Together we stand Dived we fall! Nevermind Now I am waiting for BSH - Bitcoin sh*t  Its there, called Bitcoin Segwit Hodl. Ticker u know? |
|
|
|
Things and trolls are getting sorted out https://coinrivet.com/calvin-ayre-an-apology
I am Satoshi Nakamoto. Don't listen to anyone
Bitcoin SV - is an Original Bitcoin!
This make sense in Bitcoin Satoshi Vision thread. The original version worked fine until a lot of no Satoshis tried to be wannabees and messed it up. Speculators helped a lot. |
|
|
|
Good morning WO's! I have a good news! Changpen Zhao reminded that Craig Wright is not Satoshi, and even delisted Bitcoin SV from the stock exchange.  I'm starting to like the guy. Even if one could make an argument that he's trying to get attention. Did CSW pull some new stunt recently though or what's the deal here? CFSW sued a crypto-enthusiast under the name Hodlonaut. He accuses him of libel and spreading false information. Crypto sellers are just getting sued these days all over https://www.leaprate.com/cryptocurrency/bank-ceos-grilled-by-house-on-crypto-while-senate-hears-opposing-views/ |
|
|
|
About Craig Wright: at least this guy is acting honestly and bravely.
did you miss this bit?  ./ sorry cant find original atm, is from recent transcript of court case kleimann vs wright This is just one side out of the middle - why u want to prejudge here ?
hm - decent industries all had (Keep) delisted BTC ... what's ur point here ?  |
|
|
|
So finally Bitcoin is not sth easy to get. It touches so many fields - mostly now as a financial instrument / commodity Ppl who want to do / dev things with that need to pull all that knowledge make their due dilligence (for their own safety!) BEFORE wanna play, dev , code - whatever 'permissionless' out of nothing There needs to be a way broader consensus about Bitcoin and its minimum features / code - no only with devs and miners. That didn't work well. If now so many need to get to a global consensus - the intersection is very thin -> can only end up with simplest P2P eCash onchain Yeah and in the future it will be even harder to get. And that will be a good thing, at least from mining and of course you will get a lot less from offering services since it's value will be a lot higher probably. I agree that a much broader consensus should exist before making really important changes, otherwise Bitcoin will be like a centralized institution, where only some will have a voice and that should of course be avoided. We can watch on coinmarketcap where the Feature and sepculation mania has driven the Bitcoin market section - > into redicules or scam zoones. Better now clamp down to what it should do minimal, scalable, transparent, stable and scam free - here most of ppl and industries will get onboard with Any offchain appl can be predictable build on top of that - sure and recommended imo - these will not be permissionless but rather come as corporate Services - good! |
|
|
|
Newbies, I encourage you to listen to Khaos77.  Learn. FTFY, You know I provide links, so anyone reading my posts should also read the links. This will help them form their own opinion, which for those with an IQ>70 will come to the same conclusion I did. (Also they can use google to confirm, it is called research, if they so choose.)Those like windfury with an IQ<70 , won't understand anything, don't research anything, and will continue to rail against logical thought. Sad , but as the old saying goes , you can't fix stupid. No you can't, and I know I'm the most stupid in the forum, and you're the smartest. But nothing in the links you provide, with all its techno-babble, proves that there are "IOU pegged promises to pay tokens" in Lightning. No , not the smartest, Most likely in the Top 30 however.  You don't have to be Einstein to see the truth. IOU are Promises/contracts to Pay, All LN does is make promises/contracts to pay, and at the end , hopefully allow those promises to be redeem onchain. If that one simple thing is over your head , then so be it. But for you to continue to rail against what is completely apparent, shows a psychosis that is borderline requiring an institution. Where they give you a coat that ties in the back. So finally Bitcoin is not sth easy to get. It touches so many fields - mostly now as a financial instrument / commodity Ppl who want to do / dev things with that need to pull all that knowledge make their due dilligence (for their own safety!) BEFORE wanna play, dev , code - whatever 'permissionless' out of nothing There needs to be a way broader consensus about Bitcoin and its minimum features / code - no only with devs and miners. That didn't work well. If now so many need to get to a global consensus - the intersection is very thin -> can only end up with simplest P2P eCash onchain |
|
|
|
Someone tell me why BCH was splitted to two more coins bitcoin abc! bitcoin sv!  Devs wanted to dev things for devs sake. Selling ctor dsv .. as features for P2P electronic cash  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Cash lacks the competitive advantage of other cryptocurrencies
Debatable. It also is still relatively new,
Bzzt. Wrong. With a history traceable back to the satoshi genesis block (i.e., being one of the Bitcoin forks), there is no cryptocurrency older than Bitcoin Cash. Except for bitcoin, and about a thousand others, quite literally. A fork doesn't start being a coin the moment the original coin is born you lunatic. That's just fucking stupid, again. I don't think even other bcash fanboi tards believe that nonsense. Really breher. The things you have to say are just insultingly stupid sometimes. Right back at ya. BTC is a fork in and of itself. As such, it has no more claim upon longevity than do any of the other forks of the satoshi chain. Talk about stupidity... BTC is the chain with the history, the hashpower, the consensus, the price, the network effect, shelling point, and not trivially it also does not have an imposter claiming to have invented it. BTC is Bitcoin. Btc is just a ticker. With sw and LN and whatever it is not Bitcoin any more. |
|
|
|
Speaking of the fully unhinged, what fresh lunacy is this? Even franky1 wouldn't say anything that stupid.
