Gavin has not done squat for years (thankfully as much of his work when he was active was useless and counterproductive) and is now basically a pariah to most people who understand the XT hostile takeover attempt event. There is no compelling reason for him to have an alert key and there are risk associated with him having it. If he supports another hostile takeover attempt the key could be mis-used to burn a lot of innocent people. If that is so, how do you explain Satoshi handing over the lead developer role to Gavin, and saying that the project is "in good hands with Gavin and the others"? Satoshi is not an omniscient god. The number of contacts he had was very limited. Using (questionable) Satoshi quotes as proof for an argument is plain stupidity. Gavin should get both his alert key and his commit access removed. |
|
|
|
|
BIP101: 0% Unterstützung
XTCoin: 0% Unterstützung
Alle anderen Vorschläge sind besser als die von Mike Hearn und Gavin Andresen. Für geklonte, IP-filternde Altcoins, die auf der Bitcoin-Blockchain parasitieren habe ich noch weniger übrig.
|
|
|
|
Mich erstaunt wie ruhig es hier ist bezüglich der Fork. Meines Erachtens wäre eine Fork für das Ansehen und die Akzeptanz des BTC extrem schlecht inkl Kurssturz.
Ein gelungener Fork ist etwas sehr positives, gab es schon x-Mal und hat den Bitcoin immer voran gebracht. Das Problem ist diesmal die Gefahr, dass er misslingt, z.B. wenn XT keine Mehrheit findet, oder dauerhaft 2 Zweige bleiben. Ein erheblicher Kurssturz ist möglich, wenn es zu einem Split kommt. Es ist jedoch mehr als fraglich, ob XT eine Mehrheit findet, da die Mehrzahl der wichtigen Entscheidungsträger in diesem Fall im Gegensatz zum Sockenpuppen-gesteuertern Andresen-Führerkult auf Reddit noch mit Denkfähigkeit ausgestattet sind. Ich hoffe, dass der Fork-Versuch endlich dazu führt, dass die Berufsnarzissten Mike Hearn und Gavin Andresen aus dem Core-Enwicklerteam rausfliegen und nicht noch mehr Schaden anrichten können. |
|
|
|
It could be the end of Gavin and Mike in the bitcoin developing world. If everyone stays with core, that is. I don't believe the developer base for XT is as large as it is for bitcoin core.
Gavin and Mike do not have support from the majority of developers for good reason, because their plan puts Bitcoin at risk. I really hope that these two narcissistic dictators will leave Bitcoin core forever. |
|
|
|
This was discussed in many threads already.
Given many people believe there is a risk for fatal failure it would be unwise to go against the part of the community who think so.
The whole debate is a political one if people will let Mike and Gavin be the bosses of BTC or not - the debate is not a technical one at all. It's a political debate carmuflaged as a technical one.
Gavincoin is an attempt of a hostile takeover - it's not about tps at all.
Exactly. XT is another attempt of power grabbing by Gavin and his friends, after the failure of their first attempt with the Bitcoin Foundation. What Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn are doing here is a serious threat to Bitcoin as a whole. I will never support such actions. |
|
|
|
Gibt es hier ein paar Leute die versuchen sich im Forex Bereich zu behaupten?
Evtl. könnte man sich ein bisschen Austauschen in einer kleinen Trading Gruppe
meiner meinung nach wäre jetzt ein guter zeitpunkt zu verkaufen wenn man kurzfristig unterwegs ist. trendlinie begrenzt und RSI ist >60. Gut möglich, es ist nur die Frage ob potentielle 5 Euro Gewinn das Risiko eines Bitcoin-shorts wert sind... wenn ich mir den Chart der letzten Monate anschaue ist ein größerer Ausbruch nach oben nur eine Frage der Zeit. |
|
|
|
|
Dass die Postbank auch bei nachvollziehbar unberechtigten Rückforderungen erstmal stur ihr Ding durchzieht habe ich schon in anderen Foren gelesen.
Die Fidor Bank käme für mich schon allein wegen der Ausforschung der Kunden über soziale Vernetzung nicht in Frage.
