holy shit wtf is going on?
|
|
|
|
Core has a scaling roadmap to make bitcoin scale far beyond what is capable with block increases. Who told you that they consider scaling a bad thing or that a fee market is their first priority?
With fees at 0.00$ to 0.05$, being ~1% of the block reward, there is no meaningful fee market to discuss about. There is definitely a mechanism where you can bypass the queue by a higher fee, and in this sense it is a market, but the volume of this market is so tiny that it doesn't even register compared to what subsidy does. Miners could be mining empty blocks and it wouldn't affect their pocket negatively. That's how insignificant it is.
If devs push for highers fees => "ohhh those fuckers want to exclude the poor guy"
If devs allow for more space/tx abundance at near-zero fees => "ohhh they are idiots, this attracts attacks, it can't work for the long-term sustainability of bitcoin and bitcoin mining" etc etc.
If devs don't interefere => "oh they are sitting on their ass doing nothing and their incompetence has created these problems"
Whatever they do, either way, or whatever they don't do, you can find a reason to attack them. This type of thinking can be evidenced by writings such as BillyJoe's who, a few months ago, was saying "ohhh I don't want to pay higher fees, I bought my right to transact when I bought my coins" and then, when commenting on the Lightning network, he was spreading FUD about how will the miners get paid if the LN can do so many transactions at low fees, and that miners should get more fees, otherwise bitcoin will be in problem etc etc.
Whatever the situation => you can use it to attack the devs. And this is happening all day.
Low fees? Fuck the devs.
High fees? Fuck the devs.
The devs are staying out of the argument? Fuck the devs again.
Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs
...all day long...
Why?
Because the issues here are not technical. They have the facade of technical disagreements but at their root, they are a way to undermine confidence and promote a governance coup.
{Applause.gif} Don't forget: Devs communicate? Fuck them for manipulating public opinion. Devs don't communicate? Fuck them for ignoring human dignity. Let's make a list of everyone who has been here long enough to know better, but is nevertheless pushing the false "ZOMG SEGWIT CAUSES CHAIN FORKZ!11!!" narrative in yet another attempt to manufacture panic. And then you have people like HostFat, who tell people to boycott Core/Blockstream/theymos yet still runs their code and posts on their forums. |
|
|
|
I think some more healthy competition against Core would be welcome
You are confusing "healthy" (ie positive-sum) competition among consensus-critical blockchains with unhealthy zero/negative-sum contention within a single consensus-critical blockchain. Altcoins are Bitcoin's healthy competition. If Bitcoin isn't competitive we'll use Litecoin, Primecoin, and Monero instead. Classic and other XT-like governance coup attempts are declarations of a war that only one side can win. I think "healthy" competition can come from both inside and outside of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Internal competition becomes problematic when productive discussion and collaboration devolves into mudslinging, which it too often does. You've got it all wrong. "Mudslinging" is good. Vigorous debate is the crucible from which truth emerges. And Bitcoin runs on drama!  Healthy (ie positive sum) internal competition comes from implementations competing to best preserve/protect/promulgate the critical consensus. Unhealthy (ie zero-at-best but-probably-negative sum) competition comes from contention-generating hard forks that risk catastrophic consensus failure. Gmax mapped it out here: competing implementations are healthy; but the ones that threaten to break protocol are dangerous. Competing implementations of Bitcoin, such as Litecoin and Primecoin, are called altcoins because they establish their own independent alternative socioeconomic consensuses/majorities. Hostile implementations of Bitcoin, such as XT and Classic, are declarations of war because they attempt to threaten Bitcoin's existing consensus-critical distributed ledger. But there are other implementations, like libbitcoin I believe, that aren't altcoins, and are net positives for the Bitcoin ecosystem. Isn't that right? It gets confusing and idiomatic (esp for non-native speakers) if we have to distinguish between the friendly positive-sum competition of btcd vs the cutthroat zero-sum competition of GavinCoin. I'd classify other implementations like libbitcoin and bctd as complementary, not competing, in that they all share the same goal of maintaining the One True Holy Ledger. But let's defer to the core dev, if gmax has a better suggestion for the taxonomy/nomenclature. Open source software generally both cooperates and competes. Handled well the benefits of the former offset