I suppose weak minds like yours need all the help they can get.  



Other car manufacturers don't go to fordmodelatalk.org to advertise their cars.  They can stand on their own.  They have a significant advertising budget to independently market their products to potential customers.  They don't need to leech off Ford's success in order to be recognised.  

If you don't need Bitcoin, by all means leave and go to another forum to advertise your crapcoin.  That, or admit you're here to leech off Bitcoin's success because no one would pay your crapcoin the slightest hint of attention otherwise.  You can't stand on your own.  You don't have a significant advertising budget.

Very few altcoins are successful enough to market themselves to the public without resorting to their developers spamming here on the forums in a desperate and pathetic attempt to appear relevant.  You'd do well to remember that.  You need Bitcoin more than anyone.  It's the only way anyone could ever notice you and your crapcoin even exist.

Now are we done here?  Or did you need it in a blue font to comprehend it?

Depending on who you ask, Bitcoin is either 9 or 10 years old right now.  It seems like we can't collectively decide which date is the right one to recognise as the official "birthday".  Which date do you think is most the appropriate one to celebrate?  Or do we celebrate all three equally?  

• The bitcoin.org domain name was registered on 18th August 2008.
• Satoshi's whitepaper was published on 31st October 2008.
• The Genesis Block was mined on 3rd January 2009.

I'd appreciate it if people didn't just post a date in response, but to actually justify their reasoning for it.  This is a self-moderated topic and I'll be deleting low-quality posts.  If all you can do is pick a date, use the poll and don't bother replying with a post.

User: JohnJohnston Nuked

Copy:  

Original:

Taking people who live in New York as one of the more obvious examples, anyone there can use the Bitcoin network itself totally unhindered to send and receive bitcoin transactions to anyone in the world.  But as soon as they try to register for third party services, they may find they can't do that in some cases.  Many businesses are now blacklisting New York residents over regulatory concerns.  These people, through no fault of their own, are now restricted in their options of the companies and retailers they can do business with.  The result becomes a payment network where you can't necessarily send payments to everyone you might want to.  It's a tricky one.  

In fairness to greeklogos, it's not actually a press article.  It's better suited to the main Bitcoin Discussion board.

But for the topic itself, I'm a little surprised this sort of thing isn't more common.  It is good for promotion, so why has it taken this long for an exchange to do this?  I distinctly recall exchanges giving away new altcoins to tempt existing crypto users into their particular exchange, but never any promotions designed to attract new users to cryptocurrency itself.  It's about time.

I'm curious to see how often this BitMex repository will be updated.  While it might have been a perfect mirror at the time it was forked, the Core repository is already quite far ahead in terms of latest commits.

This is the problem with your "argument" (in the loosest possible sense of the word).  You act like there is only one codebase.  If there was only one codebase and no one was able to make another one, in that scenario you might actually have a point, because that would indeed mean users don't have control.  They'd have no choice to run what that one dev team have created.  That would be a horrible outcome for Bitcoin and I would fight that outcome to my dying breath.  But that's not what we have.  Any user, or group of users, can start their own codebase because the code is open source and Bitcoin is totally permissionless.  Everyone is free to create a client that enforces any rules they like.  If someone else doesn't like what those people are making, too bad.  You can't stop people from coding what they want.  None of your mental flailings change this simple fact.

Questions
1.  If you didn't have choice as a user, how are you running a client that isn't made by Core right now?  
2.  If you think all developers have to agree, how are you going to prevent a pool from launching a competing chain like ViaBTC did?

Answers
1.  Users clearly do have a choice and your position is untenable.  You are running a client that wasn't made by Core.  Any user can run any code they want.  It is a level playing field.
2.  There's no way to achieve that and your idea is totally unworkable.  Bitcoin is not a democracy.  It never will be.  It's better than democracy.  It's freedom.

