter how much you try to blame one dev team for everything.  But by all means keep living in the past at the only point in history where you think your worthless opinions meant anything.  

c)  If you want to change consensus unilaterally with a hardfork, why should you expect to be permitted to remain connected to a network that fundamentally disagrees with you?  Say you went to the cinema with friends (an unlikely scenario given that I doubt you have that many friends, but still) to see a movie, but then you decide that instead you want to watch 8 movies in a row.  Do you think that everyone else has to stick around until a deadline you've arbitrarily chosen to have a vote to see if everyone agrees with seeing 8 movies?  Or is it more likely that the others will simply give you the finger and leave you behind because you're clearly an arsehole for thinking they need to listen to your stupid ideas when they absolutely don't have to (but you do strike me as exactly the kind of person that would try to force them to anyway, given how obscenely obnoxious you are).  Get a clue.  Just because a forkcoin announces a launch date, it doesn't mean I have to wait until that date to disconnect their node.  You don't get to decide that and have a great big "fuck you" if you think you do.

I'd also add something to the list, but I'm struggling to find a way to phrase it so that it makes sense.  Or perhaps it's just an extension to the second point you made.

I feel like there's a link between the underlying principles of Bitcoin and the overwhelming momentum it has in terms of development.  Most altcoins are founded on the goal of mindless speculation and profiteering.  Some are founded to focus on a particular feature (although often a gimmick).  But few are founded on the genuine belief that the fundamental principles they are based on are important.  How many coins have faltered because they had a lone dev who simply lost interest in the project?  Probably thousands.  There's no longevity in cryptocurrencies that were founded to pursue the wrong goals.  

There's no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin has the strong dev base it does precisely because people care about "censorship resistance, immutability, security and decentralisation".  As such, a greater number of developers are more willing to commit considerable time and effort on their part to contribute to Bitcoin, rather than devs who focus on altcoins to make a quick buck.  People believe in this, so they strive to make it succeed.  Few, if any, coins can match that level of sheer passion.  Which is why Bitcoin is never going to have a shortage of contributors and the pace of development remains steady.

I can't tell if the lack of impetus behind this thread is due to only a small number of people being unhappy with the content being posted in the Press board, or if it is simply being overlooked because of the undescriptive topic title.  Does anyone else think new guidelines are needed?

Ripple is literally a business, though.  It's not a valid comparison with BTC and satoshi.  Bitcoin isn't an entity that can be sued for giving investors fraudulent advice.  Ripple is. 

The reason people primarily talk about it as a Bitcoin feature is due to network effects.  In the past, you've made repeated comments about Lightning's success being dependent on actually being able to route a payment.  If you now want to undermine that argument by claiming that you can get exactly the same benefit using LN on Vertcoin where there's comparatively a pittance of channels to route through, then go right ahead.  But I think even a diehard detractor like you would be forced to admit it's going to be easier to route a payment on Bitcoin's LN network than it is on Vertcoin's.

LN on Bitcoin is the one most people are using.

Just because it can be built on top of multiple blockchains, it doesn't suddenly mean what chaoscoinz posted is wrong.

It is a set of rules built on Bitcoin, but it's also a set of rules built on Litecoin, which is easily distinguishable from Bitcoin.  If they're not real bitcoins or litecoins as you claim, and are instead some new and separate thing, it wouldn't be so easy to tell the difference between BTC and LTC transactions in Lightning.  It's also a set of rules built on BTC testnet, but again, those millisats aren't going to be confused with mainnet ones.

So yes, the Lighting Network absolutely is a set of rules built on top of Bitcoin's blockchain AND Litecoin's blockchain AND Vertcoin's blockchain, etc.

I guess it becomes a question of where the line should be drawn.  The most recent topic is now [2019-11-03] Bitcoin YTD Performance Exceeds 140%, Outperforms Most Traditional.  Again from a cryptomedia site, again primarily regarding price, but I suppose at least this time it's more about measurable statistics than unfounded predictions.  Does it qualify as "newsworthy"?  What should the criteria of "newsworthy" be?  Is that price topic more worthy of discussion than McAfee's prognostications?  It feels like a bar needs to be set somewhere, but no one knows where that somewhere is.