the costs of the latter and the result is a gain for everyone. --- but software differentiating in consensus rules is the worst kind of competition: competition here can deprive users of the practical freedom to use their preferred software, and the fight risks leaving a salted earth in its wake. This is not completely unheard of outside of consensus systems: A less powerful version of it exists in the form of file format compatibility. Microsoft was a pioneer of business strategy based on making incompatible extensions to formats, first leveraging their network effect and then-- after introducing incompatible changes-- using it against them, an approach they themselves called embrace, extend, extinguish. Worse than zero sum, these kinds of moves can be tremendously damaging overall. Bitcoin's creator described alternative implementations as a likely "menace to the network"-- words which I think were spoken with an early insight into the incredible difficulty in making distinct software actually consensus compatible even when that is your highest goal, an art our industry is still just learning. I wish we'd built mechanisms earlier on for better ways to enable diversity in the non-consensus parts without ending up with unintended diversity in the consensus parts. But we play the hand we're dealt. The potential harms from consensus disagreements from mistakes in re-implementation are tiny in comparison to those from adversarial implementations which intentionally push incompatible rules. |
|
|
|
I think some more healthy competition against Core would be welcome
You are confusing "healthy" (ie positive-sum) competition among consensus-critical blockchains with unhealthy zero/negative-sum contention within a single consensus-critical blockchain. Altcoins are Bitcoin's healthy competition. If Bitcoin isn't competitive we'll use Litecoin, Primecoin, and Monero instead. Classic and other XT-like governance coup attempts are declarations of a war that only one side can win. |
|
|
|
Ugh, my poor brain can't wrap around this stuff. It really is starting to look scary. Maybe at the last minute, people will quickly move over to classic to save the network? "complicated" "scary" = FUD All that happened on segnet was some clients weren't running the latest version. No big deal at all. I know tante is too low-info to get that, but have far higher expectations from a Satoshi Roundtable attendee. What a waste of an invite. Evan could have at least done an interview. Oh wait, of course Evan Madoffield doesn't understand why test nets exist. Otherwise he would have tested Darkcoin before the launch and noticed the "accidental" insta-mine causing bug. You really are a white noise generator aren't you son? Trying to spin the segwit v2 vs v3 fork as a problem with segwit itself is a lazy way to manufacture cheap FUD. cite: Doesn't it worry you that Dash's dev (a Satoshi Roundtable attendee) knows so little about testnets in general and segwit in particular? If you believe in using test nets to catch bugs before production releases, "accidentally" insta-mined Dash isn't the right coin for you.  |
|
|
|
Brian Armstrong speaks, and the price retreats. Like clockwork. Every single time. |
|
|
|
Ugh, my poor brain can't wrap around this stuff. It really is starting to look scary. Maybe at the last minute, people will quickly move over to classic to save the network? "complicated" "scary" = FUD All that happened on segnet was some clients weren't running the latest version. No big deal at all. I know tante is too low-info to get that, but have far higher expectations from a Satoshi Roundtable attendee. What a waste of an invite. Evan could have at least done an interview. Oh wait, of course Evan Madoffield doesn't understand why test nets exist. Otherwise he would have tested Darkcoin before the launch and noticed the "accidental" insta-mine causing bug. |
|
|
|
stay away; it's not for you!
Lost it right^ ^there.   |
|
|
|
Another day, another 1000BTC of market cap leaking from Dash into Monero. Of all the coins people want to GTFO of today, in preference of Monero, none can top Dash. It's a good thing Dash spends its Otoh-controlled budget on soda machines and overpriced marketing instead of market-rate bug bounties, otherwise the Bad Crypto of Darksend and InstantX would already be broken. |
|
|
|
What civil war? There is no civil war. Bitcoin is cleaning itself from government actors supported by big banks trying to kill it.
There will never be peace around bitcoin. The war against bitcoin will be the natural state. What we see is just the beginning. Get used to it.
Exactly right. Cosmic background spam and cosmic background contention are only the start of Bitcoin's long march through cosmic background adversity. The systems Bitcoin disrupts have their own degrees of anti-fragility and Lindy effects. Too bad for them Honey Badger really doesn't give a damn. |
|
|
|
Dash is and always has been a scam.
