|
i don't think the chinese miners can even pronounce "Crassic" ... crass alright, get high, code hard-fork, profit.
|
|
|
|
Luckily most mining pools are intelligent and have our best interests in mind like most of the developers and these drastic steps likely will never be needed.
Its a fatal misapprehension to believe that any actor in Bitcoin has your best interests in mind. Bitcoin works because everyone can work to their own advantage. Its been designed that these interests naturally self align without any central coordinating function. There is no invisible hand here - and devs have no business guiding anyone. Satoshi obviously understands human nature and planned Bitcoin accordingly. One of the mistakes he admitted was offering no reward for running a full node. People still do it with the best interests of the network in mind, but there are decreasing numbers of people prepared to do it for nothing. There would be an order of magnitude more nodes if people were rewarded for running one. Having a decent wallet would help too. Switched to Electrum today, I really got sick of of the QT-wallet fucking up the block-index, verifying stuff for no apparent reason and for looking fugly while doing it. I never could wrap my head around why not more energy was put into a more sexy looking and properly working wallet... Except I understand a lot of ppl think the end user is not that important, BTC was designed purely for either tech nerds or speculators, buying a cup of coffee and running a cool wallet at home is supposed to be done with other crypto's like DASH? Electrum is not a full node .... Exactly. I'd love to run a full node and did for a while, but Bitcoin QT just sucks ass. More energy should be put into developing a wallet that is also a full node, which would make it nice to run instad of a pain. You're complaining about it validating, well a full node needs to validate. Electrum does not so you're not comparing fairly. Have you tried running bitcoind headless? Haven't, will look into it, thx. I have a better suggestion, run bitcoind headless and mSIGNA. Have mSIGNA connect to your local bitcoind node (is the default) ... mSIGNA is as good as (imo better than Armory) enterprise level SPV wallet but since you connect to your own local node you get full node security (and privacy if bitcoind set-up right). mSIGNA has multi-sig, HD seed back-ups, separate accounts and few other slick wallet bits and piece. |
|
|
|
|
toomim and co have cartelised the bitcoin miners under guise of a political movement and don't expect bad outcomes? are they really that naive?
|
|
|
|
People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.
AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services. All those bitcoin alliance folks and corporates that have made their businesses out of holding on to other people's coins in custody should keep that mind whilst they are pushing for contentious hardforks. Ah, AlexGR's FUD sidekick... Which idiots are going to leave their coins on an exchange or with Coinbase or BitGo or Bitpay before a hardfork? Almost all custody coins are going to be going back to their rightful owners before a contentious hardfork, the free market will do its job no? Why leave the vote with the third party holders which fork your coins will end up on when you can keep your options open and hedge bets by holding them in cold storage for yourself? *edited. |
|
|
|
It's the same faggots dribbling the same nonsense in this thread.
some Juan Juan faggot, some billyjean faggot, i can't even remember your stupid names.
I can't even be bothered ignoring you retards, I just scroll down past whatever you idiots say.
Why don't you faggots get a hobby or something, you're the kings of the special olympics, absolute fucking retards.
Sell your coins or don't i dont give a fuck, i'll be the one having the last laugh when Bitcoin goes through the roof.
lol, this is the best! |
|
|
|
Does anybody know which exchanges offer cryptographic proof of reserves? It seems like an obvious selling point to any that want to gain market share.
Mike Hearn very publicly audited BitStamp once. |
|
|
|
Rage level over 9000. threats of nuclear options. Stick with us or else.
Keep pushing the agenda that it's everyone else trying to "destroy Bitcoin" though won't y'all.
agenda? the jealous haterage from the bitcoin beta level actors is palpable ... satoshi won't let you goons ruin his project |
|
|
|
People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.
AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services. All those bitcoin alliance folks and corporates that have made their businesses out of holding on to other people's coins in custody should keep that mind whilst they are pushing for contentious hardforks. |
|
|
|
All the other bigblockers are making better arguments than me. Maybe I should just shut up for a while. Carry on.
All of your arguments are equally specious ... and not just you, but all of them should learn some humility and know when to shut up. You can't say Bitcoin's Network Effect prevents competition while limiting the size of the network. What you guise have totally missed in all your big-block bullrage is that scalability does not mean what you think it means. The network of transactions can grow exponentially while the blocksize may only need to grow linearly or not at all. Blocksize is NOT the only measure for the size of Bitcoin's Network Effect (and yes we all want to get-rich-quick from Bitcoin's fabled Network Effect peter_r-Metcalfe-pretty-coloured-gif). Bitcoin the currency can have many different layered solutions that will scale the total transaction capacity and currency network effects without loading it all onto the core bitcoin network infrastructure (that is not ready for it and will never handle all the world's current transactions for decades anyway). The necessity of splitting out the various functions of the original satoshi prototype client, mining, network-transport, validation, wallet into an ecosystem of layered technologies is a natural manifestation of bitcoin's success. It needs to be done anyway and will be done at some point. Layered architectures are totally uncontroversial and well-understood approaches to scaling up and broadening out network capacities using stacks of technology instead of monolithic clients that do all functions and end up full of magic hard-wired constants and temporary hacks (like blocksize 'bumps'). We need to solve the hard problems now and not delay it with the seemingly easy, quick, cheap fix that will risk killing bitcoin in the future, near or far. tl;dr rethink your premises, blocksize is not equal to network size. Blocksize determines the number of trustless peer-to-peer transactions. If it's not peer-to-peer, it's not Bitcoin. Wrong. Trustless peer-to-peer transactions can be increased without increasing blocksize ... this kind of basic ignorance is why it is pointless arguing with you guise who have latched onto a simple fix and refused to keep up with all the exciting developments ... why do you think the Core devs are disengaging with the discussion when all that comes back is getting shit thrown at them from all corners, mostly just in the form of ignorant raging? It's fucking pointless at this stage interacting with a raging mob who have been whipped up by paid shills, short trolls and would be power-grabbers .... and then they get accused of "not communicating clearly". I know I've lost all my will to keep working on this project, you guys are just acting like a bunch of fucking entitled jerks no different than the beneficiaries who clamour for more welfare spending at every election.  |
|
|
|
All the other bigblockers are making better arguments than me. Maybe I should just shut up for a while. Carry on.
