v0.6.0 = beginning of egregious Core centralization cruft hijacking including the autoupdate Sorry, there is no autoupdate feature in 0.6.0 or any other version. (A PPA is completely outside the code and thus not an autoupdate) I was willing to put up with your shit until you went too far. Welcome to my very small /ignore. They’re pitching the PPA. Marketing. As well we saw this forum pushing Core updates prominently reminding users to update to the latest scamware. Because Core had hijacked the forum and deluded Theymos. But maybe by now he has come to his senses. You’re attempting (but failing to) use the tactics that the liar Gregory Maxwell used on this forums when he used to have the reigns. He would try to embarrass someone and twist technological arguments to assert that Core was of superior knowledge and capabilities. Lol. Superior at adding trojan horse scamware cruft. I'm copacetic that you will not be replying since I am on your Ignore list. Why the fuck do you care?
You don’t care about disclosure when scammers try to convince n00bs to lose their real Bitcoin? Do you want Bitcoin to be a political clusterfuck scamware or a reserve currency with a secure Nash equilibrium. Bitcoin is not Nash Money, nor runs in a ideal Nash Equilibrium.
Theory is done by human, but does not fit reality - don't run into a church.
I dare you to hodl non-legacy Core addresses to prove how incorrect you are. Are you willing to stand your ground and risk your entire wealth? Come on don't be a chickenshit. If you can dish it out, then you can walk your talk. I’m not going to recapitulate the economics 101 lesson for you. I already provided the link to that discussion, but I think you will not get it anyway even if you read it. The only religion going on here, is the belief that democracy, users, and transaction volume scalability matters for Bitcoin’s exclusive role as the coming world reserve currency. Btw, I was forced to use that fucking piece-of-shit Bitcoin.com BCH wallet recently because I needed to spend some cryptocurrency to some websites that only accept Bitpay (if paying anonymously) and Bitpay has that new fucking address system that is supposed to protect n00bs and forces one to use a non-standard wallet. And that was the only one of the wallet shit I could quickly install on my smartphone to complete a fucking payment. Should not be so damn hard. Most people would give up right there. Then the wallet itself does not function properly. Only with trial and error did I figure out how to work around the bugs in the wallet. How can Roger Ver release such shit. Can’t he afford a decent programmer. Bitcoin is only ideal scarce, IFF other blockchains are not needed any more.
Don't allow others (even no bridges to LTC,...)
Incorrect. There can only be one chain with 100% security because it has the most hashrate. Moreover, there can only be one reserve unit-of-account because Economics 101. The Schelling point is towards the one with the greatest security. Because (and I repeat myself) the wealthy need most is to not lose their wealth. Due to Gresham’s law, the reserve currency will not circulate (and no the circulating dollar is not the world reserve currency, rather it is US Treasury bonds denominated in dollars). Thus all the circulating altcoins are fractional reserves of the real Bitcoin unit-of-account reserve currency. But we have other issues to see, thats competition against FED, BIS and gov.
How would you win if you just do nothing against all these KNOWN issues?
That’s not competition. They have no chance in hell against real Bitcoin because they’re bankrupt, clusterfucked, and Bitcoin has jurisdictional arbitrage. It’s easy. We don’t have to do a damn thing. Just sit back and watch the politically clusterfucked world be disintermediated by real Bitcoin. Those who want to build some business (e.g. my shitcoin work) in this ecosystem can go right ahead if they have sufficient economic motivation to do so. You re caught by textbook economics page 101. What instance should run and use your ideal Bitcoin? If its not the ppl of the world, than there is no reason why they (few central banks) just launch your ideal 0.5 version and go. Gold was launched by the ppl and later got into central banks, not the other way around. Bootstrapping happns with the masses, not top down, or you do nothing better than fiat. At least we agree on that BTC + SW + LN + Bridge LTC + gregconomics is the wrong path. 😀 |
|
|
|
Was mich in Bezug auf die BTC-Futures ein bisschen wundert ist, das, wie es scheint, immer nur auf fallende Kurse gesetzt, und dann der Preis gedrückt wird. Es müsste doch viel einfacher sein, bei begrenzter Anzahl von BTC und potentiell unbegrenzt verfügbarem Fiat, den Preis zu treiben und gleichzeitig auf steigende Kurse zu wetten.
Warum sehen wir das nicht? Oder scheint das nur so, weil wir in der großen Korrektur der "Dezember-Blase" sind? In einem evtl. künftigen BTC-Bullenmarkt könnte das doch drehen und die Futures treiben eher die Preise als sie zu drücken wie jetzt.
Denkfehler?
Jemand der bereits so viele Bitcoins hat, dass er damit den Kurs beeinflussen kann, der kann seine Bitcoins vermehren, indem er short geht, dann seine Bitcoins verkauft und somit FIAT aus dem Bitcoin verkauf plus FIAT aus den Futures erhält, mit dem FIAT kauft er dann noch mehr Bitcoins zurück, da die Kurse jetzt günstiger sind als bevor er seine Bitcoins verkauft hat. Ich vermute, dass der Future Handel noch wie ein Überdruckventil funktioniert, denn shorten ist fast nicht anders möglich, nicht in hohem Volumen. Also werden viele Hodler (miner) die den Kurs nicht direkt and den BTC Börsen drücken wollen eher mal zum Hedgen Futures geben, und hoffen, dass der impact nicht so hoch ist, wie beim Direktverkauf. |
|
|
|
Miners still mining BTC when BCH is 2 -4x more profitable to mine What could be the possible explanation for this?