You've convinced yourself that Core are in control so you just make up an endless pile of lies to justify that insane belief.  You are demonstrably wrong.  There have been numerous codebases and I've supported the developers of those codebases when others in the community have attacked them.  Users are free to choose these other clients.  First we had XT (which came about as a result of developers not being able to agree, so you saying that they have to agree is clearly moronic and can't be achieved in the real world where people are allowed to disagree).  I supported XT.  I defended the developers who made it when others accused them of a "hostile takeover attempt" (which to me sounds equally as idiotic as your "mandatory consensus bypass" phrase).  We had the /btc1 branch.  Some forum users claimed they shouldn't be allowed to do what they were doing and that they were "stealing Core's property", which I emphatically fought against because it's total bullshit.  We still have BU.  I still support the developers of that codebase even though I think Emergent Consensus isn't a good idea in practice.  They are free to make that code.  Users are free to run that code.

To anyone reading this post:

If you aren't a fan of SegWit or Lightning, there are alternatives.  It's entirely your choice.  You have the option of running BU instead.  The latest version for the BTC chain is 1.0.3.0 and you can find it here (but ensure you select the BTC version).  

Happy now, franky1?  

I will continue to defend the right of ANY developer, not just Core, to make what they want to make.  To paraphrase a quote commonly misattributed to Voltaire:

"I may not agree with what you say code but I will defend to the death your right to say code it."

You just attack the developers of any code you disagree with because you don't have a more convincing argument.  Which is why users are still choosing to run Core's code.  They clearly presented the winning case.  Users agree with it.  If another dev or group of devs ever come up with something better, consensus may change.  But for now, no one is anywhere near creating something better.  You keep saying what's supposedly wrong with Core, but not only is every idea you've ever suggested about a billion times worse or totally impossible to achieve, but you've also shown no intent to actually make a client of your own to prove how "good" your ideas would be.  Put up or shut up.  This is me once again supporting you in making your own code.  Even if I disagree with your code because your ideas are abysmal, I'll support your right to make it.  But you won't do it.  Because you just want to tell other people what to make (or more crucially, what not to make) instead.  

STOP DOUBLE POSTING AND USE THE EDIT BUTTON.

1.  I know you despise core because they ridiculed you that one time.  I defend the right for any developer to code what they want.  I'm sorry if that's too difficult a concept for you to understand.
2:  I know you don't care about consensus because you're an authoritarian..  I get that (Yes, I think ALL DEVELOPERS can and should do as they please).
3.  I know the social drama is in your head and I insult you because you are completely irrational and it's infuriating trying to reason with someone who is incapable of reason.
4.  There is no social drama you are just paranoid delusional and need to be sectioned under the mental health act.



All the world's previous dictators didn't need code to be a colossal dick, what makes you think you're any different?  All you do is bitch and whine about what core devs should or shouldn't be allowed to do:


No, they shouldn't.  Not you call.  Fuck you.

Not that I'm condoning it, but media became a business and businesses naturally endeavour to make money. 

I can't even begin to imagine how to go about solving this problem.  Money has always bought influence.  Just because we've found a way to make the money itself less corrupt, that doesn't mean we're ever going to find a way to prevent people using money to do corrupt things.

Ditto to you.  The actual events show that BCH was going to be launched by ViaBTC whatever anyone on the BTC chain (devs, miners, users, literally anyone) decided.  The split was a foregone conclusion.  That's what happened.  

Literally fallen at the first hurdle.  Devs don't have to agree.  Those securing the network do.  Stop telling people to "learn consensus" when you haven't got the slightest clue about it yourself.  I'm sure you would love it if there was another team who would then be in a position to veto all the ideas you personally disagree with, but Bitcoin doesn't work like that and never will. 

As for the rest of your post, you are proposing something that sounds remarkably like the introduction of political parties and a public vote on their manifestos.  Bitcoin is not a democracy and we're not staging your silly little "elections".  All it takes is for the introduction of some campaign contributions and corporate lobbying and suddenly the whole thing is just as corrupt and controlled as the rest of the world is. 

Even by your dismally low standards, that's a truly horrific idea.  If that's the system you want, go make it and see if anyone likes it.  I, for one, categorically do not.  Bitcoin under your style of "governance" would be an unmitigated disaster. 



I'm not the one with the reading problem.  If a dev coded something tomorrow that threw any pool off the network if they produced a block larger than 10 kilobytes, that code doesn't mean anything unless there are nodes who are enforcing that code.  Even if there was a BIP for it.  Even if there was a flag day announced.  Even if all the Core devs agreed and made that the next official Core release.  Nothing actually happens unless network participants are using that software. 

