>Nothing wrong with calling an idiot an idiot based on evidence Good. You're an idiot. Worse: an annoying idiot. Evidence: everything you ever posted ever. Ever ever ever. Arrg!
P.S. Almost forgot: [http://s21.postimg.org/ygpv7tvmf/1459728840529.jpg[/img] That's ridiculous to cite over 6000 posts in a blanket format as your supposed proof. Non-specific, and therefore ridiculous. On a related note. Based on your posts, I am fairly certain that you are skilled at art, distraction and denigration of bitcoin. Congratulations. Hopefully you get paid adequately, yet I'm fairly certain that you have more than double the posts as me, and even your notlambchop account had more posts than me (more than 7000 in a little more than a year of activity)... and probably, you have had nearly 100 other accounts, some of those accounts more successful in the longevity department than others. Accordingly, a combination of art, distraction, denigration of bitcoin and technical skills. So, even if you may not be an idiot, you are surely ridiculous, and probably undercompensated.. hahahaha... complain to your employer, who is likely paying you in bitcoin...    |
|
|
|
*nonsensical
Dear idiot:
Ad hominem reasoning is often quite appropriate:
"Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]" --wikip
But when a buffoon such as yourself is called a buffoon, it is not ad hominem reasoning, simply a statement of fact.
Nothing wrong with calling an idiot an idiot based on evidence, yet you seem to be employed in distraction rather than substance... and frequently you are not talking about substance, and instead getting caught up on personalities in order to refuse or avoid to address substance. Sure, I understand that a paid troll is likely getting paid to distract, so you seem to be fairly skilled at providing your purposefully trolling services. Since your "innovative service" doesn't offer any discounts -- merely ropes in more marks into using Bitcoin with its usurious bitcoin loans (Psst, Kid! The first one's free!), It's usurious interest rates are doubly usurious due to being charged *on top of the hidden costs already a part of the legacy finance (CC). There's a special circle in hell for that sort of thing  You could be correct about the service being a scam, but really you appear to be just throwing that out there and assuming rather than providing any details or knowledge about the actual terms of service.. .. maybe after you had already thrown out a bunch of shit, you are retroactively attempting to provide evidence for your earlier vague conclusory accusations? loans with [no doubt usurious] interest.
This statement goes to show that you are guessing, and you do not know any details. < snip >
Of course I'm guessing. I'll repeat: "Every Bitcoin loan ever: Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Lending. Shameless, greedy fucks exploiting their fellow degenerate gamblers bitcoin enthusiasts. The sort of shit that brought about usury laws in the civilized legacy finance world  " If you would like to argue that the rates are not going to be usurious (this innovative Bitcoin lending service is going to be completely unlike the rest of innovative Bitcoin lending services, which is to say "won't rape people up the butt"), you're making an extraordinary claim, and, as such, the burden of proof is yours hahahahahaha touche you could be correct if it is really true that nearly all (you seem to be asserting all) bitcoin lending services have scammed their user base. You seem to have more evidence on that point than me, and I don't really feel that it is worth my time to research into that particular point. Accordingly, I will let you rest with that particular (and seemingly incredible) assertion that all bitcoin lending companies have been engaging in schemes to screw over their customers. Your way of attempting to belittle me ... Untreue. Simply showing you that you're clueless. hahahahahaha "clueless" is a pretty low standard, and even I should have enough confidence to assert that I am not "clueless".... You should realize that when you exaggerate, you lose some of your credibility (that is if you had any credibility to start with)... no? |
|
|
|
...  "This, indeed, is despair." --Soren Kierkegaard O.k. "usurious middlemen." I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Every Bitcoin loan ever: Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Lending. Shameless, greedy fucks exploiting their fellow degenerate gamblers bitcoin enthusiasts. The sort of shit that brought about usury laws in the civilized legacy finance world It seems to me that Western Union can be a bit usurious,
Western Union doesn't lend money. but even some of these mainstream institutions have been offering some more competitive rates based on some of the low to no fees of bitcoin remittances, surely bitcoin has barely made a dent in the payment remittance market.