Dynamics, own risk management, even non-rational decisions making... |
|
|
|
Thusly, any increase in block size which decreases Bitcoin’s security and violates its immutability which forms its Nash equilibrium that sustains its security, is scamming. Sorry to say my friend @jbreher.
The commonly-understood definition of 'scam' includes an intent to defraud. Your definition seems to differ. How do we prove intent? Are we mind readers? It’s much easier to conclude fraud that did not have complete disclosure of the material facts is a scam. That is how the SEC defines it. Do we see Core disclosing these material facts? Nope. Do we see Bcash disclosing these material facts? No. Instead they try to pretend (by not disclosing otherwise) that the legacy chain is dead and Bcash is the descendant of the legacy protocol, but with bigger blocks. The even have the audacity to use the Bitcoin name. But Core is more scammy by even claiming they are Bitcoin. Everyone is trying to steal Bitcoin’s network effect. But they will all fail, because Satoshi designed an immune system, Nash equilibrium into the immutable real Bitcoin protocol. Note the game theory is what is immutable. Apparently P2PKH did not change the game theory and thus is allowed into the immutable protocol. Proof-of-work was not designed for transaction volume scalability. Period. It was designed to disintermediate politics and usher in a new world reserve currency (in an approximation of John Nash’s Ideal Money manifesto) surreptitiously through the backdoor of nation-state jurisdictional arbitrage.
BCH is not a surreptitious attack as is Core. Yet it is attempting to mislead and not make full disclosure. More importantly, you seem to want to lose $millions of BTC by chasing marketing hype. I hope you realize the importance of Satoshi’s protocol. The importance of Bitcoin as a reserve currency and not an insecure transaction scalability coin. Ostensibly you’re trying to regain BTC that was lost in the past to scammers. You’re ostensibly trying to find a way to gain leverage. Okay that was accomplished already when Bcash went to the $3000+ after I was screaming to buy it at $300 on these forums a week before it blasted off. I hope you cashed out to Satoshi’s protocol and do not push your luck too far. Bcash is run by incompetents. Oh god that Bitcoin.com wallet really sucks. Bcash’s main feature is lower transaction fees with larger blocks, but much lower security because it does not have the most hashrate. And when some non-proof-of-work altcoin technology comes along that provides better security (than a low hashrate proof-of-work, not better than the one proof-of-work chain to rule them all) and true mathematical transaction scalability with negligible fees, then Bcash will be toast. Shared with you friend because I really do not want you to lose Bitcoin. You re good in detecting some shortages, but never get your hands dirty with own PoW. If you say ppl are incompetent, but you cannot show better own work, who really is? If you think some wallets are crap, why not building better ones? Bitcoin is not Nash Money, nor runs in a ideal Nash Equilibrium. Theory is done by human, but does not fit reality - don't run into a church. Bitcoin is only ideal scarce, IFF other blockchains are not needed any more. Don't allow others (even no bridges to LTC,...) But we have other issues to see, thats competition against FED, BIS and gov. How would you win if you just do nothing against all these KNOWN issues? Where are the hidden? Do sth? |
|
|
|
Is it required to download the entire blockchain when using bitcoin cash client in order to send out bitcoin cash coins to an exchange?
Nope. Use SPV wallets. |
|
|
|
This detracts from your previous post, which was not bad, considering. Marked as hint. Think for your self. |
|
|
|
Here we go again.If you want to be significant, make a pull request and not make your self another clown in here. I can smell your stink. You need glade too?
WTF does a pull request have to do with: Correct! And that is real Bitcoin, not this Core scam altcoin shit. Again I have no objection to Core making a fork of Bitcoin or even a soft fork as they have done, but the scam part is they do not disclose the true security risks and just herd the n00bs into default wallet settings wherein the n00bs think they are hodling real Bitcoin but they are instead hodling a soft fork altcoin that can in the future be hardforked off of the real Bitcoin.
If you are going to be a bcash lol shill, at least be entertaining.
Are you readers so fucking deluded that you cannot see I have linked to the real Bitcoin which is version 0.5.4 of Satoshi’s protocol and I have stated now for the 6th time in this thread that I do not advocate big blocks nor any scammers who attempt to change (the game theory of) Satoshi's protocol and pretend it is real Bitcoin. That includes all the scammers, such as Roger Ver, Core, etc.. Altcoins are fractional reserves of real Bitcoin. Remember Gresham’s law. Altcoins will circulate, real Bitcoin will not.