It always comes down to that one simple question which you are totally unable to reconcile with all your crazy ideas about developers enforcing changes:  How are developers forcing people to run this code?  What you're suggesting is that every single person securing this network right now is a gullible fool who has been deceived by a cabal of sinister gatekeepers.  How likely is that really?  What are the odds of that being true?  Apparently we're on a network where no one agrees with the rules that are currently being enforced, but everyone keeps enforcing them anyway?  That's insanity.  Seek help.

If the community run the code which causes these effects you so passionately despise, that still means consensus was reached and those are the rules that will be enforced by the network.  You are the one who doesn't understand consensus because you are pretty much the only lunatic on this entire forum who thinks consensus means the developers are in charge.  It's demonstrably wrong.  Your little crusade is fundamentally misguided.

And in the end, not that many people were actually running the UASF code anyway.  And even if larger numbers of users had been running it, UASF was not the result of any work done in a Core code repository and I challenge you to prove otherwise.  UASF was an alternative client, much like the one you're running.  You might have noticed that some of the most vociferous and militant supporters of User Activated Stumbling Flounder went a little quiet after SegWit got activated by the miners instead of the users.  They didn't get exactly what they wanted either.  Most of them couldn't even square the hypocrisy of what they were arguing for. 

Every single argument I used against the UASF fanboys works against your bullshit arguments too, so perhaps you have more in common with them than you're willing to admit.  Consensus didn't agree with them, just like it doesn't agree with you.  But what the network as a whole does agree in is that we move forward as a chain that has absolutely no significant interest in Emergent Consensus and isn't going to turn into some sort of crooked "democracy", so cry about it all you want.  Your beliefs are terrible and Bitcoin would be far worse if it worked the way you wanted it to. 

The "tactic" of explaining exactly how Bitcoin with SegWit works, you mean?  Squatter makes more sense in a single post than you could ever make in a thousand.  



psst hint:  It was miners.  Core are a dev team, so how could Core instigate something if they definitely couldn't make a block because they aren't even mining?  (logic prevails over anything franky1 has ever posted in his life)

If you were actually capable of logic, you'd also understand that you don't need to have any hashpower at all to fork yourself off the network by running incompatible code.  Whether BCH had barely any hash or no hash at all, it makes no difference in the cold, hard light of uncompromising reality.  If I altered my node to enforce incompatible rules and not follow consensus, I can remove myself from the network at the very next block.  If I'm not mining, my new, incompatible chain will immediately stall.  Would that be Core's fault too in franky1's fantasy lalaland?

If he wants to derail this Lightning thread to say how much better his shitcoin is, perhaps he's merely extending an invitation to all of us to derail his shitcoin thread with how much better Lightning is?  We can play that game if he wants.  



So first it was "full KYC/AML" for Lightning hubs, but now it's only "at minimum a money transmitter licence"?  I wonder what it'll be next month when you walk it back a little further each and every time.  

Does the client you run do that?  No?  Then I guess you haven't opted in, have you?   *exasperated sigh*

One minute you're saying SegWit adoption is too low, then suddenly you're whining about default settings to help increase adoption?  I mean, pick an argument already.  Actually, don't bother, since it won't make rational sense anyway.




Sure franky1, whatever you say.  

And stop double-posting, FFS.  There's an edit button for a reason.

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious.  Most shitcoins never come close to achieving parity with the dollar and are usually worth less than a fraction of a penny.  But if you could print a few million tokens out of thin air and convince people that those tokens were immediately worth the same amount in USD, so people started exchanging them, that would be the easiest money you ever made in your life.

"Yeah, here's another 500 million of them.  Yeah, I've definitely got those backed by real dollars.  No, I can't prove it right now."   

If there was only one single idea I could successfully communicate to you, it's that I'm well past caring what you're saying.  

We've already established that you're running a client that supports Emergent Consensus.  That option is there for those who do think EC is a good idea and people are free to run that code if they want to, but very few people appear to think that's the correct course of action for BTC, because for the most part, people are not electing to run that code.  If they did, your arguments might have some clout.  You are simply a small, but exceedingly outspoken, minority here.  



