Censorship martyrdom is so three weeks ago. Why are you still here on thermos's forum? Weren't you supposed to fuck off over to bitco.in? Or did that forum die along with the pipe dream of Unlimited? |
|
|
|
I love this coin because as soon as the dev team stops holding the community's hand the price drops by 50% without an ounce of sell pressure.
What happened to the stabilization fund? Do we need a stabilization fund for the stabilization fund? |
|
|
|
Please remember than there isn't any trusted namecoin online wallet.
For your security only use namecoin software from namecoin.info on a safe computer,
or signed beta wallets from trusted members at forum.namecoin.info.
Always check the hash, you can do it by uploading the software to virustotal.com
Build your own from source at github and reporting bugs is encouraged.
As for online exchanges, btc-e have the best liquidity and kraken is trusted.
R.I.P crypsy and cex.io trading.
Polo is good, if low volume. |
|
|
|
The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary. That was 7 years ago.
Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo.
The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance).
The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property.
It is quite likely that they are testing various forms of attack on Bitcoin, including this one. If Hearn or Toomin had a little bit sense they would not even consider forking under 90-95% consensus. Forking around 70% means that they do not really care about the ecosystem but rather for their own agendas. Even if we wanted to increase the limit, it would only be safe if we scheduled a hard fork for early 2017 (12 months from now). I agree that XT was a probing attack, never intended to succeed. Too bad for the hard forkers that all the best thinkers are on Team Cypherpunk and wish to keep Bitcoin diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient. The attackers only have force of numbers and uncreative strategies on their side. Poor things. This sums up the frustrated Tooministas approach to subverting Bitcoin for the business requirements of the BIS:  |
|
|
|
SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released? but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad? 95% consensus 95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from? The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that. when 95% of people are happy Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that? ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain. So what's the difference between a hard fork and a contentious hard fork? Non-contentious hard forks (historically) addressed some outstanding issue that threatened Bitcoin's functionality. IE, they fixed something that was indisputably broken. Contentious hard forks seek to fix or improve what "isn't broken" from the perspective of some non-negligible faction of the socioeconomic majority. Block size is the perfect example of this. It pits the 'payment network' vs the 'store of value' clans. Fortunately for the small block militia, Bitcoin was designed to protect minority opinions from the tyranny of the majority, by giving them nigh-infinite veto power. Another way to say "contentious hard fork" is "breaking Bitcoin." They are functional equivalents, and equally impossible AFAIK. Bitcoin was engineered to withstand a continuous, coordinated attack by all the world's nation states, banks, and hax0rz. It's not going to change just because some Gavinista-cum-Toominista assclowns make a lot of noise on Reddit about "Capacity Cliff" and "Hard Landing" FUD. The "Free transactions 4eva" dimwits never had one iota of a chance in hell of perturbing Honey Badger. The funniest thing is they know that, but refuse to accept it.  |
|
|
|
Can i not give a fuck about the vetting process
so what if people got multiple times
it just means cheaper decred at the exchanges for us
why you people complain so much ??
Because this is Bitcointalk and this is the internet. Complain about all the things!  |
|
|
|
It's surprising, given the public's interest in privacy/surveillance issues post-Snowden, how little MSM coverage there is for the privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies.
Most people still believe Bitcoin is anonymous, because accounts are just long confusing numbers or whatever. And untraceable, because magic internet hax0rz.  |
|
|
|
the official forum already has more then 1000 members. There is a decred's facebook group with around 350 investors just in my country, most of them participated in airdrop and few are bctalk members or official forum members. No one of us will sell our coins from airdrop. We will buy more  You don't have to be a douchetaco about it. Yes, there is apparently 1,023 members of the official forum controlled by the dev team; it would probably be completely impossible for them to inflate the number of users by changing a number in a database, right? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out that there is no transparency in the process. I submit that you are the douchetaco here, specifically because of your "completely impossible for them to inflate the number of users by changing a number in a database" sarcasm and generally because of your insistence on making perfect the enemy of good enough. If you know how to do an airdrop better than decred, why didn't you volunteer to help them, instead of Monday Morning Quarterbacking? Sounds like somebody is grumpy about missing out on the free XDC falling from the sky.  If the airdrop was bungled as badly as you imply, you should have no trouble gobbling up some of the coins about to be dumped by fake participants.  |
|
|
|
dashevolution.com...
*clicky* We will be writing the software for this project in stages, the first stage will take about 2 months to have a very early prototype for Dash Evolution that includes a basic implementation of DashDrive, Primitives, DAPI and a simple T3 wallet. In six to eight months, we should be entering testnet phase with most basic functionality. In 12-18 months, we plan for the first release version (a stable prototype).