Insgesamt hoffe ich ja, dass in Zukunft die Banken dank Bitcoin überflüssig werden, oder zumindest so in ihrer Geschäftsgrundlage bedroht, dass wieder Respekt und Service gegenüber den Kunden Einzug halten.
|
|
|
|
are you kidding me  ? please use the searchfunction. people are tired about that topic and there is already broad consensus about 8MB blocks. most people and business will go that way. simple as that. it is Satoshis path. Wrong. There is no broad consensus on Gavin's proposal for 8MB blocks (with subsequent increases). In fact Gavin failed to get sufficient support for his ill-conceived plan. If a Bitcoin-fork occurs, the resulting Hearndresen-coin will be a stillbirth and Gavin and Mike will lose all credibility because of the damage done to Bitcoin. In future there will be an increases in blocksize for sure, but it will most likely be a smart, sustainable solution (featuring sidechains for microtransactions) that doesn't hurt decentralization. |
|
|
|
|
I have been wrong in the past, so better don't believe the following prediction: In 2020 Bitcoin - if it hasn't dropped to zero - will be valued >$1000 for sure, it might reach $10k, but I'm not sure about that. The outcome might greatly depend on USD inflation.
Imho the success/failure of Bitcoin greatly depends on business acceptance and simplified access. I hope we will see improvements continue in these areas.
|
|
|
|
Did you see that press photograph of McCarthy & others posing at the door to 10 Downing Street? He seems to have danced between the raindrops somehow. No. Does such a photo exist (please link me to it) or are you just joking? At least he isn't a US citizen which makes a serious conviction less likely... |
|
|
|
It would be nice if everyone took Bitcoin as a normal currency, not just Bitcoin to Dollar and Dollar to Bitcoin. When I'm doing some stuff for people here, like coding or whatever I just say "Give me 0.2 BTC", I don't care about price when doing this. But this won't never happen, sadly  they simply see 0.2btc as $58 and not 0.2btc as 0.2btc, you can't blame people for that. if they really start to appreciate bitcoin, then they will start seeing bitcoin differently. Of course fiat currencies are perceived as a reference point in valuation. While this is stupid, because fiat fiat currencies have guaranteed devaluation built in, a shift of this reference point to BTC will take a long time. Essential for this shift is the number of prices that quote BTC only, especially when it comes to convenience goods. So it's a good start to quote goods and services in BTC only. At least within this forum, quoting prices in fiat should be outlawed.  I'm quite hopeful that Bitcoin might become an universal reference value some day. But to make this happen, we need to get more businesses on board, preferably those, who accept Bitcoin directly without a payment processor. |
|
|
|
I know the feeling of the tappabit owner, and that is why i said to send to all, or half, or full payment.
I don't want to discriminate nobody. If most of the members accept full amount i am with them, and full payment should be sent to all, otherwise half payment to all.
I don't think that fairness in this case is a majority decision. It can be settled on a individual level, because if a participant chooses to agree on a settlement offer, he terminates the original contract out of free will. |
|
|
|
It would also be acceptable to use a different signature provided by hilariousandco for the time remaining.
What do you mean? As far as I understood, TappaBit is not interested in further advertising, therefore I would also be willing to change the signature to any other signature you provide for the rest of the month under the premise that at the end of the month you will pay me according to the original conditions set out in the TappaBit campaign. This way you might receive funds from a different advertiser which you could send to TappaBit. |
|
|
|
I think the best solution would be to calculate the payout like that:
P=original payment *(counted posts/50)
That would be fair only for those who already posted 50x times. Personally I think this campaign should be paid in full. It's not our problem that Tappabit has problems programming their site. This campaign was announced to last a full month. No reservation was made to end it early. Therefore all participants should be paid in full. I would have joined a different campaign if i had known that this campaign might be ended early. Probably right , but there are few members have only 10 post or less till today. I think it isn't fair if they also receive full payment. Then give them the remaining time to make 50 posts. It would also be acceptable to use a different signature provided by hilariousandco for the time remaining. |
|
|
|
I think the best solution would be to calculate the payout like that:
P=original payment *(counted posts/50)
That would be fair only for those who already posted 50x times. Personally I think this campaign should be paid in full. It's not our problem that Tappabit has problems programming their site. This campaign was announced to last a full month. No reservation was made to end it early. Therefore all participants should be paid in full. I would have joined a different campaign if i had known that this campaign might be ended early. |
|
|
|
Thank for that list, it's a great overview! I think the GLBSE-founder Nefario ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3046) was also threatened by authorities in the UK, however I don't know the outcome of it, other than GLBSE was taken down. Unfortunately the list of scammers not YET sentenced is way way longer. I hope we can work on bringing those to the same place soon. Unfortunately i dont see many users going behind the ones. Most only cry, extort or threaten. Not many put the time into it that is needed to first find the problem and then trying to solve or enforce prosecution.