All of your arguments are equally specious ... and not just you, but all of them should learn some humility and know when to shut up. You can't say Bitcoin's Network Effect prevents competition while limiting the size of the network. What you guise have totally missed in all your big-block bullrage is that scalability does not mean what you think it means. The network of transactions can grow exponentially while the blocksize may only need to grow linearly or not at all. Blocksize is NOT the only measure for the size of Bitcoin's Network Effect (and yes we all want to get-rich-quick from Bitcoin's fabled Network Effect peter_r-Metcalfe-pretty-coloured-gif). Bitcoin the currency can have many different layered solutions that will scale the total transaction capacity and currency network effects without loading it all onto the core bitcoin network infrastructure (that is not ready for it and will never handle all the world's current transactions for decades anyway). The necessity of splitting out the various functions of the original satoshi prototype client, mining, network-transport, validation, wallet into an ecosystem of layered technologies is a natural manifestation of bitcoin's success. It needs to be done anyway and will be done at some point. Layered architectures are totally uncontroversial and well-understood approaches to scaling up and broadening out network capacities using stacks of technology instead of monolithic clients that do all functions and end up full of magic hard-wired constants and temporary hacks (like blocksize 'bumps'). We need to solve the hard problems now and not delay it with the seemingly easy, quick, cheap fix that will risk killing bitcoin in the future, near or far. tl;dr rethink your premises, blocksize is not equal to network size. |
|
|
|
LOL so basically "classic" is whatever the toomims command.
appears so ... there is some kind of dev 'voting' on PR enabled that seems like an opening to be gamed. The Classic github repo looks totally chaotic at present. |
|
|
|
All the other bigblockers are making better arguments than me. Maybe I should just shut up for a while. Carry on.
All of your arguments are equally specious ... and not just you, but all of them should learn some humility and know when to shut up. |
|
|
|
2mb is a good thing.
please please please stop trying to call people inferier to yourself when you have not done the research.
please dont call 99% of the community inferior because they simply wont follow your plan..
please realise that everyone wanting 2mb,
please think .
.. please see the bigger picture..
lol you guise ... first you wanted 20MB tomorrow!!, then you said "Oh miners want 8MB" ... now it's down on knees begging please please for 2MB ... you have no clue what you want unless GovCoin has there hand up your backside telling you which way to nod your head and when your lips can move and what to say you want ... wait you want free shit? coders who will work for free, free transactions forever, free software that will never need maintenance ... welcome to reality. Free as in freedom, not as as in beer. Suck it up. this thing has got a ways to play out, watch out for false prophets. Mike Hearn's got your XT/Classic back, yeah the guy standing right there with the banksters knife ready to stick it in ... |
|
|
|
I'll drop the conspiracy nonsense if you tell me how Blockstream intends to pay back the $21 million... and give their VC benefactors an ROI,
are you also asking the tens of other VC funded companies in the bitcoin space how they are expecting to supply ROI on the over $1 billion has been sunk in? I've seen some pretty hokey business models that I wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole, and you'd need some far out conspiracy theories to explain how the heck they got funded .... Blockstream looks like a damned solid investment to me in that light, I'd be buying shares if they were public. You whole spiel is based on some naive arrogance that you know that the Core devs are hell bent on ruining Bitcoin infrastructure because a few of them work for Blockstream who don't have a business model for ROI on a measly $21 mill, seriously  ... what about the other 32++ devs who ACKed the capacity increase roadmap, were they taken over by brain downloads directly from Blockstream servers and are now just meat puppet drones following the wishes of the blockstream overlords? |
|
|
|
A tool has been created. What the tool enables, where that leads, and how, is up for history to decide. I doubt Satoshi was ignorant of this fact when he released it into the wild.
I'm sure his conscience will have an easier go of it than Oppenheimer's.
i think it was well known that Oppenheimer was a psychopath that likely didn't have a conscience ... yet a remarkable mind never-the-less. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't you say that the proposal sounds a little more reasonable now that Hearn is gone though? I'm still surprised that prominent miners show support towards "Bitcoin Classic" despite the fact that it hasn't been developed yet.
Eschewing modern features which form the foundation for scaling (RBF/SEGWIT/CLTV/Lightning/Sidechains), in favor of a trivial TPS increase and catastrophic consensus failure, is not in any way "reasonable." Not even a little bit! It's so unreasonable that iCE doesn't even have to furiously type away against it.  but it is stupidly simple enough to suck in the punters .... hence the typing. |
|
|
|
|
ooooh, shorts. trolls and haters whipping up fork FUD ... looks like a boring old movie on repeat from early 2015.
|
|
|
|
wheels falling off the Classic wagon already? put it up on the free market to decide  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