Yes, let's check the stats for SegWit.  As for Lightning, there isn't any kind of threshold it needs to achieve to be useful.  That's the whole point of being able to opt-in.  Some people are using it and that's good enough.  Perhaps more will use it in time as it evolves and becomes more user friendly.  And if they don't, it's still good enough.  It's doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.  Even a small number of LN users is still enough to take some pressure off the BTC blockchain.  But try not to mistake peoples' general enthusiasm for the concept as some sort of notion that literally everyone has to use it.  The option is there, but it is categorically an option.  Not compulsory.

But I bet if usage for LN and SegWit were higher, you'd be claiming that was some sort of goddamn conspiracy too.  



Of course the developers decide what goes into their own client.  What planet are you even living on if you think they don't have that right?  It just goes round and round in circles with you, doesn't it?  Every single thought that escapes from your head is deliberately designed to perpetuate the myth that users somehow get to tell developers what they can or can't do.  Developers don't owe you the exact client you personally want to have.  They're under no obligation to implement every dumb idea you come up with.  They aren't your slaves.  If they aren't interested in your ideas enough to pursue them on merit alone, pay them some money and ask nicely if you want them to make something for you.

The community don't directly get to decide what goes into any particular dev team's client.  That would be completely unworkable (mostly because it would be total chaos and isn't even remotely practical).  However, if Core want to remain relevant, it's up to them to make sure that what they're putting out there appeals to enough users.  Users get to decide if they run that client or a different one.  If an idea is deemed worthy by a significant proportion of the community and Core decide not to implement it, they create a gap in the market which anyone can then fill with a new client, just like the one you freely choose to run.  Ergo, you are the living embodiment of the fact that there is a level playing field.  Of the options available, you're running exactly the code you want to run.  But each and every time a competitor has appeared so far, the community are mostly choosing to run Core's client.  That means they broadly agree with what Core are doing.  Obviously you blame that on the REKT campaigns, but there's not much anyone can do to prevent those and it still doesn't change the fact that BTC users generally don't seem to like EC.



I think the tories are loathsome shit-stains and their particular breed of politics is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think we should be reckless when it comes to Bitcoin.  When I say "conservative" I simply mean not being rash, impulsive or imprudent.  I honestly don't know why the tories even call themselves conservatives, because they're incredibly rash and imprudent with their neoclassical economy BS, but that's a discussion for another topic entirely.  

If the only form of "innovation" you are capable of recoginsing is a blockweight increase, then I can see why this must be so confusing for you.  Saying that it's not practical to have every single last transaction, no matter how small, recorded on-chain isn't very resource-efficient is not the same as saying that on-chain is "broke".  Your interpretation is wrong.  As usual, you're taking things to extremes.  You have a clear idea of what you think Bitcoin should be and you can't stand the fact that a large majority of the userbase couldn't care less what you think.



How many nodes do you see enforcing that proposal?  One last time in case you still haven't grasped it, anyone can propose a change, but that proposal means nothing if people don't run the code to enforce it.

It hasn't eluded us.  We're looking forward to enhanced interoperability between chains without having to deposit funds into an exchange.  It's a feature, not a bug.



So instead of being completely worthless, it's now only almost worthless?  Don't worry, I'm sure it will be back to completely worthless soon enough.

Thank you for stating it in a far more eloquent fashion than I can normally manage.  I've been saying something along those lines (admittedly with more insults included) to franky1 for weeks now.  I don't know if it's just willful ignorance on his part, or if his brain just isn't wired up in a way that allows him to comprehend it.  Bitcoin is working as intended.  There's no conspiracy.  There isn't an all-powerful entity pulling the strings behind the scenes.  It's just people freely choosing to run code that does what they want it to do.  I'm pretty sure that was Satoshi's original idea, so all is well.

How can they be operating at a loss if they're saving money by cutting down on their own on-chain transaction fees?  Something tells me you need to research this stuff a little more before you go saying stuff that sounds pretty dumb.



As a proportion of the coin's value, that's hardly an impressive achievement.  Those crapcoins you're talking about are only worth a tiny fraction of a penny.

$0.000129 USD is the current value of a single Mintcoin.  That means you'd have to spend 0.1 mintcoin as a transaction fee.  Imagine if Bitcoin's fee was 0.1 BTC?  Not exactly what a sensible person would call good value for money.  Go back to hyping up your worthless Shitecoin in the altcoins subforum and leave the LN discussion to the grown-ups.