Indeed. It seems authorities are primarily focusing on enforcing their freedom-hostile regulatory frameworks instead of persecuting actual criminals. |
|
|
|
No free lunch. Few seem to want to listen to Gavin's warning about block size. So if blocks can only include some transactions then you are going to have to pay to be one of those included transactions.
Aye, it would appear Gavin's idea is a solid one I just fear the interwebz backbone won't be able to keep up to what is required. Gavin's idea isn't solid at all. It's not even based on solid research. It certainly doesn't fix potential problems with network spam, because such attacks would still be affordable. The only thing that will reduce transaction spam is a healthy fee market. Fees should increase exponentially for small transactions with big data sizes. For those fearing of not being able to afford a frappochino: Sidechains will be available for such use cases. So far the catastrophic scenarios that Gavin and Mike propagated turned out not to be true: Blocks are full now, but Bitcoin continues to work just fine. You just have to pay a little bit higher fees. With optimization on the fee market (higher penalties for smaller/big datasize TX's), the effects would be even smaller. At some point there will be a blocksize increase, but if the "stress testing" has done anything good, then it's proving that there is no reason to rush this and risk decentralization with an excessive and half-baked "solution". |
|
|
|
So, the bottom line is, both the rise and fall in Bitcoin
price action is exaggerated over other markers, not
just because of the small market cap, but also by mining.
I've read your explanation and the mechanism itself doesn't seem illogical. However, is there any data to support your claims? If miners speculate, why would they speculate only during breakouts / breakdowns? I mean, they could speculate anytime on rising prices and sell coins only when they have to (to cover costs). In my opinion, the small market cap is of high significance with the main contributing factor in Bitcoin's price movements being media reporting. Because Bitcoin is still only adopted by a comparatively small group of people, even a few new buyers will have a significant impact on price. |
|
|
|
Verstehe ich das richtig, man kauft die Sticker, beklebt die Rückseite von normalen Euro- oder sonstigen Fiat-Münzen?
richtig. Fur 0.50, 1 und 2 Euro Münzen. Du hast das ja sicher schon selber genutzt. Wie reagieren denn die Händler, denen du das Geld gibst? Vermutung: Durch Entfernen des Aufklebers? Grundsätzlich ist die Idee sehr lustig, nur die Methode ist zu invasiv. D.h. der Aufkleber irritiert und beeinträchtigt mit Sicherheit die Akzeptanz der Münzen und wird deshalb sehr bald entfernt. Evtl. sind die Leute sogar genervt davon und es hat einen negativen Einfluss auf die Wahrnehmung von Bitcoin. Besser wären dezente, nicht-permanente (Graphit o.ä.) Hinweise auf Scheinen. |
|
|
|
"Matthew Spoke is a senior consultant at Deloitte Canada and is actively involved in the company's internal initiative to explore uses of blockchain technology in accounting. Here, in an article co-authored with his colleague Shannon Steele, he explores why a blockchain-based audit system is the future of accounting."“Bitcoin, the most common use of a blockchain, has proven to be tremendously valuable as a network for broad transparency and security”http://www.coindesk.com/blockchains-and-the-future-of-audit/ The blockchain is the technology that will automate lots of stuff of the bureocracy, banking, managers of ledgers.. they will all be gone in a couple years thanks to the blockchain, so they better start to learn how to code or be a pioneer and invest now so you can retire earlier. The blockchain itself will automate nothing. You can build software that will automatically makes entries to the blockchain, but that's not the point, because you can automate these things without a blockchain as well. The point is that by using the blockchain the authenticity of records can be proven beyond doubt, which is important in accounting and similar fields. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
