Everyone and anyone knows Bitcoin follows the longest chain, but also the chain with the most proof of work.

Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).

All is well.

What's the purpose of the RBF button on the Send form? I'm getting no addresses in the fields, whether I tick the RBF checkbox or not. Needs wallet 1.35c, or compressed keys? Or a different setting? (in Core maybe?)

We'll see

There are only 10% BU nodes today. And it's already been demonstrated that a majority of those are run by 1 person from the same cloud hosting service.


Users have had the opportunity to switch to a 2MB blocksize client, twice. Users rejected it, twice.

So how come your Chief propagandist Peter Rizun has stated he wants the miners to use BU against the BTC chain, to prevent the BTC chain from operating?


If this was really about free-market competition, Peter Rizun wouldn't be promoting the use of force against legitimate competitors, using the lame excuse "to stop people becoming confused about the fork"

Needs more PoW change promotion


What sort of gold rush doesn't have all the regular folk panning for gold?

What if BTC with PoW changed has the larger network, the Bitcoin devs, the larger transaction rate, and the larger market cap ?


Longest chain has nothing to do with anything in 2017, Bitcoin moved away from longest-chain = valid-chain a long time ago anyway, and given what I've described, even the chain with the most cumulative PoW won't matter.




Now, stop wasting everyone's time, you've already been told

Well, if that was true, Satoshi was happy with it. BIPs in the past were activated this way, while Satoshi was still around to object, which he did not.

You don't get it

BU can be used like a weapon against the BTC chain. There will be no BTC to govern in that circumstance, and the BU chief scientpropagandist has literally stated that their intention is to prevent the BTC chain from being able to continue, once they hard fork.


So, yes, we are being forced to change the PoW. Because that's literally the only way to stop this class of attacks, QED

+1

That's what all the "sudden" seismic political movements around the world these days are probably all about. There's no proper proof, of course, but it fits the long term pattern of history: when the old monetary system begins to lose control and break down, tyrants begin the biggest wars they can summon up.

Are we heading for big changes to the monetary system, an economic depression, and huge wars? It's not impossible, but let's not wish for it by over-interpreting the current situation. At the same time, diligent behaviour is necessary, just in case.

Above all, cryptocurrency could really help cut off the money that today's politicians need to wage major wars. We need to cut them off from cryptocurrency, and fortunately, Satoshi designed Bitcoin that way from the outset. Maybe, (dare I say it) this time will be different

BIP148 UASF will be determined by 1 thing alone, midnight of November 15th 2017.  Nothing to do with hashrate (you're right there) and nothing to do with whales (where you're wrong)

Please don't reply, you're a waste of time and space

Roger said he would respond in 48 hours, and Loaded explicitly stated he would be off the grid and uncontactable.

Who's spinning what exactly, bett?

and the bullshit will walk

That's a topic for discussion, sure, and I entirely see your point. Bear in mind there is no perfect solution, the basic choices appear to be

• Do nothing. BU aggressively destroys the BTC chain with the various means they have at their disposal
• Change to CPU only PoW. As you say, infecting millions of machines could give attackers an advantage against such a move, it depends how many honest miners we can attract
• Change to a GPU capable PoW. This would means inviting FPGAs into the mix too, and that could suffer different centralisation issues (although not as significant as the problem with ASICs)

Join the change-to-PoW discussion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833391.0

There is a real risk that BU will start adding sybil nodes to the network, to push BU nodes up to 51% or more (it should be obvious now that an overwhelming majority of genuine Bitcoin users do not want BU).


Once they've done this, the BU shills can just turn the whole thing into a great big charade (and let's be honest, faking it is their speciality)



Then the attack on the BTC chain begins. They can use 51% nodes and 51% hashrate to make Bitcoin unusable, no transactions will confirm on the BTC chain if they attack with sufficient vigour (and the BU pushers in chief have already said that this is their intention, to "help avoid confusion" lol).

We're being forced into PoW change. The sooner everyone admits this, the sooner we can move on, and with Bitcoin as undamaged as possible, preferably.

Which is why Roger turned up just now to refuse the bet?

Oh please

You can accept or decline the terms right now, then everyone knows where you both stand


Or do you need more time to think it over

All of which has nothing to do with Moore's law, Quickseller.

Moore's law is done, as ck said. It may be revived in the future, but it will need to use a totally different paradigm to double computational power every 12-18 months (as a side effect of shrinking transistors in size), which is what Moore's law stipulated

Can anyone think of a different reason that the Kuril islands could appear in your news streams at a later date

Calm down jonald, we know your dream is dead and all, but there's no need to lash out at people telling you facts you wished were not true



You do not support on-chain scaling, you support on-chain capacity increases.

And because you think and behave as if blocksize increases are the only method of improving transaction capacity that exist, your views on the matter are null and void. You're blinkered, you are compulsive-obsessive about the blocksize, and nothing else.
 


And I suppose BU's attitude of "attack the BTC chain till it's face is in the dirt" demonstrates how much they value free and open competition, or how much they care?