Your insanity is making you type annoying nonsense again. Either that, or you don't understand the difference between lending money and sending money. WTF is wrong with you? Furthermore, sometimes, the first innovations may be more usurious than others until more and more competition evolves. If people have bitcoin options, they can compare those to their other options and decide whether or not to use the service. If it is the best rate that they can get, then it could potentially be usurious, no? Is that what you are saying?
I'm saying "Bitcoin, the "be your own bank" currency, created to eliminated the usurious middlemen and escape the spiral of debt slavery ...creates a new bankster class, who go on to rope in new users by offering them credit. But not free credit, like legacy CC, oh no... loans with [no doubt usurious] interest."
Which part do you not get?
P.S. Almost forgot: 
But not free credit, like legacy CC, oh no... loans with [no doubt usurious] interest."
Which part do you not get?
My response here will largely focus on your last two sentences, because your earlier responses appear to be technical avoidances in the form of quasi-non-sensical ad hominem attacks. But not free credit, like legacy CC, oh no...
I would like to inform you that legacy CC is not free. Surely, costs are spread out in various kinds of ways, but in essence cause costs upon merchants that are inevitably going to get built into consumer prices.
loans with [no doubt usurious] interest.
This statement goes to show that you are guessing, and you do not know any details. You throw out the term "usurious" in order to stir shit, and you do not know any details. And, in the event that you get called on it, then at that time, you may or may not choose to respond - to the extent that you are not successful into further distracting the conversation into nearly pure irrelevant nonsense.
Which part do you not get?
Yes, Lambie. Your way of attempting to belittle me by asking an inflammatory question, while you failed and/or refused to respond to my question(s) regarding how the referred to service is "usurious" and seemingly successfully engaged in various "fun" irrelevant attempts at distracting anecdotes. |
|
|
|
... Thanks for your smartass contribution, Bargainbin. Would we label this post as a forum of desperate trolling, when you attempt to describe the beneficial (and likely even the bullish) offerings of one small company as a kind of negative? I would categorize this proposed BitPagos service as innovative, and we will witness the extent to which some companies are going to make money off of these kinds of services and potentially reaching segments of the currently underserved populations who may not be able to easily get small loans from traditional institutions. Interesting times ahead.  Well, let's see... Bitcoin, the "be your own bank" currency, created to eliminated the usurious middlemen and escape the spiral of debt slavery ...creates a new bankster class, who go on to rope in new users by offering them credit. But not free credit, like legacy CC, oh no... loans with [no doubt usurious] interest. [http://s30.postimg.org/3jxn42mj5/laughting_at_you.gif[/img] "This, indeed, is despair." --Soren Kierkegaard O.k. "usurious middlemen." I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. It seems to me that Western Union can be a bit usurious, but even some of these mainstream institutions have been offering some more competitive rates based on some of the low to no fees of bitcoin remittances, surely bitcoin has barely made a dent in the payment remittance market. Furthermore, sometimes, the first innovations may be more usurious than others until more and more competition evolves. If people have bitcoin options, they can compare those to their other options and decide whether or not to use the service. If it is the best rate that they can get, then it could potentially be usurious, no? Is that what you are saying? |
|
|
|
i disagree, i believe that is a serious problem. i own a bunch bitcoins, however, i am not going to lie to myself and try to convince myself or anyone else that there is nothing wrong with bitcoin. clearly, to anyone with intelligence, there is a problem with bitcoin taking 75 minutes to clear. online business might find bitcoin useful, however, starbucks will find it annoying.
