"Group of idiots" is yourself, oeleo blackhatcoiner, doomad and the other couple people in the echo chamber group of idiots that treat themselves like a cult club repeating the same mantra hosted by doomad as lead idiot(playing the same games as CSW) We're idiots because we listen to those two people, Gregory Maxwell and A. Chow both Bitcoin Core Developers, that have given you those two negative trust-ratings? But you're not because you listen to your mentor Roger Ver? You also try to bring Craig Wright in the conversation, but the only person that spreads lies, disinformation, and gaslights like him is you ser. |
|
|
|
wrong again.. you are stuck in doomad nonsense scripts of 2018 I'm of the view that BIP91 is what broke the deadlock, so it I guess I don't agree with either of you. UASF was a dumpster fire from start to fizzled out. Looks like franky1 is so paranoid about conspiracies and cultists, he's too blind to recognise when individuals have different opinions (purely because no one shares franky1's moronic and delusional opinions). Although it was the minority, obviously it wasn't merely a "dumpster fire". It was starting to make the community see that SegWit will activate with or without the miners support, and it was also starting to gain open support from some of the developers. I believe deep inside, the majority of the Core Developers supported the UASF from a community perspective, but they'll never admit it openly. Without the UASF, I'm very confident that Jihan Wu and Roger Ver would never have made the move to hard fork to an altcoin. - Barry Silbert would never have made the move to call the leading Bitcoin companies and miners to form the NYA. |
|
|
|
So, if a strategy is being sold for games like poker and blackjack, then it's still a bit good, but on the other hand, I guess another question would be, what is the seller still goes ahead to sell same strategy to other gamblers as well, which i sure trust he or she will as long as it's money we are talking about, this also will completely destroy the whole strategy, so, in the end, we still discover that its a very foolish decision to pay for strategy to win games, be it luck dependent games or skill or knowledge dependent games, for luck dependent game has no other strategy of winning aside luck, and this i believe is also same for knowledge based games as well.
People who sell books that teach plebs about "winning" in gambling and/or sell videos and other forms of learning materials are probably not winners in the thing they teach as well. Or the thing they teach probably was profitable before, but stopped being that and the only way to make profit from it is to sell it. The actual winners will never share their secrets. You can sell a method on how to on other niches, industries, and interests but when it comes to gambling I don't think there are methods that you can sell that will guarantee winning or even a chance to beat the house those who know gambling and the facts associated with it will not fall to this kind of offer. There's a thread here about a member who claims to be in profit in almost any casino and offers this service and members questioned this claim. Get the context. Fivestar4everMVP was talking about Poker and BlackJack, although they are games of chance, the players ars sometimes given opportunities to have the edge. I believe "finding the edge" is simpler in BlackJack than in Poker because in BlackJack utilizing psychological strategies like bluffing are not included. But there are probably some advantages for some of those books and paid materials, like teaching the user the basic understanding and strategies of the game, then sharing their experiences on how they made their own strategies based from those basic understanding and strategies. |
|
|
|
So, if a strategy is being sold for games like poker and blackjack, then it's still a bit good, but on the other hand, I guess another question would be, what is the seller still goes ahead to sell same strategy to other gamblers as well, which i sure trust he or she will as long as it's money we are talking about, this also will completely destroy the whole strategy, so, in the end, we still discover that its a very foolish decision to pay for strategy to win games, be it luck dependent games or skill or knowledge dependent games, for luck dependent game has no other strategy of winning aside luck, and this i believe is also same for knowledge based games as well.
People who sell books that teach plebs about "winning" in gambling and/or sell videos and other forms of learning materials are probably not winners in the thing they teach as well. Or the thing they teach probably was profitable before, but stopped being that and the only way to make profit from it is to sell it. The actual winners will never share their secrets. |
|
|
|
i have no mentors but your mindset of you needing one makes you beleive other people need one too
cult members always think the rest of the world belongs in other religions..