Please explain how the bitcoin code base forked at 0.5.4 and who has been mining it
For the last time, the link for the detailed discussion is here. Those who care about not losing their real Bitcoin will expend the effort to read. Those who don’t, won’t. And that is the way it should be. SegWit is a soft fork. All miners have continued mining 0.5.4 (at least until a Satoshi miner will take some SegWit donations then we will see which miners mine which hardfork as Core will be forced to hardfork off at that juncture). Read the detailed discussion to become informed. I will not spam this thread by recapitulating all those details in this thread. May I STFU now without being incorrectly maligned? Most ppl are running after ideals either posted in textbooks or casted from a real world down to a lower dimensional surface, because no brain ever would be capable of analyzing real world perfectly correct. So in our real world we are damned to create and run after poor approaches to some ideals. Our best approach is constantly creating, understanding, fixing, analysis, creating... at best in an open bootstrapping process to let Banach Fixpoint be found automatically, if existing (and we might have some local, wtf). We have now BTC and BCH as two such major but dynamic approaches, and we might see others coming up, but that's unlikely IMO. Nobody should be married with a single solution but always rethinking if one ore another approach is doing better and apply own PoW making it better. Finally, if you want to do real good analysis of Bitcoin and it's embeddings, you need to do shitty complex stochastic process modeling in an open economic and financial network system , feel free of pointing me to such works, I m highly interested! Even these works will undergo discussions and disputes ( complex stuff, university fighting) so I d not expect any final conclusion for the world accepted as truth soon. For the time being, build stuff that works and prove things by simple bootstrapping, then Netscape and Altavista will be replaced by better solutions... |
|
|
|
Wooow !!  |
|
|
|
It is all about tokenization. Bring all assets and securities inside the BCH chain and keep the initial Bitcoin scarcity at its place. You should not go and try to create / dilute the new crypto money universe (increase the pure number of coins out there) - makes no sense. It makes far more sense to use the scale-able BCH chain and it's inherent 21Mio scarcity as base money & trading chain. Atomic swaps will ensure trustless trading within a single chain (BCH) the new Smart Scripting (the new OpCodes and guess a few more soon) in BCH will allow lot of more stuff, like native BCH structured products (options, bonds, reverse convertibles, insurances ....) and more more more https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1012027252094259205 |
|
|
|
|
Handcash, esp for the poor and unbanked.
|
|
|
|
When big banks, businesses and all the poor unbanked (cannot pay BTC on-chainfees - but BCH) ?
what are you talking about? the current bitcoin transaction fees are about $0.15. edit: typos Many of us doing on-chain bitcoin transactions in late 2017 until about January 2018, recall how the BTC transaction fees went skyrocketing up - actually, there were several times in 2017 in which BTC transaction fees went skyrocketing up. Coupled with fees going up tended to be longer BTC transaction times. Large fees and longer transaction times was a narrative that the BIG BLOCKER nutjobs wanted to push, and also the alt coin pumpers had some incentives to propagate such narrative to pump their shit by suggesting that BTC is broken or inadequate and that other Bitcoin 2.0 systems (aka alt coins) would be the solution for such problem. The most reasonable inferences from the evidence remains that spam attacks were occurring on the BTC network to attempt to provide evidence for the made-up bullshit narrative, and even though it remains a bit unclear regarding the culprit of the spam attacks, largely it is attributed to folks like bitmain, Roger Ver and coinbase, even though there were likely some others that were contributing to acts and practices that added to the clogging up effects of the spam attack of the bitcoin network. By the end of January or so, it became more apparent that the cost of the ongoing spam attack and even the actual ongoing effects of such spam attack were becoming greater than the benefits of keeping such spam attack going. Yeah, there was a bit of a risky (but seemingly justified) move from bitcoin node to expedite the live activation of lightning network - which would then more quickly negate some of these projects attempt to maintain their claims about BTC's alleged high transaction fees and slow transaction times. So, yeah, ever since the end of January the spam attacks largely stopped and any further attempt to reinitiate such spam attacks have not been effective which brought BTC fees and transaction times way down into relatively low ranges, which can cause some concerns regarding whether if such low fees were to persist, then are there enough mining incentives built in... but that sustainability (and incentives) of low fees scenario remains largely offset by relatively lucrative mining rewards that will continue to be decent for a few more halvenings.. so perhaps the fees could stay relatively low for 10 or 20 more years, but likely as BTC adoption increases, fees are likely to naturally go up, too... and yeah, it does seem to become more and more expensive to engage in bitcoin spam attacks, but likely those spam attack times are not behind us - even though they might have to be more strategically employed as compared to the 2017 to January 2018 period that they were employed for months at a time (December 2017 to January 2018 was about a two month long attack). Meh, your narrative is just BTC cannot scale. And any other try is an ATTACK. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
I guess you can buy decentralized water now  Glucose free Vegan safe Low in sugar Segwit Coke isn't a thing. |
|
|
|
When big banks, businesses and all the poor unbanked (cannot pay BTC on-chainfees - but BCH) ?
what are you talking about? the current bitcoin transaction fees are about $0.15. edit: typos not all brains work just static our world is all about dynamics this graph has a time scale ? |
|
|
|
 what's the blue line?
The gaussian adoption curve.  We've a ways to go... When big banks, businesses and all the poor unbanked (cannot pay BTC on-chainfees - but BCH) ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
