PwC have troubles in just about every jurisdiction imaginable..... Being sued for $ €1Bn in IrelandTo be fair, Bitcoin needed away to make alt-coin scammers look better. PwC should just about do that....   |
|
|
|
This toxic community doesn't *want* it. Take your wooden pony & go home.
Then saying that the community is dumb would be a huge understatement. Bitcoin will never be able to scale to a global level without technologies such as LN. Bitcoin will eventually need some form of L2 meta chain. Your mistake is to believe that LN, as it currently stands, will be that solution. Unless Rusty can address some of the fundamental flaws inherent in its design, it should self-immolate in the near future to allow a fresh approach to be taken. |
|
|
|
Looks like segwit will need to be hard forked. That should finally bring this issue to a close.
why? just combine it with a 2MB hardfork and everybody is happy. Because segwit will need a hard fork is exactly the reason why the uncertainty over increasing the blocksize will be over soon. We will soon enter political negotiations between the main camps where they will horse trade a 'peace' deal which will result in unity, therefore bringing things to a head. Yah...one problem. They're all nerds. Do you know what that means? I dunno, but I reckon lunch money would be easy to come by there.  |
|
|
|
yep, and I know who my money is on in this game ... it will be the cypherpunks and cryptogeeks who built this thing and truly understand its subtle nuances and well-balanced incentive structures rather the CoinBase brian armstrong's R3 Hearn's and sundry govt toady boot-licker johnny-come-latelys who want a new PayPal for Big Bruh data-harvesting and black-listing.
the cypherpunks have more tricks up their sleeves in regards to hard forking POW, sybill attacks than you have half heard about ... if these wiener VCs and guvcorpro-bully boyz want a fork intrigue over this they better show up well prepared ... it's not about the money, it's about sending a message, choose your team wisely.
But adam said bitcoin is for Banks and BigBusiness... Where the f*ck do you think you are going to fit in that vision? Shining their shoes, perhaps? Bringing the sandwiches? |
|
|
|
Looks like segwit will need to be hard forked. That should finally bring this issue to a close.
segwit *always* needed to be hard forked. The soft fork dream was never going to float if anyone valued decent software design. btw - Can you source that? |
|
|
|
let me say it again
less than 380, NEVER AGAIN.
Still stand by that call? I think there is a one hundred and eleventeen percent chance that you are wrong. I will bet my last satoshi on it. There you go... not making sense, again....  Huh? He was right, though? went to 379 briefly about 10 mins later.... |
|
|
|
The 21 Bitcoin PiTato is the first PiTato with native hardware and software support for the Bitcoin protocol. I dont know what it is, but I feel that a PiTato should really be a thing. |
|
|
|
Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!
Thankfully contract law doesn't go along the lines of "I don't care how you do anything, just as long as the end result is X" And that is for a reason. |
|
|
|
http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/wire-transfer-fee-comparison-top-10-us-banksWire transfer fee comparison
According to MyBankTracker’s March 2015 analysis, all of the domestic wire transfer fees at the 10 biggest banks have remained the same as the previous quarter — with averages of $15.50 for incoming and $27.40 for outgoing transfers. The averages also stayed the same for both incoming and outgoing foreign wire transfers at $18 and $47.50 per transfer, respectively, at the 10 tops banks in the U.S. (Remember, these averages don’t account for the upcoming PNC Bank fee hike.)
At any given bank, incoming wire transfers tend to be considerably cheaper than for outgoing ones, while domestic wire transfer fees are significantly lower than that of international transfers.
The highest wire transfer fee is $65 for each outgoing foreign wire transfer at BB&T Bank, while the lowest fee for any type of a wire transaction is $15 — which is the amount charged at a majority of banks for both domestic and foreign incoming wire transfers. Sucks to be a yank. I can transfer up to 3000euro in 24 hours for free via sepa. STG/EUR transfers (up to £10,000 for £1.50 (forex charges excl.) Are you really suggesting that because you are getting screwed by paying $20 for transfers, that this should somehow be the model to be aimed for by bitcoin? Suicide. |
|
|
|
A reddit user sums up the perspectives very neutrally: Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized.
The small block argument falls at this fist hurdle. If bitcoin gets bigger, it - well - Gets Bigger. There is no escaping that fact. If people want bitcoin to be a major player as a payment option for millions, then they will almost certainly not be able to run a full validating node on any shity 486 they have lying about the house. And please don't insult us by crying "But segregated witness!" - segwit will require all full validating nodes to transmit and store as much, if not more, data as bitcoin currently does. The fact that small blockers trot this non-argument out as a cornerstone for maintaining the limit is a clear indication of how untenable their position is. |
|
|
|
Blockstream management were unavailable for comment  |
|
|
|
Even a guy like satoshi could dump his 1mn coin stash in BTCC by buying 5-10 alts, and then buying BTCs.
