I guess I never really thought about so was interested in your view...especially as I am not sure of the stated, or unstated modus operandi of the BTC forum in relation to these sort of issues?
on one hand development leads to the forks/rc's, and development could lead to a fork, so they seem to inter mesh. Not sure were you are going? They do lead to each other, but are you saying it is important because it is an announcement of a potential announcement that is more likely to occur? ... Yeah just exploring how they merge into each other...releases come from dev work....so it seems they are kinda inta related I think raising coins for dev is ok....maybe ok for sticky maybe not, but there is a general clutter issue in alts. on tangent to another point you raise, it's sorta interesting that clients get their own child boards. I think alts need a child board for launches/info on coins. I am not sure why mod's are so opposed to this. I also think Coblee raises some legit points, LTC is the backbone of many alts, and so its hard to argue that LTC dev will not benefit all alts. I also can not see anything close in the alts (except PPC) to the DEV organization and team for LTC. Eg Sunny king is probably the next or best dev TRC are probably next but who are they even, and they go rouge on each other, WDC 2 apparently??? |
|
|
|
They sticky info like releases candidates and forks in ALTS......for alts......don't they....?
where do you think the line should be drawn???
Also when LTC was released how much mine was there how many coins in the first few weeks? etc
Stickies about forks have a clear deadline, are applied to every coin, and is not an endorsement. This fundraising is commercial. It's one story if the same policies are applied to every coin. I'm surprised that you can't see the obvious line. I guess I never really thought about so was interested in your view...especially as I am not sure of the stated, or unstated modus operandi of the BTC forum in relation to these sort of issues? on one hand development leads to the forks/rc's, and development could lead to a fork, so they seem to inter mesh. the issue of a clear deadline would need to be set. I guess I feel that a call to develop for CC's is good, in general, I can appreciate where you are coming from in specific, as would appear to preference on alt above another rather than let it survive on its merits. How would you feel about say a mod sticky call from BTC dev for fundraising in this forum, would that be legit?  |
|
|
|
|
Ok this may have been spoken about, but a scale, speed issue, may be some sort of parrallel set of blockchains. I am talking at a very general level and appreciate I may be well wrong
Firstly I appreciate that any dilution or shorter blockchain means less security, but at what point does the asymptote just not matter eg 2^100000 or 2^1000000 are both really big numbers
I just want to open the floor to thoughts about a parallel block chain system. I have had a few thoughts, but want some views of the more learner-ed before I say anything.
|
|
|
|
|
They sticky info like releases candidates and forks in ALTS......for alts......don't they....?
where do you think the line should be drawn???
Also when LTC was released how much mine was there how many coins in the first few weeks? etc
|
|
|
|
only approx 10 million bitcoins in circulation at 30US each thats roughly only a few million pizza orders, enough to feed barely a whole country for 1 day bitcoin is going to be the shadow global inflation controller so it needs to increase in price to do its job selling any coin right now is ridiculous at the current low unexplainable price everyone around the globe is starting to hear about bitcoin and they are going to need to get in at some point or they will be reliant on the highly inflationary fiat for the rest of their life  Yeah crazy to sell at 210 and buy back 3 times as much at 70 when the price will be so high someday. You would only have 3x as much money there....ridiculous. Better to just blindly hold. the problem with this logic, that if BTC is going to be successful it will jump by orders of magnitude, and you don't know when, eg it could have gone to 2000, and dropped back to 900, and selling at 210 would leave you locked out forever. eg $10c to $1 etc etc |
|
|
|
Someday people are going to look at 1 MB like they do a 1 KB. Keeping it at that arbitrary size doesn't help anybody. I'm sure there is a decent algorithm that will allow for an increasing sized block without it ruining bitcoin's decentralization.
Furthermore, I still don't understand why full nodes don't receive some compensation? Why only miners?
this is what I thought as well ... need is the mother of invention |
|
|
|
only approx 10 million bitcoins in circulation at 30US each thats roughly only a few million pizza orders, enough to feed barely a whole country for 1 day bitcoin is going to be the shadow global inflation controller so it needs to increase in price to do its job selling any coin right now is ridiculous at the current low unexplainable price everyone around the globe is starting to hear about bitcoin and they are going to need to get in at some point or they will be reliant on the highly inflationary fiat for the rest of their life yes but you can spend a BTC more than once a day! |
|
|
|
music very repetitive gets annoying
hang on why does it become unprofitable for miners when say the block size is doubled?
