Day 934 without sex: Bought altcoins so I can remember the feeling of something going down on me
Bought 5 monero just to fill up my physical 5xmr giveaway coin. I always wanted some xmr around anyway and 0.01786 looked like a bargain price so I couldn't resist. I'll buy more btc this month to make up for it.  Extra points for the Cry Baby platform. |
|
|
|
How much is premined?
i'm sure they won't tell us how many coins are premined, like bitcoin cash till now we don't know how much they got premined coins. these forks gives only shit coins, the only good one thing is we get free extra money, i hope we don't see many coins like this because these coins will kill the original bitcoin if this stupid forks coins will continue. Doubt anyone will say the pre-mined amount. Clarification: Bitcoin Cash had no pre-mine, despite what BitcoinReseller falsely claims. |
|
|
|
Funny thing about profit? It can only be garnered by providing something the masses want at a price for which they are willing to pay.
Truth is, the cold indifference of profit-seeking enterprise is the mechanism by which the lowliest among us live better longer lives in more comfort than the aristocracy of merely a century ago.
In general, but it is certainly not a universal mechanism. The victims of the Bhopal disaster hardly lived or are living better, longer lives. Your point is well taken. I could point out that 'on balance' is the only meaningful way to make such assessments. And please do not misunderstand my next point -- as I would be quick to agree that the loss of inanimate business entities pales in the face of human life. But you may have noticed that Union Carbide is no longer a viable company. IOW, this organization is demonstrably proven to be very poor at profit-seeking. |
|
|
|
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
- 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto
The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion? No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should. But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today. You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today. Ok so from your point of view it was the miners that agreed and decided to activate Segwit without outside pressure? Whether or not subject to outside pressure, it was indeed the miners that activated The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split?
In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless. But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power? But that was not what I was asking. I was asking about the importance of non-mining nodes enforcing the rules and validating transactions and blocks themselves. If there was "economic power" that would come with it, it would be secondary or a side effect. No. See my bolding of your quote. You were not asking about the importance of non-mining validators. You asked about a divergence between miners' desires, and desires of the economic majority. You seem to me to imply that non-mining validator count is an indication of economic majority. If this indeed be your claim, I call bullshit. Non-mining validators are a trivial cost to spin up any number of sybil clones. As opposed to mining power or demonstrated coin hodlings. Nevertheless, I am asking why you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'? On one side, we have a bunch of neck beards marshalling an army of raspberry pis. On the other side we have a wealth of industry tycoons controlling a multi billion dollar investment in specialized infrastructure. And additional racks and racks of servers dedicated to the validation function. Which of these two groups do you seriously represents the economic majority?
Again, despite your delusion, non-mining validators have fuck-all to do with consensus. I don't know, but I believe either one of them, separated, without consensus, will not achieve anything. The top Bitcoin merchants tried it through 2X, but without the smaller merchants support and the community they have nothing. So you are implying that 'top Bitcoin merchants' and miners are the same group? Or what if the miners want to enforce something and the non-mining nodes do not follow?
They will. An investment in an overwhelming number of validators is a rounding error to the miners. (grammatical edits) I believe it is not that simple. It is misinforming to simply say "they will". So do you believe that, under the (false) hypothetical that non-mining validators have power over the consensus rules, that miners bent on changing the rules would not spin up an overwhelming count of such non-mining validators? |
|
|
|
DJ ... D-Sol? Spinnin' the hot n sweaty EDM? Ohhhkaaay.... The mind boggles. edit: I take it back. How he spends his time off the clock ain't no bidnez of mine. |
|
|
|
LOL Mastercard   Indeed. Made me laugh as well. That was their stated value-add. Can't make this shit up, people. |
|
|
|
Saw on /r/bitcoin.
Food for thought.
But gold still hasn't equalled that 1980 high accounting for inflation, which we're told is the point of gold. It would've been $2600 in today's dollars so right now it's worth less than half what you laid out nearly four bleedin' decades ago. $800+ was merely standard FOMO overshoot. Duh. Paper gold turned it to shite.
Well, there is that. |
|
|
|
Corporations are soulless mummies mandated to maximize shareholder profit. Imagining market forces will manage humans with anything other than complete indifference is nuts.
Funny thing about profit? It can only be garnered by providing something the masses want at a price for which they are willing to pay. Truth is, the cold indifference of profit-seeking enterprise is the mechanism by which the lowliest among us live better longer lives in more comfort than the aristocracy of merely a century ago. |
|
|
|
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
- 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto
The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion? No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should. But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today. You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today. Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split?
In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless. But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power? On one side, we have a bunch of neck beards marshalling an army of raspberry pis. On the other side we have a wealth of industry tycoons controlling a multi billion dollar investment in specialized infrastructure. And additional racks and racks of servers dedicated to the validation function. Which of these two groups do you seriously represents the economic majority? Again, despite your delusion, non-mining validators have fuck-all to do with consensus. Or what if the miners want to enforce something and the non-mining nodes do not follow?
They will. An investment in an overwhelming number of validators is a rounding error to the miners. (grammatical edits) |
|
|
|
Vegeta? Isn't that some character from some children's cartoon show? Gotta be the lamest meme ever.