it takes 10mins to clear if you have the appropriate 5cent fee... starbucks will still find a 5min wait annoying.. i wouldn't pay .05 more a transaction for my coffee just for hell of it tax... that fee is not set in stone. it is going to continue to increase if the bloatchain continues to grow bandwidth. which is part of the argument of the "cripple coiners" who want to cripple the bloatchain to increase the fees. ... how much is .05 in bitcoin anyways. If you were able to support your own lame conclusions, you should be able to make simple calculations in order to show that you know what the fuck you are talking about. It's similar to your failure and refusal to provide sufficient information regarding your coinbase limit problem.. you fail and refuse to engage in basic research and/or knowledge and selectively pick your facts. By the way, at this time, $.05 is about a tiny bit above .0001 BTC... look at bitcoin's exchange rate.. it is about $421, and therefore, .1BTC would be $42.10, and .01 BTC would be $4.21, and .001 BTC would be $.421 and .0001 BTC would be $.0421 etc etc etc |
|
|
|
[blablablablablabla]
Some of the data on that site make little sense to me, however. I don't really understand how they are calculating average blocksize as compared with median blocksize, and why there would be a difference between those two concepts (except through their definition of such).
[blablablablablabla]
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/mean-median-average/Hahahahahaha I will admit that I had a brain fart, and for a moment, I was considering mean and median as the same. So, O.k. I will agree that reviewing information about the median could be helpful to various analysis regarding whether there are block full problems and transaction time problems that are resulting from block fullness, and blockchain.info charts are providing the mean for blocksize, but so far, seem to not be providing the median. At least, I have not found it, so far. There's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics. Any statistician will tell you the average is an awful stone age measure, then start talking about mean, median, and standard deviation to decide whether the blocks are truly full or not. However if you can't get your transaction into a block for hours even with a good fee that's all you need to know. if juans transaction took four days to complete he would still argue with you that everything is fine in #bizarroworld of bitcoin. ... Yes, that is a big "IF". My transactions are not taking four days but tend to show up immediately and usually take less than an hour. In early March, while the blocks were supposedly full, I sent out three transactions with varying fees, and the one with the highest fees (I recall it was $.04) took about 75 minutes to complete, and the two with the low to no fees ($.01 and $.001 respectively) took close to 10 hours to complete. In other words, you are in a fantasy world, Mr. Aztec, and transactions do not appear to be taking anywhere near 4 days to complete, even when blocks are at their fullest... and including some small token fees seems to help speed up transaction confirmations. yeah waiting over an hour for a payment to go through rocks. Nothing wrong with that. Bitcoin is in an interim stage of development, and we should not be expecting a 6 billion dollar market cap system to compete on the same level as various centralized credit card and other centralized payment systems (in terms of speed).. in these early and expansive days of bitcoin and its various systems. And, even so, these days, it seems that bitcoin is allowing a lot of value transfer, control and storage of value in ways that would be extremely expensive and even slow for final confirmation in many instances with traditional payment systems. A couple of weeks ago, I sent 80 bitcoins (price at the time $416 - therefore $33,280), and it took about 7 minutes to be confirmed, and I was able to use the money in less than 30 minutes. I did not do anything special on that occasion, and the standard fee was .000187 BTC (almost $.08). Personally, I find that transaction to be quite amazing in comparison to any other payment system (and largely decentralized in this circumstance). My earlier March tests of three transactions (while the blocks were supposedly full) that took 75 minutes, and nearly 10 hours for the other two, were fairly small level transactions (a little more than $1), and those transaction times and fees were acceptable, as well, yet would depend on use case, whether faster confirmation would be preferred or lower fees would be expected... Bitcoin is not anywhere near broken, and a lot of further innovations are in the soon-to-be implemented pipeline... this year, and maybe more next year. So, you FUCD spreaders seem to becoming less and less persuasive with your lame assertions of "emergency" and or to make supposed "brokenness of bitcoin" cries. i disagree, i believe that is a serious problem. i own a bunch bitcoins, however, i am not going to lie to myself and try to convince myself or anyone else that there is nothing wrong with bitcoin. clearly, to anyone with intelligence, there is a problem with bitcoin taking 75 minutes to clear. online business might find bitcoin useful, however, starbucks will find it annoying. Yeah... You seem to be ignoring most, if not all facts in order to repeat your assertion that in your view bitcoin sucks. As I already asserted, and should be sufficiently clear, bitcoin is not yet at the starbucks stage... it is just not close to being mass or merchant adopted or even sufficiently user friendly for such level of micro transactions at the current time. Surely, in the next couple of years, it seems very likely that bitcoin is going to have the potential to become incorporated into a lot of the fast transaction confirmation market... we just aren't there, yet, and therefore, describing expectations that are not there seems to be in the fantasyland self-serving territory to talk bitcoin down and to focus on deficiencies without acknowledging a large number of development attributes that are either in the wings or likely to be developed in the coming years. |
|
|
|
 Welcome to debt slavery!