Also as BTC goes up by more usage, then fees become a smaller as a fraction of the BTC and so stay the same in buying power for power and hardware.
what am I missing here?
their theory is that mining will require too much bandwidth if the block size is too high. pretty soon you'll need a direct connection to the backbone to be able to download the blockchain fast enough, to be able mine. ( or somthing like that? ) this is make it impossible to be an anonymous miner in the network, very few people will be able to be miners, b4 you know it only a handful of miners have control over the network. their idea is in the right direction, it would be cool if these payment processors could be built in such a way that they do not require trust. some kind of automated bitcoin payment processing system that is open source and secure. not sure if possible... If not you'll need to trust your coins to a central entity to do these off chain TX these seem like technical limitations that should be overcome given time and moores law, eg a120 GB a month internet account is not that much these days...and the speed is pretty good...many times faster than it used to be there may be some innovations in the software that help as well I am unconvinced about the central premise |
|
|
|
|
music very repetitive gets annoying
hang on why does it become un profitable for miners when say the block size is doubled?
Also as BTC goes up by more usage, then fees become a smaller as a fraction of the BTC and so stay the same in buying power for power and hardware.
what am I missing here?
|
|
|
|
|
i cant believe these LR people werent keeping 90% of funds in BTC.
This looks like a lot of business coming BTC's way
|
|
|
|
Yes more the demand.. But you have to use the currency to buy stuff for it to be sustainable in the long run.. frankly people are expecting a huge rally somewhere in the future so that they can cash out. fiat.. i mean the whole idea of bitcoin was to get rid of banksters and their manipulated fiat.. kinda defeats the purpose of the whole thing when you convert coins back to fiat.. well its my personal opinion and most people tend to disagree with it..
well no, say price goes up to 10K a bitcoin. All of a sudden I can spend many fractions of a bitcoin to buy lots of stuff, while being able to hold other bitcoins. I posit the higher it goes the more spending you will see, because BTC will have more buying power. |
|
|
|
Let's do some math. 3600 new coins mined a day (for next 3 years) at $5000 per bitcoin would mean that network operation would cost $18 000 000 daily. Is it likely? I think not.
umm no, why would it cost this to run? the miners would be making a profit, its not as if power/asics and gpus cost 10x once you have them. Further new hash can't be added that quickly to spend. only a fraction of the 3600 will need to be sold |
|
|
|
Glad to see this, donation sent.
Looking at the current number of donations.. thought LTC community was way bigger!
Compare to other alts, LTC is much bigger, eg in WDC they managed a donate of 5WDC after a general call out. |
|
|
|
I have joined, and suggested a thread. It needs an intro thread to tell everyone what its all about and who the devs are. An issue is poor linkage from the initial launch site and the forum are the devs the same? |
|
|
|
|
I see wdc has a shiny new forum.
my question is what is the dev like for WDC, is their one? if yes how active and competent?
|
|
|
|
...it's so simple!
All you have to do is join in this thread and provide a better solution to the 5 post + time limit. If it works, it'll get implemented.
Please note, you have to fully explain why it's better than the existing system and explain how it'll work whilst being no more time intensive for Mods to implement.
Good luck everyone!
[Other newbies should feel free to discuss any solutions - pitch in, it's a community!]
without newbie jail, this place would be spammed to hell and back. need signal not static |
|
|
|
|
Just a few short weeks ago it was wall to wall [FTC] / [CNC] threads in here....now stoney silence with the chirp of a cricket in the background
|
|
|
|
|
hmm lets see
we are using room size computers as PC's still nope
innovation in chips will sort this all out with extra impitus from an increasing btc price, as it has already done with asics
|
|
|
|
|
I am not mocking Bears I actually want to know
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Bears
I thought (according to bears) there should be a slow unwind/drop to $70 or less......it this yet to happen?
or are we seeing everything in compressed time, and the $50 was it.
edit
I am not mocking Bears I actually want to know
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