You really are worried about this, aren't you?  |
|
|
|
Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?
No-one, since there is no such thing currently. You can push transactions out with whatever fee you wish, including 0. Wallets will usually recommend a fee though, how that fee is decided is presumably decided by the developers of the wallet in question. Miners, in turn, choose what fees, if any, they require for their services. You might say it's a fee market. Correct - but you are relying on the kindness of strangers to get your tx in to a block. and that will only happen if there is spare capacity ( i.e it costs the miner zero to include it ) But bear in mind that the old 'reserved' portion of the block (50K) for free priority tx's is now gone (by default) and that the concept of priority is about to be killed off entirely, I think its fair to say that the idea of free tx's is dead. |
|
|
|
...
Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?
Are there minimum fees? If so, what are they/who/ how were they implemented? min fees now seem to be set by core, via their software. Filthy non-coding Miners hardly get a look in anymore. |
|
|
|
Ok. So let me get this straight.
You are walking up a hill, with a knapsack on your back filled with 4 concrete blocks. Its tough going. A guy comes up to you ( lets call him Adam) and says "Don''t be a fool, let me make that easier for you". So the guy removes 2 of the blocks from the knapsack, and puts them under your arms instead. "Now", says the guy, "Isnt that much easier? You have half the weight, and lots of extra capacity in your bag - win-win, eh?" "But its the exact same weight! - in fact its a little more difficult to carry these under my arms" Guy says, "Dont be an idiot - look at your bag. Thats clear evidence of the improvement" "Oh, i guess...." Replace concrete blocks by (expanded) polystyrene blocks. Or with inflatable toy blocks with handles. Whether current content of Bitcoin-blocks is closer to concrete or to inflatable toys with (easy to carry) handles, that is matter of perspective. Doesn't matter what they are, the point is that you still need to carry themIf you put them down ( to crystalize the capacity/weight saving) then you cease to be a full validating node. |
|
|
|
Ok. So let me get this straight.
You are walking up a hill, with a knapsack on your back filled with 4 concrete blocks. Its tough going. A guy comes up to you ( lets call him Adam) and says "Don''t be a fool, let me make that easier for you". So the guy removes 2 of the blocks from the knapsack, and puts them under your arms instead. "Now", says the guy, "Isnt that much easier? You have half the weight, and lots of extra capacity in your bag - win-win, eh?" "But its the exact same weight! - in fact its a little more difficult to carry these under my arms" Guy says, "Dont be an idiot - look at your bag. Thats clear evidence of the improvement" "Oh, i guess...." |
|
|
|
You know, I cant remember the actual point I switched to google from AltaVista, despite having convinced myself that I never would. Funny, no matter how entrenched we think we are, we are liableto change in a heartbeat. Bitcoin core could learn that lesson.
Altavista started going down that whole "portal" route (as were others). An object lesson in having to watch your step when it comes to monetizing things. I probably would have stuck with Altavista if they hadn't gone that way (though they would have had to have stepped up their search algorithm efforts too) Yeah, you know, thats it. I forgot how clogged up AV and Yahoo were getting ( and still are) Google, to be fair, always kept the UI clean and simple. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Maybe, those issues are behind Ethereum, but several aspects of ethereum seem to have its own issues in regards to pump and dump sense and various small community centralization like dynamics.
You mean like a single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity... directly and negatively affecting its competitiveness against growing alternatives? Perhaps you should stop insulting your betters like you did to mmitech earlier and start thinking about these issues.  |
|
|
|
The main part tho was that Googles searches were much better than AskJeeves and Altavista. Their search algo was far superior. People found what they were looking for.
By that reckoning [url =http://www.persiankitty.com/]this[/url] should have taken over the world!!  If there was any point to what I wrote I guess it would be that the analogy breaks at some point. We might have to think for ourselves. (Crap! Where's that anti-spyware!?!?!!?!!) (Edit: Only 628 threats detected, I guess it was soft porn then.) You know, I cant remember the actual point I switched to google from AltaVista, despite having convinced myself that I never would. Funny, no matter how entrenched we think we are, we are liableto change in a heartbeat. Bitcoin core could learn that lesson. I removed the link  - if people wish to discover how we found porn in 1994 then they can type it themselves... ( and learn how we got rid of spyware too!) Sorry for your spyware troubles...  |
|
|
|
The main part tho was that Googles searches were much better than AskJeeves and Altavista. Their search algo was far superior. People found what they were looking for.
By that reckoning ( www.persiankitty.com ) should have taken over the world!! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