There is a reason every nerd on the internet knows it. It's because it's a good show. Unconvinced. My son has been watching the DB series since years. I can't escape it. Near as I can tell, is consists of the same small set of rivals fighting the same battle over and over again. Have you actually watched it or is it just background noise to you? If it will require more than two or four full episodes detached in time, and an interminable series of 2-minute askance observations in order to 'get it', then I can't be bothered to make the investment of time. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Vegeta? Isn't that some character from some children's cartoon show? Gotta be the lamest meme ever.
There is a reason every nerd on the internet knows it. It's because it's a good show. Unconvinced. My son has been watching the DB series since years. I can't escape it. Near as I can tell, is consists of the same small set of rivals fighting the same battle over and over again. Is it you, jbreher, though? Really now? watching the series? for years? about the same set of rivals? fighting the same battle over and again? Is it you? *zing!* |
|
|
|
Vegeta? Isn't that some character from some children's cartoon show? Gotta be the lamest meme ever.
There is a reason every nerd on the internet knows it. It's because it's a good show. Unconvinced. My son has been watching the DB series since years. I can't escape it. Near as I can tell, is consists of the same small set of rivals fighting the same battle over and over again. |
|
|
|
Next time just buy moa on the way up, and sell moa on the way down.
Now you've got me really confused. I feel like a dodo. |
|
|
|
JJG's stalwart refusal to entertain any notion not currently within his self-imposed event horizon may eventually lead to his downfall.
I had my downfall already. It was epic. 6/10. Would not do again. Yeah you should be casso-wary of doing that again. Is that what that stogie-chompin', helmet-wearin' bird was? I mistook it for a simple ostrich. |
|
|
|
Not a debate about which intelligence service is more honest than another intelligence service (hint they are both dishonest).
There is no debate. The President of the United States should side with his own country. “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to ignore that fact.”? Nope. Just nope. |
|
|
|
it is *logically true* that my *literal* assertion proved "false" as it was not identical to what he said.
Thanks for keeping it real. I could have started arguing over the subtleties such as even in that ridiculously extreme theoretical scenario Schnorr sigs would in fact "alleviate" (reduce) the time needed... but then he would have replied that it wouldn't because he already was considering ONLY single input tx's... and so on....
My words are carefully chosen. Usually. Except when I'm under the sauce. I seek only the truth. Well, that and the profit that can be had from applying knowledge of that truth. JJG's stalwart refusal to entertain any notion not currently within his self-imposed event horizon may eventually lead to his downfall. |
|
|
|
And if that each person wanted to make just 32 transactions to different people bcash would need 30yrs to process that. Think about that!
I have thought about that. Today, that is indeed the case. Or even maybe longer - as 32MB is the currently supported max, which is subject to miners' decisions to create blocks smaller than max. Which is, of course, why there has been discussion within the BCH development community -- for as long as there has been a BCH -- on other orthogonal approaches to scaling. So while true today, it will be false for some value of 'tomorrow'. In the meantime, BCH is not suiciding itself for the sake of some illusory benefit of 'decentralization' along some axis that is entirely irrelevant. Orthogonal? Yes. Do you understand the term? In this case, meaning scaling in a manner unrelated to the max block size. You mean like side chains!
Sidechainy things are within the universe of things being discussed, though certainly not exclusively, nor even leadingly. WTF that wasn't in Satoshi's white paper!!!
Point? Wait so you're saying that different solutions might come in the future so time and resources are better spent on near term issues
In a manner of speaking, yes. Time tested engineering principles focus on the bang-for-the-buck solutions. Always. However, it is not 'might come'. We know of several scaling solutions orthogonal to increasing the max block size. The discussions underway are focused upon cost/benefit analysis. Or alternately risk/benefit analysis. You know - the essence of engineering. Reread that ^ few times, and then read your initial troll post about it taking 30yrs to transfer BTC to every human on earth. And then try really really REALLY hard to continue to troll as if you don't see the parallels No thanks. Unless you come up with something meaningful and worthy of consideration, I am done wasting my time on this branch of the discussion. |
|
|
|
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
- 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto
The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion? No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should. |
|
|
|
And if that each person wanted to make just 32 transactions to different people bcash would need 30yrs to process that. Think about that!
I have thought about that. Today, that is indeed the case. Or even maybe longer - as 32MB is the currently supported max, which is subject to miners' decisions to create blocks smaller than max. Which is, of course, why there has been discussion within the BCH development community -- for as long as there has been a BCH -- on other orthogonal approaches to scaling. So while true today, it will be false for some value of 'tomorrow'. In the meantime, BCH is not suiciding itself for the sake of some illusory benefit of 'decentralization' along some axis that is entirely irrelevant. Orthogonal? Yes. Do you understand the term? In this case, meaning scaling in a manner unrelated to the max block size. You mean like side chains!
Sidechainy things are within the universe of things being discussed, though certainly not exclusively, nor even leadingly. WTF that wasn't in Satoshi's white paper!!!
Point? Wait so you're saying that different solutions might come in the future so time and resources are better spent on near term issues
In a manner of speaking, yes. Time tested engineering principles focus on the bang-for-the-buck solutions. Always. However, it is not 'might come'. We know of several scaling solutions orthogonal to increasing the max block size. The discussions underway are focused upon cost/benefit analysis. Or alternately risk/benefit analysis. You know - the essence of engineering. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
