Anyone here know how to get this message to vertoe?  Her account here was hacked.

The first ever "remote" instant buy physical goods in the vending apparatus for DASH: with DASH InstantX activist community pays for a soda from snowy Canada to the sultry Florida (Miami). Guaranteed crediting funds comes just a couple of seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO7CEq80ASs
and question , you can just send the code fotografiju friend to pay, well not to use two phones, for example, though? there is a payment option remotely? thank you

your doomsday scare mongering of nefarious people creating 2mb blocks filled with a single transaction of 1.99mb data wont happen..
for 2 reasons

1. as you said yourself it takes 10minutes+ just to validate the transaction before even working on hashing the block itself.. so thats 25btc lost not even mining.. then if they start mining and create a block. because its 1.99mb of data it will take longer than a block of 1.025mb or 0.99mb would take just to hash. so it wont get solved the fastest either


2. because miners know that being nefarious is risking them losing out on 3 blocks due to time to do it.. thats a potential 75btc loss ($30,000) so they would need to be bribed with $30k just to attempt it with still no guarantee it would work.

This has the hallmark of a smash and grab. Someone could have figured out how to credit their Livecoin account with USD and then bought up the DASH supply with it. The volume spiked to over $2 million that day, with most of that coming from Livecoin. Then again, maybe a bitcoin whale simply wanted in on DASH.

Thanks for your contribution. Do you have any meeting notes or recordings?
There appears to be highly different statements coming from miners where they are trying to appease both groups. Wang chun from F2Pool the other day made a deal with core to raise the blocksize to 2MB in 2017 and he made it clear all hard forks must be at least 1 year in advance with a 95% miner consensus , which rules out Bitcoin Classic.

Bitfury on the other hand gave a quick nod of approval to classic than quickly wrote this article which contradicts Classics Principles -
https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.lsa4ml1p6



Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx to be spent on payment channels or on the main chain? From what I hear the sentiment is high volume on the main chain to directly pay the miners instead of a settlement system like Bitfury and core propose.


Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx fees be raised and a fee market being created? Notice how he stresses the cheap tx's will be on the sidechains and payment channels like LN , and not on the main chain like being proposed by XT/BU/Classic proponents .


Do we here this clarification from XT/BU/Classic proponents, or from Core proponents?


Could that Abrupt increase be referring to a hard fork?


This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model.
.

Darksend implementation back in june '14, was a bucket of 3x3 of 10 DRKs, mixing while sending, only 10 DRK denomination.

V2 a few months later = multiple denominations, multiple laundering cycles, 2 mixing parties, sending and (pre)mixing at different stages for instant sending when needed. This was later upgraded to 3 mixing parties to reduce sybil vector, per Kristov Atlas review.

but a court payout would be in USD, right?

i prefer my coins i paid for not USD. The loss/values should spread in coins to avoid more loss than needed.

 iCEQUACK, you got me at "research". It would be like seeing a pig fly, so I had to check it out.

 What gmaxwel said, in context, was, on June 6 2014

 "More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. "

 Then he explains why, and then

 "From what I can tell the only purpose DarkCoin serves is to depress me about the state of humanity"

 And he was 100% correct, except, DarkSend was closed source only until development was finished, and then it was open-sourced, in September 2014.

 So, either you have no clue what research means, or, the more logical, you're trolling and FUD'ing. So scoot off and go find yet another moronic argument.

   Post 5 in the CoinJoin thread writes in depth about implementing it in a decentralized way, none of which appears to have been implemented by the darkcoin developers as far as I can tell— from what I've heard it seems that they're not even able to understand it. (This is a disappointment to me, since I was trying to describe these ideas clearly so others could understand them.)

What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

As I've said before CoinJoin is interesting because it's inherently part of Bitcoin already— it just needed better tools (and now there are some, e.g. darkwallet) to make it available to people.  It's a privacy improvement over not having it, but it isn't perfect, but it also didn't require any changes to Bitcoin (much less a whole altcoin) to deploy it.  In an incompatible system much better is possible as is proposed by ZeroCash and much better is actually _realized_ by Bytecoin (and its forks... Monero, Fantomcoin, etc.), the later are actually working (if immature, due reinventing many wheels) implementations of much stronger privacy, decentralized in their implementation, all released under a good open source license.

That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.

Good approved and validated sources confirm it.

Request for clarification:


Is DarkSend (still) based on CoinJoin or not?

Why are the posters on dashtalk so angry about the issue?

Im not selling even if 1 DCR is $40,

DCR can clearly overtake DASH's marketcap with their superior devs.

I respect their decision for testnet mining before mainnet.

It shows their patience and legitimacy.

They "accidentally all the Bitcoins"?

Accidentally what? Accidentally considered listening to you, before coming to their senses?  

just because someone wants more capacity doesnt mean they are die hard gavin coin lovers.

im just pissed off with all the social drama and bickering. which is more aimed at the people instead of the code

but when you do wipe away all the social drama of the leaders of camp blockstream or camp gavincoin and just look at the code of a simple and basic 2mb block increase.. you will realise that a 2mb rule will allow segwit to still do what they want to do, still allow miners to just make 1mb blocks..
it wont kill off bitcoin-core..

it wont actually stop blockstream from doing what they want. all blockstream need to do to stick with 1mb for block creation preference(for miners) and 2mb for user acceptance block limit. that way everyone can work together.. and both bandcamps can just do what they do best... CODE!

again i think the drama is just white noise. and detracting from the actual debate about what the code will do..

so carry on with your buzz words like ZOMG toominista REKT etc as much as you like. as it just seems like you are just posting stuff for personal entertainment rather than actually making a point about the future of bitcoin CODE

The sacred 1 MB cow is being led to the slaughter house.

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

miners have already proven that even if there are 10,000 tx's waiting.. they are not going to throw every transaction into a block.
if there was a 95% consensus for 2mb.. miners would wait a bit just to make sure its not a fluke of sybil attack by gavin and cohorts..
and once they see that it is 95% of genuine users wanting and able to accept 2mb.. then miners will upgrade..
but. their first block after the upgrade will be 1.000.250byte. as they dont want to push the luck of wasting too much time..
slowly over days weeks and months they will raise their preference up bit by bit..

just like miners who have had 1mb limit for a few years now have had preferential settings below 1mb.. so dont expect instant jump to 2mb.. because the fee's wont be worth it.

imagine it.. fee=4cent.. which on 4000 lean transactions is only $160..
do you really think miners are going to suddenly throw 8000 tx's at a block instantly.. risking $10,000 block reward.. just for the sake of $320..

there is no logic at all to jump straight to full 2mb.. but there is logic to slowly do
4001tx
4002tx
and so increasing incrementally when they find they can comfortably handle it.

and as for a malicious person doing a single tx with large amount of data..
most miners would ignore it just as they ignore 0fee transactions(because they can), if its going to risk their chance of the $10,000 block reward..

and anyone wanting to try bribing a miner into doing a single tx of 1mb.. would need to have fee's of a few thousand dollars.. which as afew have said would cause delay for 10 minutes.. which if you look into the recent past.. no one really screams blue murder if a block takes 12 minutes..

and do you think that the malicious user could continue making these large transactions if it costs thousands each time.. nope.. their money will dry out first.

so its just scaremongering and not seeing the reality of scenario's

saying blocks will be instantly filled right to the top of the 2mb limit.. is just scaremongering propoganda to try keeping people away from that idea. using no logic..

so this image shows it better..

A for-profit coin company, i dont care what they make, iwill never trust them. moreover RingCT will move Monero closer to Zcash

Surprised the rally tapered so fast, well looks like I gets me some more on the cheap.