Thanks for your smartass contribution, Bargainbin. Would we label this post as a forum of desperate trolling, when you attempt to describe the beneficial (and likely even the bullish) offerings of one small company as a kind of negative? I would categorize this proposed BitPagos service as innovative, and we will witness the extent to which some companies are going to make money off of these kinds of services and potentially reaching segments of the currently underserved populations who may not be able to easily get small loans from traditional institutions. Interesting times ahead. |
|
|
|
$421 boring action man. Somebody wake me up from hibernation if/when we hit $700 or something.
Even in the best-case scenarios, $700 is going to be a while... Maybe 4 months or longer....? I would think that if we get into the $480s (and possibly into the $470s would be sufficient), then it is very likely that we would be able to experience the $600s within that same price run... and the $700s seem to be quite a longer shot, especially without some correction (profit-taking) period, first.. which could cause several months of delay... but really, I would like to be wrong, and it does seem difficult to deny that bitcoin is due for some kind of upwards price explosion... I just fear that getting into the $800s would likely require movement to a new ATH (and we may not be quite ready for that, yet?). 680 is next stop Ahhh im back, also do you guys have info of the alts all dropping in price? Does that mean altcoin season is over and bitcoin is back on stage? I doubt that there is any meaningful direct correlation exactly between various alts and bitcoin, even though maybe from time to time, the performance of some alts can be compared and contrasted with the performance of bitcoin - and the investment and disinvestment trade-offs. |
|
|
|
$421 boring action man. Somebody wake me up from hibernation if/when we hit $700 or something.
Even in the best-case scenarios, $700 is going to be a while... Maybe 4 months or longer....? I would think that if we get into the $480s (and possibly into the $470s would be sufficient), then it is very likely that we would be able to experience the $600s within that same price run... and the $700s seem to be quite a longer shot, especially without some correction (profit-taking) period, first.. which could cause several months of delay... but really, I would like to be wrong, and it does seem difficult to deny that bitcoin is due for some kind of upwards price explosion... I just fear that getting into the $800s would likely require movement to a new ATH (and we may not be quite ready for that, yet?). 680 is next stop You may be correct, but frequently I am skeptical when price predictions are too specific and lacking in qualifiers. That's a decent number, though... I frequently am hypothesizing that once prices go past $502 (which really seems to become inevitable after $480, then prices are going to shoot into the $600 to $650 territories... and certainly overshooting towards $680 is not outside of normal irrational bitcoin history, which seems quite likely to continue. |
|
|
|
$421 boring action man. Somebody wake me up from hibernation if/when we hit $700 or something.
Even in the best-case scenarios, $700 is going to be a while... Maybe 4 months or longer....? I would think that if we get into the $480s (and possibly into the $470s would be sufficient), then it is very likely that we would be able to experience the $600s within that same price run... and the $700s seem to be quite a longer shot, especially without some correction (profit-taking) period, first.. which could cause several months of delay... but really, I would like to be wrong, and it does seem difficult to deny that bitcoin is due for some kind of upwards price explosion... I just fear that getting into the $800s would likely require movement to a new ATH (and we may not be quite ready for that, yet?). |
|
|
|
[blablablablablabla]
Some of the data on that site make little sense to me, however. I don't really understand how they are calculating average blocksize as compared with median blocksize, and why there would be a difference between those two concepts (except through their definition of such).