Foolish people have been making the claim that non-mining nodes don't matter for years and no one in their right mind has believed it so far. Why do you think you're going to succeed in spreading falsehoods when others before you have failed so spectacularly?
Dumb&Mad, it is starting to look like your IQ <70 along with Windfury. Non-Mining nodes are like you, devoid of purpose and irrelevant.  See Analogy: Example:
Mining Node = Writer
Exchange/Business = Reader
Non-mining Node = Copiers
The Writer writes a new book, The Reader Buys the Book, The Copier makes copies of the book.
The Reader tells the Writer . if he kills his favorite character , that he won't buy his new book.
The Writer concern the Reader won't buy the book , keeps the reader's favorite character alive. (This is Economic Clout)
The Copiers, just make EXTRA UNNECESSARY COPIES of whatever books are written by the writer ,
and have no leverage of any kind against the writer or reader.
Since the Writer also puts out his own copies of the book for the readers , the copier has no power/purpose at all!
FYI: Where are any fees or rewards for running those useless non-mining nodes, answer that dumb&mad. The thing is with some brainwashed ticker fans that once they have lost logic discussion they try to stick u into some fiktive troll groups than they feel some protection Too mad |
|
|
|
I just point out that there is such a spec for the global consensus - the White Paper
Code did follow after, and need to be on spec & honest - thats how Bitcoin & its consenus works.
You're welcome to express views that your own personal interpretation of the whitepaper doesn't quite match Bitcoin's current direction. But what you need to remember is that, back when the whitepaper was written, satoshi could not have envisioned the rather obscene pace at which mining effectively became an arms race. Each time the whitepaper refers to a "node", it actually refers to a miner. Satoshi's plan was that users would fall into two categories. Miners and SPV users (just as the whitepaper describes). Satoshi naturally assumed there would be a far greater number of individuals on the network actively mining, but sadly this was not to be the case. The concept of what we currently call a "full node" or a "non-mining node" simply didn't exist when Bitcoin was first created. Mining became centralised much more quickly than anticipated, so the solution was to offset the power of miners with the balance of non-mining nodes. This gives ordinary users a voice without requiring them to spend a small fortune on ASICs and, most importantly, preserves decentralisation by making it so that a small number of miners wouldn't be able to act unilaterally and impose changes that users don't want. If you're going to make statements about how consensus works when using the whitepaper as your primary source, this is the kind of thing you ideally need to keep in mind. Things have evolved considerably since 2009 and there's far more nuance to factor in now. It's not nearly as clear-cut as you might think on first impression. I know how Segwit evolved and that is not Bitcoin, same LN is sth different. Bitcoin is clearly defined and has only one legal relevant spec. And its not just a ticker U will wake up when ur very private btc will not be globally treated as Bitcoin, but as a Segwit altcoin fork, what it is. |
|
|
|
https://themerkle.com/unlicensed-bitcoin-reseller-obtaining-btc-from-bitfinex-faces-two-year-prison-sentence/Unlicensed Bitcoin Reseller Obtaining BTC from Bitfinex Faces Two-year Prison Sentence Following his arrest in August of 2018, Campos decided to plead guilty to operating a Bitcoin exchange without registering with FinCEN.
As most people are aware of by now, Bitcoin is still largely unregulated in the US, but companies facilitating the buying and selling of this currency will need to obtain an official money transmitter license.
Campos decided not to adhere to this requirement, which ultimately led to his arrest.