Or instead of focusing on what's considered newsworthy, should the focus instead be on what generates the most compelling discussions?  It is, after all, a discussion forum and not a news archival site.  But again, what guidelines could we possibly set out to encourage that?

The main difference between the two is security.  In BTC/LN you have more freedom in how you choose to transact.  If you need to move a sizeable sum of wealth and security is paramount, it's best to do it on-chain.  If you need to make a small payment, where speed is a higher priority than security, you can transact off-chain.

SV takes a 'one-size-fits-all' approach and forces you to compromise.  There is only one way to transact and it's generally considered less secure than BTC's blockchain due to the vastly lower hashrate. 

If we adopted the rationale that developers can't be mods because it's a conflict of interests, we'd lose both mods of the Development and Technical sub.  Personally, I'd rather see devs in a mod position of that particular board, because they are best suited to know the difference between genuine technical discussion and "technobabble".

As if he thinks he's an authority on what's admissible in court.   

How'd that last case turn out for you, Craigy?  Oh, that's right, the judge said:


What a loser.  It's obvious he's wrong, because if he were right, he'd be locked up already for being the criminal that he is.

It's all just gossip unless someone cares to share some actual evidence.  It's certainly possible to lose funds by spending from an outdated channel state, but, beyond that, there's not much point arguing over whether it did or didn't happen.  It's considered a feature that the information is seen only by the parties involved and it's not visible to prying eyes.

Still haven't changed the record, then?  All the altcoins out there which had shamefully gluttonous premines at launch and yet you want to complain about one of the few coins that didn't?  I believe this to be one of the most open and inclusive distributions I've seen.  Can't fault it at all.  Then again, it's not surprising you don't agree with your "unique" perspectives on just about everything.   

Not exactly.  The point was that reported posts weren't being deleted because a mod reviewed the post and then marked the report 'bad'.  This indicates that there are differing views to what guidelines should be enforced, so some clarity on that is needed.

People certainly suggested that the crypto-media sites should be excluded from the Press board, or that price speculation isn't newsworthy, but I don't know if any of this is official forum policy yet.  And if it is, it needs to be stated in the guidelines.

I don't think it would be fair to write that sub off until we've actually made an attempt to enforce some new guidelines, and we can't do that if no one actually knows what they are.

Is it perhaps time to lock and archive the (now 7 years old) Guidelines for Press board and make a new one specifically stating what the revised 'notability criteria' is?  I don't know if the spammers will actually read it or not, but, to play devil's advocate, it might be asking a little much to request they follow guidelines we can't even be bothered to formally publish in that sub.    

We need to make it abundantly clear which sources and subjects are not welcome if that's the road we're going down.

The warning is right there in the rules, which you should have read.  You had every chance to do so.  The forum has far too many accounts for a team of moderators to keep track of who's been given a verbal warning by whom.  I mean, how much of a drain on resources do you really want to be?  I don't see how anyone can believe that their presence on this forum is so vital that steps need to be taken to accommodate their bad behaviour.  

If you went to a country you've never been to before and broke one of their laws, are they under any obligation to let you off with a warning?  Or give you an opportunity to cover up the evidence for your crime?  I doubt it.

Some people, maybe.  My expectations were never that high.  If anything, every time circle's name crop up, my estimations of them sink that little bit lower.

Seems they've only just got around to sending me an email, probably under the (entirely correct) assumption that I won't be coming back.  Whoever it is taking on the new ownership, they're incredibly brave (or possibly just incredibly reckless).  Investment-wise, I certainly wouldn't want to go anywhere near Circle's waste products.  It's a tainted brand as far as I'm concerned.



Concurred.  A completely new business identity to shed the Circle stench.

Chances are, it's simply authored by someone without the necessary clout and this is their thinly-veiled message to the real decision makers in charge that they ensure such systems are not permitted.  Give the cogs some time to turn and we'll probably see the end result being a tightening of restrictions.