[blablablablablabla]
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/mean-median-average/Hahahahahaha I will admit that I had a brain fart, and for a moment, I was considering mean and median as the same. So, O.k. I will agree that reviewing information about the median could be helpful to various analysis regarding whether there are block full problems and transaction time problems that are resulting from block fullness, and blockchain.info charts are providing the mean for blocksize, but so far, seem to not be providing the median. At least, I have not found it, so far. There's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics. Any statistician will tell you the average is an awful stone age measure, then start talking about mean, median, and standard deviation to decide whether the blocks are truly full or not. However if you can't get your transaction into a block for hours even with a good fee that's all you need to know. if juans transaction took four days to complete he would still argue with you that everything is fine in #bizarroworld of bitcoin. ... Yes, that is a big "IF". My transactions are not taking four days but tend to show up immediately and usually take less than an hour. In early March, while the blocks were supposedly full, I sent out three transactions with varying fees, and the one with the highest fees (I recall it was $.04) took about 75 minutes to complete, and the two with the low to no fees ($.01 and $.001 respectively) took close to 10 hours to complete. In other words, you are in a fantasy world, Mr. Aztec, and transactions do not appear to be taking anywhere near 4 days to complete, even when blocks are at their fullest... and including some small token fees seems to help speed up transaction confirmations. yeah waiting over an hour for a payment to go through rocks. Nothing wrong with that. Bitcoin is in an interim stage of development, and we should not be expecting a 6 billion dollar market cap system to compete on the same level as various centralized credit card and other centralized payment systems (in terms of speed).. in these early and expansive days of bitcoin and its various systems. And, even so, these days, it seems that bitcoin is allowing a lot of value transfer, control and storage of value in ways that would be extremely expensive and even slow for final confirmation in many instances with traditional payment systems. A couple of weeks ago, I sent 80 bitcoins (price at the time $416 - therefore $33,280), and it took about 7 minutes to be confirmed, and I was able to use the money in less than 30 minutes. I did not do anything special on that occasion, and the standard fee was .000187 BTC (almost $.08). Personally, I find that transaction to be quite amazing in comparison to any other payment system (and largely decentralized in this circumstance). My earlier March tests of three transactions (while the blocks were supposedly full) that took 75 minutes, and nearly 10 hours for the other two, were fairly small level transactions (a little more than $1), and those transaction times and fees were acceptable, as well, yet would depend on use case, whether faster confirmation would be preferred or lower fees would be expected... Bitcoin is not anywhere near broken, and a lot of further innovations are in the soon-to-be implemented pipeline... this year, and maybe more next year. So, you FUCD spreaders seem to becoming less and less persuasive with your lame assertions of "emergency" and or to make supposed "brokenness of bitcoin" cries. |
|
|
|
[blablablablablabla]
Some of the data on that site make little sense to me, however. I don't really understand how they are calculating average blocksize as compared with median blocksize, and why there would be a difference between those two concepts (except through their definition of such).
[blablablablablabla]
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/mean-median-average/Hahahahahaha I will admit that I had a brain fart, and for a moment, I was considering mean and median as the same. So, O.k. I will agree that reviewing information about the median could be helpful to various analysis regarding whether there are block full problems and transaction time problems that are resulting from block fullness, and blockchain.info charts are providing the mean for blocksize, but so far, seem to not be providing the median. At least, I have not found it, so far. There's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics. Any statistician will tell you the average is an awful stone age measure, then start talking about mean, median, and standard deviation to decide whether the blocks are truly full or not. However if you can't get your transaction into a block for hours even with a good fee that's all you need to know. if juans transaction took four days to complete he would still argue with you that everything is fine in #bizarroworld of bitcoin. ... Yes, that is a big "IF". My transactions are not taking four days but tend to show up immediately and usually take less than an hour. In early March, while the blocks were supposedly full, I sent out three transactions with varying fees, and the one with the highest fees (I recall it was $.04) took about 75 minutes to complete, and the two with the low to no fees ($.01 and $.001 respectively) took close to 10 hours to complete. In other words, you are in a fantasy world, Mr. Aztec, and transactions do not appear to be taking anywhere near 4 days to complete, even when blocks are at their fullest... and including some small token fees seems to help speed up transaction confirmations. |
|
|
|
[blablablablablabla]
Some of the data on that site make little sense to me, however. I don't really understand how they are calculating average blocksize as compared with median blocksize, and why there would be a difference between those two concepts (except through their definition of such).
