|
Seems pretty weird in here today. Is it shell shock?
|
|
|
|
Now LN is the Illuminati?
While I'm not taking a position on the implications, presumably you are aware that: - one of Blockstream's biggest investors was AXA - at the time, Henri de Castries headed up AXA - at the same time, Henri de Castries was also the Chairman of the Bilderberg group - Bilderberg is widely considered as the core legal entity of the Illuminati |
|
|
|
Really had it in for satoshi
Which, of course, perfectly explains why Satoshi left Gavin in charge. /s  |
|
|
|
Umm hmm.... umm hmmm. So one posted idea and one public statement is all it takes to become king. Got it. Perhaps your hat needs yet another roll of tinfoil. |
|
|
|
|
So some of y'all might recall a post of mine a while back.
Essentially, I had a discussion back in September with my employer about my eventual retirement. We decided that end of 2018q2 would work for all involved.
Now that I'm in my last week as a wage earner, it's starting to feel pretty surreal.
kampai!
|
|
|
|
What the hell, I'll play along. What are the actions -- or even utterances -- made by Gavin Andresen that lead you to labeling him as "Bcash king"?
when the CIA scooped out his brain and stuck a CPU and wifi card in there instead. From the little I know about medical science, the scenario you describe is an impossibility. IOW, your hyperbole does naught but destroy the discourse. Never mind the fact that his purported passive participation was neither action nor utterance. |
|
|
|
Gavin Andresen - Bcash king
How many rolls did it take to make your hat? What the hell, I'll play along. What are the actions -- or even utterances -- made by Gavin Andresen that lead you to labeling him as "Bcash king"? |
|
|
|
|
Some bot on GDAX is buying at roughly $6300 USD - 0.001 BTC a pop, over and over, currently unbounded in volume. When their wall gets eaten through, they submit another at 25 BTC worth just under current market.
|
|
|
|
+1, this Dogecoin shilling is getting pathetic. At first it was "all coins other than BTC are shit", now it's "All coins other than BCH are good". Goal[posts keep moving but the technology stays the same. BCH is usable and useful, BTC is not. DOGE is a ridiculous intermediary that won't last. But while Lightning doesn't work for another 18 months, Kore fanbois can use DOGE and not feel like "traitors"...
Cogent observations, to be sure. I think you really nailed it with: "while Lightning doesn't work for another 18 months, Kore fanbois can use DOGE and not feel like "traitors" |
|
|
|
@Jbreher
I'm dissapointed in you spreading outright lies, obviously I have misjudged you. Dash is a distributed decentralised blockchain secured with proof of work. Just like bitcoin.
Er... 'masternodes' - just like Bitcoin? Lol 'zackly |
|
|
|
You know, as a business, you can accept zero confirmation transactions from both BTC and BCash.
Or use Dash Instant Send in which case you don't have to wait around for confirmations or limit yourself to trusting only small cup of coffee sized amounts. Infofront. This conversation keeps coming up, you should let my comment stand. Or are you trying to keep it a secret that Dash has already solved this problem? Secret? I think we are all already aware that centralized databases can reach finality quicker than decentralized permissionless systems. |
|
|
|
You know, as a business, you can accept zero confirmation transactions from both BTC and BCash.
For BTC = just wait 10 seconds. Even a cup of coffee can wait 10 seconds. It's zero confirmation, but you can almost safely accept the transaction if there are no double spend attempts after 10 seconds.
For BCash = just wait about 10 seconds also. Maybe 20 if you want to make sure. After a confirmation, send it to an exchange and market sell.
For anything else that costs more than a cup of coffee, I'm sure you can wait 10 minutes for a block; and if the transaction hasn't confirmed yet, it should in a few.
Not any longer. BTC broke that model with the introduction of RBF. |
|
|
|
Due to the increased centralization of big blocks,
The assertion that big blocks increases centralization is an unsupported bald one. Can you even define 'centralization'? If so, where are the figures showing this supposed centralization? One sign of a troll is someone who wants to vehemently argue obvious points and to put the burden on others to support such obvious points. In other words, you gots nothin'. Got it. |
|
|
|
Due to the increased centralization of big blocks,
The assertion that big blocks increases centralization is an unsupported bald one. Can you even define 'centralization'? If so, where are the figures showing this supposed centralization? 0-conf-accepting vendors have to increasingly trust an increasingly centralized mining cabal.
You realize, of course, that the set of miners capable of mining BCH is exactly the same as the set of miners capable of mining BTC, right? I'll take smaller blocks and lightning over that.
Fair enough. You payz yo money and you makes yo choice. I'll take the big blocks, thanks. |
|
|
|
 jbreher's spirit animal You wanna rebut anything I said? Or do you think pointing and laughing substitutes for an argument? |
|
|
|
jbreher the BCash lover wants to go on and on about how Bitcoin fungibility is somehow "compromised" with SegWit. But on this BCash compromise (ie. complete failure)? Dead silence. Crickets. Complete failure? Not at all. For those transactions worth waiting for, you can wait for block inclusion. It is an option that BTC does not give you. You attempt to suggest that bitcoiners are less empowered because bitcoin does not allow for zero confirmations; I don't suggest anything of the sort. I suggest that BTC'ers are less empowered because BTC actively weakens the ability to profitably accept zero confirmation transactions. |
|
|
|
Nobody has been claiming that doublespends are impossible. The argument is that the potential for doublespends is a manageable cost of doing business.
Unbelievable. Such insane BCash confirmation bias. If Bitcoin had this blatant flaw right now, you'd be screaming. BTC does have that flaw. Much worse than BCH, even. |
|
|
|
jbreher the BCash lover wants to go on and on about how Bitcoin fungibility is somehow "compromised" with SegWit. But on this BCash compromise (ie. complete failure)? Dead silence. Crickets. Complete failure? Not at all. For those transactions worth waiting for, you can wait for block inclusion. It is an option that BTC does not give you. BTC gives you the option to use Layer 2. BCH give you the option to risk being ripped off. I would not disagree with those points. However, I would add two of my own: There is nothing within the current architecture of BCH that precludes future layer 2 solutions. In many areas, profit is a premium earned for taking on risk. There are solid business use cases where accepting the risk of a doublespend transaction actually leads to greater profit. |
|
|
|
jbreher the BCash lover wants to go on and on about how Bitcoin fungibility is somehow "compromised" with SegWit. But on this BCash compromise (ie. complete failure)? Dead silence. Crickets. Complete failure? Not at all. For those transactions worth waiting for, you can wait for block inclusion. It is an option that BTC does not give you. Nice fkn spin there jbreher. You think you're the teflon man, but you aren't. Just a bullshitter. I suppose by your reasoning then I can say that in Bitcoin for those that don't want to use SW, the legacy wallet addresses still work just fine. It is an option that BCH does not give you. Yes, you can. Well, as far as you are willing to trace the origin of the coins on your non-Segwit address back to their coinbase transactions. Your point? Nobody has been claiming that doublespends are impossible. The argument is that the potential for doublespends is a manageable cost of doing business. For example, if a coffee shop (coffee is our canonical example, right?) can sell 1000 more coffees by accepting unconfirmed transactions, at the cost of one successful doublespend transaction, accepting such is still a profitable exercise. |
|
|
|
For the purpose of this graph, what are the definitions of: Fair Value; and Earnings? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