You have no mentors, but merely propagating the lies and the disinformation of people that have an Anti-Bitcoin agenda. OK. There should be no mentors, we merely should know which group of people we should learn from. They're not always right, they're human, but I have full confidence that they're not nefarious. There are also big blockers that I respect, like Deadalnix. The direction he wants for Bitcoin's development may be different, but he isn't a liar. He's not like you. Plus who should the newbies of BitcoinTalk learn from? You? Or the those people who gave you the red color in your trust-rating? you keep mentioning the trust rating.. its meaningless because your group of idiots caused it "Group of idiots" in your opinion are the Core Developers, which in my opinion are the rightful stewards of the network/the smartest people in crypto? Who would you like/suggest to be the developers of Bitcoin, frankandbeans?
---Snip---
I'm not reading all that. But I'm happy for you, or I'm sorry that happened.  |
|
|
|
i have no mentors but your mindset of you needing one makes you beleive other people need one too
cult members always think the rest of the world belongs in other religions..
You have no mentors, but merely propagating the lies and the disinformation of people that have an Anti-Bitcoin agenda. OK. There should be no mentors, we merely should know which group of people we should learn from. They're not always right, they're human, but I have full confidence that they're not nefarious. There are also big blockers that I respect, like Deadalnix. The direction he wants for Bitcoin's development may be different, but he isn't a liar. He's not like you. Plus who should the newbies of BitcoinTalk learn from? You? Or the those people who gave you the red color in your trust-rating? |
|
|
|
wrong again.. you are stuck in doomad nonsense scripts of 2018 here i showed you and him(many times and many topics) a nice colourful image of the versionbit and user agents of the era..(you can verify it with blockdata and other stats)  blueline reaching its threshold, triggered the redline to then go from natural wiggles of 45% to unnatural /-\ 100% as you can see UASF didnt even get 20% popularity!! Of course you would show that image to everyone in the forum without context and without the source.  This is the source, it's from Reddit /r/btc, the home of the big blockers, https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8golyn/what_caused_the_miners_to_activate_segwit_threat/¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And for the context, that image illustrates that actual point that Jihan Wu and the miners cabal are working together with the signatories of the New York Agreement. In fact, they were also signatories of the agreement. The formation of the NYA also proved that desperation among them was starting because the UASF was not going to concede. It was actually starting to win some of the Core Developer's support, like Eric Lombrozo. Newbies, study history, https://learn.saylor.org/mod/book/view.php?id=30784 |
|
|
|
As of now, I have a hard time understanding how that`s a blockchain platform. It looks like a "regular" Livescore website and you have been announcing additions more than half a year ago while at the same time, mentioning some token airdrop. It`s all very unclear and vague.
You'll be giving it a low review I presume? Hahaha. The same as the other casino services, I'm also giving it the benefit of the doubt. Plus the admins/team might be looking for more capital from investors to continue development Although, investment and capital might be easier to find currently because it's a bull market. It just depends on the team's motivation in how fast they want to build a minimum viable product for beta-testing. |
|
|
|
Or did I simply misunderstand, and you're trying to say is Lightning "can be built" on top of other chains, not only Bitcoin?
That's what I meant, even though there is little to no reason to do it elsewhere. No reason for off-chain unless the high demand for on-chain transactions fill the mempool and/or block space to its full capacity. Ethereum has built off-chain layers, which proves that on-chain, nothing can defy the limitations of hardware and bandwidth. Plus DYOR on Solana's congestion. Their assumptions flawed and laughable. Their developers are not telling their users/community the actual truth on how their design will not work unless they increase bandwidth and hardware requirements while block space demand surges- which would also centralize the network. A fee market must also exist to prevent attackers from spamming the network - currently the surge of spam in Solana is causing transaction failures. |
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong — I hope Lightning does succeed, but if Lightning amounts to nothing in the end, do we actually have an alternative solution for scalability? It seems that Bitcoiners are betting all their cards on Lightning. Not a fan of halving the future of bitcoin payments in one company.