If you want an anon coin then you have xmr.
There is no need for dash.
 |
|
|
|
I explain to anyone who will listen why Brian StrongArm is a jackboot-polishing bankster toady.
FU CoinBank
Well, look on the bright side. Your efforts to smother BTC in the crib are working out swimmingly for Monero! [Not as well as ETH tho.  ] At >$400/coin, BTC is doing fine. And FYI, BTC is out of the crib. It's now a kindergartner. I had my chance "to smother BTC in the crib" when I made my account in 2011. It's 2016, and nobody cares about your Bitcoin Obituary. The only things being killed early and often are the Big Lie and its subsequent attempts at contentious hard forks. Coinbase/Classic shitlords: "Bitcoin was created to disrupt commercial banking. Because ZOMG ATM/DEBIT/MERCHANT FEES." Blockstream/Core cypherpunks: "Bitcoin was created to disrupt central banking. Because Chancellor on brink of second bailout." |
|
|
|
If peoples have in ETH going to XMR, XMR will price rise to the moon!
Why would ppl move from eth to xmr? Good Question deserves Good Answer: Monero is only trying to be one thing: true digital cash, with all the privacy and fungibility that comes with that. It isn't just trying - it is wildly succeeding.
I can send $100,000 worth of Monero across the world instantly and nearly for free... but so could Bitcoin. But with Monero I can do it and no one can trace the transaction or see that I did it.
It is the holy grail of digital money. |
|
|
|
I explain to anyone who will listen why Brian StrongArm is a jackboot-polishing bankster toady. FU CoinBank |
|
|
|
Altcoin scene is pretty much like space travel: what goes up will come back down sooner or later . MAID is now on an up-trend because of the impending launch. We'll see how that's panning out and how long this momentum will last. So now, after the lauch, what has been released? Any new technology? Some of the experts been tinkering on it and can introduce to us what new stuff has materialized? Crickets. *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* Maid isn't even an altcoin. There is no blockchain, and how double-spending prevention and privacy are assured is not clear. All Maid has done is make a pay-to-play pre-alpha prototype version of TOR/i2p/Freenet, which actively discourages content being uploaded/shared. Dropbox and Mega do a better job right now, and SIA/Storj will do a better job in the future. Maid is a Nothingburger with extra Null Sauce and a side of zero carb Void Fries.  |
|
|
|
So by the end of this year everyone will be able to afford to be a masternode? That's good.  On the Dash thread somebody let the cat out of the bag about Polo lending rates offering better returns than Masternodes. Even drooling DashHoles may be relied upon for their overweening greed, so expect MadoffNode liquidation to ensue. The cherry on top? Team DashHole is afraid to offer more than $1 in bug bounties, because they are obviously terrified of a Shen-vs-ShadowCash type Epic Pwn. They've arrived at an absurd place, where the strange logic goes something like ' nobody will pen test Dash for $1; therefore it's perfectly safe.' |
|
|
|
Found this on 4chan. Might make a good signature! Monero is only trying to be one thing: true digital cash, with all the privacy and fungibility that comes with that. It isn't just trying - it is wildly succeeding.
I can send $100,000 worth of Monero across the world instantly and nearly for free... but so could Bitcoin. But with Monero I can do it and no one can trace the transaction or see that I did it.
It is the holy grail of digital money.
|
|
|
|
I fear there are more pressing and immediate problems for Dash.
Go on.... |
|
|
|
The stakes are your credibility icey and at that price they're far too generous, break it if your able or stfu.
Presumption is negative. The burden of proof is on the entity making an affirmative claim, such as Dash's hitherto unsupported assertion of privacy/anonymity/unlinkability. If you don't understand why that is so, take a freshman seminar in predicate logic or ask a high school debate team member to ELI5. It's a good thing ShadowCash wasn't as stingy with their bug bounties. If they'd been cheapskates like Dash, who knows how many people would have been put in jail due to buggy bad crypto. With all these excuses for Dash's ridiculous $1 bug bounty, it's really starting to look like you are trying to actively discourage review and pen testing. Are you afraid of what will happen when Shen breaks Darksend and InstantX like a cheap plastic toys? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