[blablablablablabla]
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/mean-median-average/Hahahahahaha I will admit that I had a brain fart, and for a moment, I was considering mean and median as the same. So, O.k. I will agree that reviewing information about the median could be helpful to various analysis regarding whether there are block full problems and transaction time problems that are resulting from block fullness, and blockchain.info charts are providing the mean for blocksize, but so far, seem to not be providing the median. At least, I have not found it, so far. i think we all know it was more than just a brain fart.... it was more white matter disconnects and grey matter synaptic clipping. just last week juanthegeeguy claimed there were no bloatchain problems with blocks being full.. now he needs to review information .. lol . go jaun review real hard this time! It seems that you, Mr. Aztec, have some difficulties with reading comprehension.  In my earlier comment, I conceded that I had not recognized the difference from median and mean in the referred to charts; however, I did not concede that there was any kind of meaningful blockchain fullness problem. I also conceded that looking at median blocksize information could potentially allow for various additional arguments regarding blocksize fullness, that may not be as meaningful by using mean blocksize information. None of my concessions imply that there is actually in existence convincing information concerning the extent to which some posters tend to argue about "emergency" blockchain fullness issues that would require immediate action beyond various currently ongoing seg wit considerations and later on potential blocksize limit increases that are being considered for sometime after the implementation of seg wit, such as potential blocksize limit increase considerations described in the HongKong agreement. |
|
|
|
....
[removed image of person getting run over by a train]
Bears gonne get TRAINED!
openbazaar pump 3..2..1....
That image is pretty morbid.... Since You edited out the image... I took it out, too.. |
|
|
|
[blablablablablabla]
Some of the data on that site make little sense to me, however. I don't really understand how they are calculating average blocksize as compared with median blocksize, and why there would be a difference between those two concepts (except through their definition of such).
[blablablablablabla]
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/mean-median-average/Hahahahahaha I will admit that I had a brain fart, and for a moment, I was considering mean and median as the same. So, O.k. I will agree that reviewing information about the median could be helpful to various analysis regarding whether there are block full problems and transaction time problems that are resulting from block fullness, and blockchain.info charts are providing the mean for blocksize, but so far, seem to not be providing the median. At least, I have not found it, so far. There's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics. Any statistician will tell you the average is an awful stone age measure, then start talking about mean, median, and standard deviation to decide whether the blocks are truly full or not. However if you can't get your transaction into a block for hours even with a good fee that's all you need to know. There's nothing wrong with considering some anecdotal evidence (especially when considering personal experiences, and whether personal experiences are either representative, aberrational or something more mixed). There have been a lot of strong claims coming, so accordingly, I believe that looking at various charts (especially if we are able to verify accuracy - or to have some trust in accuracy) can also give some ideas about the potential strengths/weaknesses of various claims. |
|
|
|
[blablablablablabla]
Some of the data on that site make little sense to me, however. I don't really understand how they are calculating average blocksize as compared with median blocksize, and why there would be a difference between those two concepts (except through their definition of such).