He also confirmed there was no AML safeguard implemented during his operations, which only makes the situation worse. While the allure of selling Bitcoin for a profit to individuals who have no idea how to approach this industry can yield decent profits, it is not something one should do on such a large scale. If one has the ambition to run a full-fledged exchange, registering with the proper authorities is a must. As a US Citizen, anyone running a LN hub needs to be aware of FINCEN and AML Regulations. Even thru many on these forums claim LN is not required to adhere to the above regulations. (Most of those people would claim the man going to jail did nothing wrong.)His Crime was acting as an unregistered exchange, which is basically what LN is allowing you to do. As a US Citizen you may face two years or longer in jail , if FinCEN decides your LN hub is acting as a illegal Money Transmitter. Which is something to be aware of and prepared for, if your Hub has any real volume to it. Good Luck. 
Newbies, I encourage you to listen to Khaos77. Learn. FTFY, You know I provide links, so anyone reading my posts should also read the links. This will help them form their own opinion, which for those with an IQ>70 will come to the same conclusion I did. (Also they can use google to confirm, it is called research, if they so choose.)Those like windfury with an IQ<70 , won't understand anything, don't research anything, and will continue to rail against logical thought. Sad , but as the old saying goes , you can't fix stupid. Yep. Most 'devs' just think too much about code and permissionless, forgetting that Bitcoin is a financial instrument and not experimental any more. But not knowing that never help in front of judges. |
|
|
|
Sure, if u start impl that ideas very local and concrete - into a Client (Server) that want to communicate with others u need to make ur APPLICATION impl
into that consens
I agree with bitcoin to get the basics done - there is many impl needed - but if u start changing the consens protocol by changing code first, and break the initial design by that , ur doing wrong since u brake the consensus with base protocol code dev. Better to move these things into APPLICATION layers and keep the consensus as thin & simple as possible.
Devs write APPLICATIONS that follow initial protocol DESIGN / SPEC
What you are suggesting is unenforceable, though. If I were a developer, tell me how anyone can prevent me from writing whatever code I wanted. More to the point, why should anyone should have the right to prevent me from coding what I wanted? Bitcoin is permissionless. That's a quality no one can break. Every other aspect of the design is exactly as the users will it to be by enforcing the rules in the code they freely choose to run. You are not in a position to tell anyone they should only code things in a way that you want. I just point out that there is such a spec for the global consensus - the White Paper Code did follow after, and need to be on spec & honest - thats how Bitcoin & its consenus works. |
|
|
|
Designing a protocol does not need devs. Btw. Maybe refactoring and bug fixing, but the consensus is dev free territory
bitcoin is digital. it is code CODE not conversation code does not write itself devs write code for a new rule to be proposed devs need to CODE it if devs CODE it in a way that controversially 'sends off' a controversial amount of users then you cant pretend the devs were not involved i really find it funny that people think bitcoin is just social drama and such are only interested in performing social drama rather than speak about actual code and actual protocols. smtp, tcp/ip whatever are specked designs at first place. Coming from ideas - nothing to do with code at initial state Sure, if u start impl that ideas very local and concrete - into a Client (Server) that want to communicate with others u need to make ur APPLICATION impl into that consens I agree with bitcoin to get the basics done - there is many impl needed - but if u start changing the consens protocol by changing code first, and break the initial design by that , ur doing wrong since u brake the consensus with base protocol code dev. Better to move these things into APPLICATION layers and keep the consensus as thin & simple as possible. Devs write APPLICATIONS that follow initial protocol DESIGN / SPEC Edit: And BTW if ppl try to limit scaling by protocol design for a global protocol ( and dev it into ) they ve some screws lose. |
|
|
|
you keep on insinuating that my words on this forum are somehow affecting the network. you insinuate it by emotionally mentioning how im appealing and asking for peoples permission...
Wrong on both counts. Secondly, you are the one playing the logical fallacy with your ongoing appeal to pity, which is an emotional appeal. you literally debunked yourself I don't need your consent. You are delusional if you think I do.
Your ongoing appeal to pity that other people would have to wait for your permission to do something,
You seem to live in some sort of dream world where your opinions are important and that people should somehow be required to consider your delicate feelings.