This is why ever since 2017 I've been saying we will always need on-chain scaling alongside everything else we do. This is also why I was a fan of the 2x part of the SegWit2x thing regardless of the other crap that surrounded the proposal. I'm confused, because if indeed the community would support a hard fork into bigger blocks, then why does Bitcoin need to go through the Segwit soft fork? A hardfork would not only be an opportunity increase the transaction throughput, it would also be an opportunity to make Bitcoin's code cleaner/fix the transaction malleability issue, no? That "other secret crap" that was behind 2X's proposal was to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers. windfury you are soo wrong yet again you cant even be bothered to read the NYA or the proposals or code, or anything to back up your mentors narrative you copy and recite like a drone zombie the reality and fact is(which is backed up by the NYA own words and code and versionbits in the immutible blockchain, is that X2 was a FAKE/empty promise to eventually give the community (at some un-dated future vapour time) 2mb base block IF they first agree to the mandate flag of normal segwit first. and yep after segwit happened the talk of the 2mb did not continue.. core+NYA got their way so 2mb blocks talk ended as soon as segwit activated x2 was not a deviation away from core, it was made by core sponsors(nya) to bait and switch the community into complying with segwit via empty promises, basically core+nya came up with a faked second option to make it feel like a choice but all paths lead back to giving core and their sponsors what they wanted, try reading things for once. look at who funded and wrote the NYA of the segwit+2mb(x2) try learning for once frankandbeans says anyone debating him is "wrong" and he wants you to learn, BUT the "correct information" that he has posted is a conspiracy theory made inside his own mind that even big blocker Deadalnix himself would find very VERY foolish and laughable. This gaslighting-4D Chess of yours will not work frankandbeans. Newbies, it was the UASF that activated Segwit, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0Study Bitcoin history. Study BIP-148. |
|
|
|
I've heard some say the testnet is just like using the real things. However if that were the case, wouldn't the debate for larger blocks and what to change or implement, not really be a debate since you'd be able to test everything out to find out for sure? Would lead me to believe that it's helpful but not really just like the actual blockchain.
Ser, we already have a few forked Bitcoin shitcoins that literally have bigger blocks running now. I believe that's a better "test" in practice because it's in a live situation. But how much of each of Bitcoin Cash's blocks have truly been filled to its full capacity? Probably almost none? Have they not considered that the underserved that truly need Bitcoin are currently not that many? Looking at https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/charts/average-block-size, it's true block size usually below 1MB. But don't forget BCH community did stress test in past, which can be used as reference. I believe not. A stress test is artificial, and we can't truly measure practically how much a network will centralize in a mere stress test. Do you want to observe an actual stress test? Look no further than Ethereum. They said that their network is "fast" therefore fees will always be "low". The current state of their network proved that there is ALWAYS a point of saturation. If you want to look further, I DYOR, and observed a fast blockchain called "Solana". Their core developers designed the network to always have low fees, with no fee market, and with high transaction throughput. Currently their network is VERY congested, and there's a high failure rate for transactions because they're being dropped. Plus it's very cheap for spammers to sustain those actions. |
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, there is one bookie that also uses smart contracts, namely the sister site of one of the famous casinos on this forum, but the bookie doesn't have an ANN on this forum so it doesn't get enough attention.