Included below is our current work on Evolution, that adds many components such as:
DashDrive – A decentralized shared file system that lives on the second tier network
DAPI – A decentralized API which allows third tier users to access the network securely
DashPay Decentralized Wallets – These wallets are light clients connected to the network via DAPI and run on various platforms
Second Tier – The masternode network, which provides compensated infrastructure for the project
Budgets – The second tier is given voting power to allocate funds for specific projects on the network via the budget system
Governance – The second tier is given voting power to govern the currency and chart the course the currency takes
Quorum Chain – This feature introduces a permanent stable masternode list, which can be used to calculate past and present quorums
Social Wallet – We introduce a social wallet, which allows friends lists, grouping of users and shared multisig accounts.
DSQL – A query language for administering the network via majority quorums (banning users, setting important network variables such as sporks on/off, etc)
Evolution is nothing but a roadmap? It was sold to us as some crazy revolutionary new game-changing feature. And it turns out to actually be nothing more than a giant stack of vaporware. Why not first finish working on Masternode blinding, and reducing the hours-to-days coin mixing time down to something reasonable (and competitive), instead of doing crap like DashDrive? There are a dozen other "decentralized shared file system" projects out there, like Storj and Sia and Maidsafe. Why would Dash be making yet another me-too one of those, instead of fixing the ridiculous hours-to-days problem with its broken coin mixing?!? "banning users?" WTF. So I have to not offend anyone at The Darkcoin Foundation Inc or risk being banned? Can Evan reverse transactions also? OMG I can't even... |
|
|
|
That slide is a lie. Mobile Bitcoin wallets don't all necessarily rely on "a centralized gateway." EG, I can tell my phone's SPV client to use a full node I run myself. It's rather telling that Evan The Instaminer needs to lie about how bad/terrible/no good Bitcoin is, just to make Dash seem better in comparison. |
|
|
|
Are there plans to release the identities of airdrop recipients? So people can see if a significant fraction of the airdrop went to newbie accounts or Twitter handles with a single tweet or friendless Facebookers, etc.
Absolutely not. This will never happen. It would be a complete violation of trust and an invasion of privacy. Just curious after seeing this post from someone saying they were able to register (and receive confirmation) in the airdrop process using only an email address (not even a lightly used social media presence): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290358.msg13601490#msg13601490Also, afaik there was not any verification that the email address I used to sign up has been checked that it is associated with this btctalk account, implying that you could claim any social media account as your own (that didn't have a public email), and then supply your own unrelated email address(es) to get an undeserved airdrop share. I disagree that it would necessarily be a violation of privacy, since people are nominally registering with public social media accounts. Anyway, I was just asking because I've probably seen at most 500 (and that's probably waaay overestimating) people commenting on this thread, irc, reddit, or twitter, so if it comes out that the number of airdrop participants is in the thousands, either we have to believe that the vast majority of airdrop participants are silent but honest participants, that someone or some people are gaming the system by claiming many more than a single share, or that the developers are inflating the number of users who signed up to keep the extra shares for themselves. The only way I could see that the developers can not just have to say, "trust us", is if the airdrop's social media accounts are publicly released, but apparently that isn't an option... The Sybil attackers will dump their coins into stronger hands, so what difference does it make? Maybe the unclaimed extra coins from <5000 participants should only be distributed among Legendary members! |
|
|
|
Looks like the roaring of Monero Lion is getting lower now.