"required" "permission" "appealing".... thats your words.. this is a discussion forum about bitcoin. it is not the bitcoin network that uses consensus. my opinions are just a discussion. it is you that is getting emotional and insulting and trying to make out that my discussion is somehow powerful. all i ever tell people is just to do their own research and try to avoid becoming anti-bitcoiners like you and your echo chamber that just want to do social drama emotional stuff to then promote alternative networks plus. learn consensus consensus is about unifying people. not having excuses to throw people off the network you really have no clue about what the byzantine generals theory is, or how satoshi's solution to it is actually the opposite of 'throw everyone off' i truly believe in the real world you would be seen as a person who has many prejudices and is probably racist by the tone your messages on this forum show as to how to react to people of opposing stance to you But please, keep telling us how Bitcoin would be better if we accepted your double-standard where other clients can remove us from their network at any given moment of their choosing, your so emotional that you are actually flip floping so much you are forgetting which path your following and what path your suppose to be debating. its YOU that has been saying that its ok to do network affecting 'send off' (controversial forks) prior to bip activations, purely to achieve a bip activation by faking the threshold requirement. so how about do yourself a small favour, take a few days to refresh yourself, have a break. chill out, calm down. and use the time to learn about bitcoin from actual research. and by bitcoin i mean bitcoin 2009-2013.. (not from the prospective(prospectus) of core) learn things like byzantine generals theory, consensus, as it would help you to learn the whole purpose of blockchains and how the network should be decentralised and not just a core distribution. then you might start grasping how blockchains have a purpose and function that LN does not. and how LN is not secure. then learn about LN practically and pragmastically rather than the delusions or promotional buzzwords. once you gain a good scope of understanding the technology. then try to form discussions about the tech. without the emotional social drama of ignoring the tech just to argue with humans that are not coding the network. in other words. if your trying to insult a person rather than tech or devs. your not doing things right A consensus protocol that can unify the globe for a value transfer can only work if it does the minimum of what is bespoke, the smallest intersection the masses can agree upon. Peer to peer electronic cash. On chain Scalable as much as possible that anyone can use it The design for this exists for 10 years now. Designing a protocol does not need devs. Btw. Maybe refactoring and bug fixing, but the consensus is dev free territory |
|
|
|
... schon oft der Vorläufer... das sagt schon Alles über die statistische Ahnung. 1 2 3. viele Das Gesetz der großen Zahlen ist schon zu viel |
|
|
|
|
The double standard is only sw + LN coins and clean coins on the same chain. That in a soft fork with hard consequences for the future path of adoption ? Mix these up and the drama does not need any personified drama queen.
No decent brain in the business world will eat that
|
|
|
|
The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.
That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible. Blockchains don't scale. But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow. So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service. Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-lawsPlus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn. I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else. Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain. Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.
Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?
I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.
So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.
There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.
If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we? Scaling means to really do industrial scaling. So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes. Think Big - it helps for global scaling tasks That was the "original vision", but the reality of ASICs, and that big blocks do not scale has caused us to have "the Bitcoin" that we have today. Many people in the community are not happy, but I believe it's still good enough as a secure, censorship-resistant, permissionless, and sovereign cryptocurrency. Some developers needed to be creative to scale it in some other way, but without altering the consensus layer. That's not a problem to me, is it a problem to you? The reason why there are ASICs is SCALE - the reason for miners use leased line fibre nets is SCALE the reason why miners use plants and high tech is SCALE - we need just more stabitity and use to invite more mining / using companies - This is all open space - open for growth and that gives a lot of security (and 'decentralization' , however u want to define that ) I was just pointing that out because you said, "So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes." Plus even if Bitcoin was CPU-only mining, there will always be some miners who will be more efficient, and more competitive than others. The reality is not all who wants to become a miner, can be a miner.
All (size) limits some (limted) groups want to apply / invent into bitcoin are bad for any growht ( and security . decentralization ,..)
Do you mean the system in which only the competent are followed? Because if the Core developers were to allow every incompetent developer to work on Bitcoin, I believe the network would be a mess.
Bitcoin as a real open System is the only way to go.
Name a project that's run like that. Scaling really MEANS scaling - in all aspects. So running a private relay node at home is NOT scaling, rather the opposite. This can be done better where the core protocol that dose not need much changes / rather bug Fixing (like smtp has settled and became success years ago - or u shill for smtp core devs today ?) Such protocol MUST be as thin as possible ( better scaling options incoming / less error prone btw) To see that protocol devs need to dev is a mess - a protocol needs only design and strict refactoring to it's minimal Jobs ( PRO-TO-COL ) no add on fearures == mess! Add on Feature belongs to application layers - These needs devs / and stable design (protocol) to work on top. Watch - there is a project out that has exactly this road map. |
|
|
|
|
Anything computers can do (to solve PoW) will be casted into ASICs or how ever u want to call These.
This is a dead end.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