Would you mind sharing the name of the site? They don't have an ANN thread here but I'm interested to check. I also want to check that casino/sports-betting service too! We can also make a topic about it, and open the discussion for reviews and experiences of its users. I believe one of the biggest narratives of the current cycle will include Bitcoin DeFi and Bitcoin on-chain applications. It has the potential to release more liquidity into that market and it will probably bigger than Ethereum in my opinion. I think it's more appropriate if someone who would create an ANN thread is part of the team so we can get direct answers from them. Since they have a sister site, then for sure they are already awaree that this forum exist and the most popular on crypto discussions, and that includes gambling as well. I'm not so familiar with "Bitcoin DeFi and Bitcoin on-chain applications." relating to gambling, as personally in my simple understanding, I use a typical type of casino but the payment is just through cryptocurrency, but I'd love to learn though as innovation is unstoppable. I'm not that familiar with them as well, but the liquidity that was released in Ordinals, especially the BRC-20 token "ORDI" was very large, I believe we haven't seen the true potential of Bitcoin DeFi and other Bitcoin denominated markets. I'm merely speaking from a speculation perspective, and a perspective of shitcoinery. I HODL only Bitcoin, but I might be tempted in some Bitcoin-denominated shitcoinery. Hahaha. Will that be risky "trading"?  |
|
|
|
Yes, indeed, oil prices have risen to the $90 area and experts predict that if OPEC won't increase production, prices are going to exceed $100 in Q3/Q4 2024. Perhaps Ukrainian trolls can comment?  That's probably a good time for the United States to increase their Crude Oil production further, no? Their domestic economy alone could buy more than 50% of that, with the rest of it going to other regions of the globe. The OPEC doesn't have the monopoly on the production of Crude Oil, therefore higher prices would also be advantageous for those countries like the United States, China, and Russia which do NOT belong to OPEC. |
|
|
|
Remember last year the false arguments some users were making about OPEC countries reducing production while price drops? That was false because their reduction was supposed to start this year not back then. They just made the decision then and made it public. Surely enough as they started cutting supply with the start of 2024, the price started rising and in first quarter of this year we are back to $90 a barrel again. Of course there are other contributing factors as I've already covered them multiple times, but this chart clearly shows the effects of that supply cut:  That's inflationary, and that would definitely force the Federal Reserve to keep it "higher for longer", then start taking a more hawkish tone again. Plus as prices of services and commodities go up further, the people's savings will run out sooner or later, which would make them take on more debt that they can't pay. Therefore if the people have no more to spend = Economic Collapse. Demand goes down, prices go down, the economy shrinks, and Crude Oil prices will go down despite having cut the supply. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
I've heard some say the testnet is just like using the real things. However if that were the case, wouldn't the debate for larger blocks and what to change or implement, not really be a debate since you'd be able to test everything out to find out for sure? Would lead me to believe that it's helpful but not really just like the actual blockchain.
Ser, we already have a few forked Bitcoin shitcoins that literally have bigger blocks running now. I believe that's a better "test" in practice because it's in a live situation. But how much of each of Bitcoin Cash's blocks have truly been filled to its full capacity? Probably almost none? Have they not considered that the underserved that truly need Bitcoin are currently not that many? |
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong — I hope Lightning does succeed, but if Lightning amounts to nothing in the end, do we actually have an alternative solution for scalability? It seems that Bitcoiners are betting all their cards on Lightning. Not a fan of halving the future of bitcoin payments in one company.
This is why ever since 2017 I've been saying we will always need on-chain scaling alongside everything else we do. This is also why I was a fan of the 2x part of the SegWit2x thing regardless of the other crap that surrounded the proposal. I'm confused, because if indeed the community would support a hard fork into bigger blocks, then why does Bitcoin need to go through the Segwit soft fork? A hardfork would not only be an opportunity increase the transaction throughput, it would also be an opportunity to make Bitcoin's code cleaner/fix the transaction malleability issue, no? That "other secret crap" that was behind 2X's proposal was to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers. |
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, there is one bookie that also uses smart contracts, namely the sister site of one of the famous casinos on this forum, but the bookie doesn't have an ANN on this forum so it doesn't get enough attention.
Would you mind sharing the name of the site? They don't have an ANN thread here but I'm interested to check. I also want to check that casino/sports-betting service too! We can also make a topic about it, and open the discussion for reviews and experiences of its users. I believe one of the biggest narratives of the current cycle will include Bitcoin DeFi and Bitcoin on-chain applications. It has the potential to release more liquidity into that market and it will probably get bigger than Ethereum in my opinion. |
|
|
|
A project that is centralized in Vitalik hands, was premined and was rolled back like Ethereum blockchain, is not a decentralized project and blockchain.