[blablablablablabla]
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/mean-median-average/Hahahahahaha I will admit that I had a brain fart, and for a moment, I was considering mean and median as the same. So, O.k. I will agree that reviewing information about the median could be helpful to various analysis regarding whether there are block full problems and transaction time problems that are resulting from block fullness, and blockchain.info charts are providing the mean for blocksize, but so far, seem to not be providing the median. At least, I have not found it, so far. |
|
|
|
Good news, someone Bitmain Technologies Ltd. put up some nice graphs to monitor the fullness of blocks (not blockchain.info, but I hope you can give others a chance as well). https://www.btc.com/en/stats/block-sizeOf the past three months it shows - the median daily blocksize
- the average daily blocksize
- the number of daily transactions
- the sum of daily blocksize
It also shows monthly graphs for all time as well. I think that once the median monthly blocksize hits 1 MB, it can be said that blocks are definitely full. For the first three months of this year it was around 933 kB, or 93%. I know that the party line stipulates that many if not most of the transactions are spam and shouldn't be counted. But that's a different topic. Thank you for providing more information about possible sources to support some of the arguments that you had been making (regarding blocksizes being full). Some of the data on that site make little sense to me, however. I don't really understand how they are calculating average blocksize as compared with median blocksize, and why there would be a difference between those two concepts (except through their definition of such). I believe that some of our valid criticism of blockchain.info has been that blockchain.info does not seem to be allowing for more granular analysis of blocksize, transaction fees and confirmation times, and so far, I cannot recognize that the various graphs of your provided site having more granular analysis. Actually, if there were a way to break down into 4, 6 or 12 hour intervals would cause some additional ability to analyze whether there are periods in which transactions are taking longer to go through... Possibly, at some point, these kind of time issues will no longer be issues, because at this point, I personally can understand that sometimes it may take an hour to confirm paid transactions and it could take half a day to confirm low or no fee transactions... |
|
|
|
i have to reindex the entire blockchain today. a feature of bitcoin. re-index your bloatchain every few months... guess we see how long it takes. .. this should affect the price bigtime today. aztecminer has reload bloatchain causes bitcoin to crash to new lows.
See the bright side: If we had bigger blocks, you'd need more time  no one is using a full node for private bitcoin payments. either he seeks attention or he is retarded.  Mr. Aztec has both things going for him.... He is both seeking attention and retarded, yet once in a while entertaining. See more at gimpyaztec.com |
|
|
|
i think the sideways momentum of uᴉoɔʇᴉq is not really healthy at this point.  It's not exciting or bullish but price stability can sometimes bring in new investors especially paranoid people who don't like to take risks. the scaling problem makes uᴉoɔʇᴉq a risk no matter what. What scaling problem? There's no scaling problem.. So far, all I've seen are a bunch of whiners about some kind of scaling problem, and so far, I have yet to see any actual scaling problem. right.. everything we been talking about this last ELEVEN MONTHS suddenly went away.. cuz uᴉoɔʇᴉq. there is a risk that they never raise the block size .. satochia has the fix yet he is holding it back. why are they holding it back? Yes... you seem to be correct this time that there has been a lot of bullshit discussions regarding scaling non-issues for about 11 months that have seemed to materialize into a lot of loud voices and no real or meaningful evidence of any actual or material problem. Nonetheless, if we had been paying attention, we have seen quite a large amount of whining about various fantasy scaling issues, and likely the whining about the non-existent problem is not done, yet. Regarding actual upcoming implementations of changes to the bitcoin protocol, there seem to be several actual implementations in the works, and there is no real need for me to repeat such, here. Whether any or all of the implementations will actually happen or not will be found out in the coming months.. and really there should be no real doubt that several changes will actually go live. From what I understand seg wit is in testnet.. and may be getting close to being activated on the blockchain protocol in the coming month or two... Furthermore, it sounds pretty exciting regarding some of the innovative possibilities coming with seg wit that seem to address some of the concerns of a lot of whiners including transaction speed and transaction volume, and then to be able to witness the actual going live of seg wit and some other upcoming changes should be exciting, as well. |
|
|
|
i think the sideways momentum of uᴉoɔʇᴉq is not really healthy at this point. It's not exciting or bullish but price stability can sometimes bring in new investors especially paranoid people who don't like to take risks. the scaling problem makes uᴉoɔʇᴉq a risk no matter what. What scaling problem? There's no scaling problem.. So far, all I've seen are a bunch of whiners about some kind of scaling problem, and so far, I have yet to see any actual scaling problem. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