You wish. Proof me wrong, I'd love it. Yesterday up 8-10 % in 24 hrs. Now only 4 %. If the same pattern continues, tomorrow 2 %, a day after 1 % and then the rise dies. What happened to 1/2%? lol rekt Xeno's Paradox FTW. |
|
|
|
Well that one is a troll thread created by Dashers, but it's such an unintentional comedy and has been so completely derailed, what the hell go bump it and talk about marketing strategies there if you want. Maybe more active development of marketing strategies by the Mustangs would increase the price. Is it true ? Just take our roadmap, rename it Monero rEVOLolution, and watch the price explode when we send Fluffy to present at the next BTC conference! "Design and Development Goals?" What terrible marketing! Sounds like boring nerd stuff. It should be packaged as some shiny new feature with a super-gimmicky name! |
|
|
|
a fork does not become an altcoin unless the fork ignores certain miners and only talks to miners that correspond with the new rules. EG if miner A and miner B are 1mb blocks.. and miner C is 2mb blocks.. and 2mb user nodes accepted any block from A, B and C then the fork will rectify itself every time a node accepts a block from A, B.. because A and B dont contain any C blocks headers... making C orphaned and ultimately all nodes have just <1mb data, once the orphans are sorted.. eg  but if the 2mb implementation only got 2mb blocks from C and totally ignored 1mb blocks from A B .. then it would be an altcoin that follows C's chain of headers.. and everyone else just follows A,B where there is no crossover or orphaning inbetween... just 2 disctinct chains with totally separate data so as long as 2mb nodes also get A B.. there wont be an altcoin. as the image shows, it would just be alot of orphans.. and resyncing And that's why XT failed. Nobody is actually stupid enough to be the first to defect from 1MB consensus. They would lose block rewards (if miners) and BTC (if users). Everyone simply waits (perhaps while paying lip service to the big-block idea for marketing/trolling purposes) until somebody else is "brave" enough to stick their neck out on the (orphan) chopping block. The ToominCoin Short strategy enables defenders with economic leverage, in that defenders may spend ToominCoins in ToominBlocks (in exchange for real BTC or gold or whatever), then laugh as the block is orphaned in the next reorg. That process may be repeated until miners get tired of mining worthless ToominBlocks and merchants get tired of accepting worthless ToominCoins. |
|
|
|
I won't waste my time going through the basics again. There's a security risk, i.e. new attack vector. Whether you believe that someone is going to try abusing it or not does not change the fact of its existence.
What is the difference between a 1mb block size and a 1.001 mb block size? Is there any logical boundary why the 1mb is the block limit or is it only arbitrary? If so, then raising the block size from 1mb to 1.001mb would cause any harm? Or the mere fact of raising the block size is the issue here (due to panic, dividing the userbase, and creating division in users)? I`m just trying to understand things here. The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary. That was 7 years ago. Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo. The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance). The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property. |
|
|
|
what i dont understand about you iCEBREAKER: why are you supporting monero?
do you know that miners control the blocksize there? (it has a penalty if they grow a block too much though)
how can you support a coin with bigger blocks and at the same time be against a blocksize change for bitcoin?
Bitcoin is the One True Blockchain, destined to be the Mother of All Settlement Networks (high-powered money for inter-bank lending). Experiments with blocksize, etc. belong on the alts, not imposed by governance coup and social pressure on BTC. Changing control variables in the middle of an experiment is bad science. As marginal users are priced out of BTC, alts provide the same services with right-sized blocks. You would already know this if you followed my prolific posting throughout last year's Grand Schism; see them for more details. Especially this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10401014#msg10401014and these two: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10392435#msg10392435https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10392532#msg10392532 |
|
|
|
Evidence that Evan dumped 50K?
Inferred from the fact of his instamine and timing of his Evolution hype cycle. |
|
|
|
May I please ask where is the official Monero thread on BCT where I can post my marketing thoughts freely and be on topic? Is there no official thread for Monero for discussing marketing   Probably not. It is an open source project, not a product. If you want to market a product, you should probably team up with people who are offering Monero-based products such as MyMonero, CryptoKingdom, etc. (or create your own such product and market it, of course). There was a Monero Economy Workgroup (run by Risto) which was to promote and coordinate such product activities but it seems there was little sustained interest from him or others and it is being disbanded. Nothing in Monero is Official. We Mustangs are Wild & Free®!Please learn to search: [XMR] Monero - Marketing Team & Tactics https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1233817.0Monero Marketing: Is It Time? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1122971.0 |
|
|
|
Smooth is demanding that I post my marketing thoughts in a separate thread from my technical thoughts, breaking the conversation continuity up across multi-threads. It was not my desire to post again in this Monero Speculation thread, but it is only official Monero thread I am aware where I can post marketing thoughts that impact speculation decisions on Monero. Where on BCT is the official Monero thread for having open discussions? You can create your own thread(s) with whatever topic(s) you want.
When a thread starter creates a thread with a specific topic, off topic posts are not allowed, and on a self-moderated thread the thread starter can set any rules for participation (I guess as long as the rules don't conflict with forum rules). That is a forum rule, not my rule.
Posts about marketing that directly relate to speculation (are causing price to drop/increase, will cause price to drop/increase, etc.) are on-topic here, as long as it isn't repetitive. Repeating points already discussed recently is not allowed.
OH at /r/bitcoin: " censorship martyrdom is so three weeks ago." |
|
|
|
Recommend an exchange for New York residents barred from plx?
Use a (BTC/XMR) friendly VPN. "Oh hello Polo. I am like, from Singapore and stuff." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
I am currently serving a 30 day ban on /r/bitcoin 