If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.
Just because ETH is centralized (even more so with PoS), it doesn't mean that every altcoin is centralized. That's a bit dismissive, don't you think? Are Litecoin, Monero centralized? Just to name a few... Regarding Lightning, necessity is the mother of invention.
When on chain transactions are dirt cheap, there is absolutely no reason to use L2: https://litecoinspace.org/Bitcoin was like that 15 years ago... If Litecoin became really popular, then it would face the exact same scaling issues. There will always be a reason to use an off-chain layer on top of Bitcoin that utilizes actual Bitcoin transactions. I believe for those altcoins users that want Bitcoin HODLers to use their chains, prepare to be disappointed if your network won't incentivize HODLers with earning more units denominated in Bitcoin. Your network needs the liquidity more than Bitcoin needs your smaller liquidity. Plus if there isn't a bridge that doesn't rely on third parties to convert Bitcoin and use your chains, then let the "necessity is the mother of invention" build one. |
|
|
|
they are again now claiming BSV is bitcoin made by satoshi so pretending the judges freeze of CSW assets is proof of satoshi
they keep forgetting that bsv came into existence in 2018 not 2009
That sort of gaslighting will not work anymore. How stupid do they actually believe the community currently is after Craig Wright was condemned by the very people who have revolted, in some way, against Bitcoin. I have come to respect Vitalik Buterin, Marc Andresen, and Roger Ver for saying that Craig is NOT Satoshi. That shows that their hearts are in the right place, although opinions, beliefs, and understanding of things in Bitcoin Land differ. you need to learn alot more about EVERYTHING From who? You? Hahaha! Laughable.
gavin andressen wanted to retire from bitcoin.. he said in like 2010-11 that he would only spend 5 more years invovled in bitcoin.... so knowing 2015-16 was his retirement plan he took whatever golden handshake he could find and leave.. knowing his reputation didnt matter
so he took the money to say bullcrap. thinking it would not lead to anything big, and thought the drama would die out in months. so no harm no foul
yes later when he was out of contract he come clean..
R.Ver is a business man and with the troubled of bitinstant debacle he needed to pivot. he didnt intend to create BCH, BCH was created for him via the mandated rejection of old versionbit blocks(via the core sponsores(nya) bait and switch). and so he took that opportunity. and then done a deal with CSW a year later to help break BCH to BSV and was bought into promoting CSW. again for a payday..
even calvin ayres and nguyen and others sponsoring BSV dont truly believe in CSW they are just looking for riches from promoting his schemes with empty promises of huge returns
Is that the truth, or are you gaslighting/making things up again, frankandbeans? Because by saying that through a written post, and making everyone believe that to be true, could be considered libel.
its obvious no one believed in CSW and then wised up.. but instead they were guided by payouts thinking they can get rich and then CSW drama would kill itself instantly thus not cause long term issues, thus didnt care to promote a nonsense story for a while
even your mentor is not guided by information or proof, nor care for things that actually benefit bitcoiners. he is guided by empty promises of his own possible future riches if he promotes stupid stuff like recruiting people to move to other networks.. as for your motives to ignore actual block data, actual code, actual history, actual things that can benefit bitcoin.. to instead just idolise and trust idiots because they show friendliness(or make promises to you).. well thats your own story to tell one day
Is this 4D Chess? You're making false statements against your mentors for me to defend them? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
they are again now claiming BSV is bitcoin made by satoshi so pretending the judges freeze of CSW assets is proof of satoshi
they keep forgetting that bsv came into existence in 2018 not 2009
That sort of gaslighting will not work anymore. How stupid do they actually believe the community currently is after Craig Wright was condemned by the very people who have revolted, in some way, against Bitcoin. I have come to respect Vitalik Buterin, Marc Andresen, and Roger Ver for saying that Craig is NOT Satoshi. That shows that their hearts are in the right place, although opinions, beliefs, and understanding of things in Bitcoin Land differ. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
