Here's a way that Roger could change the deal, and try to force Loaded into the "same" position he/she is forcing Roger into....


Roger could say this:

"The thing is, BU is a more valuable system than Bitcoin, so I will only exchange 1 BTU for 2 BTC. i.e sell me 65,000 BTU for 130,000 BTC

What's wrong Loaded, can't put your money where your mouth is?"

someone's gotta do it jonald

Lightning works best in situations where you trust the vendor


Reason: replay attacks can be done with Lightning. Vendors, particularly physical shops that aren't leaving town any time soon, are a perfect fit, as they would also prefer the instant funds clearing Lightning gives you (there are no blocks to wait for with Lightning, so confirmations are no longer an issue)


That's it. Notice how it doesn't take a whole page to elucidate this

Lol, you two are obsessed with me. Why not refute what I say instead of trolling (you can't)

Not so radical, if it gets enough support (and it will get enough, i.e. 95% of Bitcoin Core users, if BU miners use the forking opportunity to constantly re-merge with the Bitcoin chain so that BTC transactions can't confirm due to all the chain re-organisations that would cause, but they're just nice guys who want to compete in the free market, right?)


And, like I said yesterday, we should prepare for, or even expect, worldwide political chaos to rise in highly coincidental correlation with the chaos taking place between Bitcoin users and Bitcoin miners. Don't be surprised if they begin to mirror each other in magnitude very closely. And all just a coincidence, of course.

Massive victory for those wanting to defeat the BitLicence!!!


....or, just one layer of gangsters approving that another layer are free to milk this latest show at the justice theatre for all it's worth?



Why would the most sophisticated protection racket in history do anything else

I'm on record already saying that I do not care about the Bitcoin name, brand, or the BTC ticker abbreviation.

Any more unsubstantiated ad hominems? All too happy to walk you through your own BS

The "Flag day" method of Segwit activation is now in the Bitcoin Github repo, at draft stage. This would mean that Segwit would activate via users running a client that would mean miners that do not accept Segwit would not have to. The window for that happening would be October 1st 2017 - November 16th 2017.


In that event, it would actually be possible to do a cross chain atomic swap between the BTU chain and the BTC chain. I don't know whether I'd be happy to pool-buy Ver's BTC using a fleshbag escrow, but atomic swap, no problem.

Something tells me Roger will, as people say, come up with every excuse in the book why that's not acceptable. But I will have BTU to sell, no question about that (I made a futures contract offer on this board 2 months ago, predictably, zero BU shills took me up on it).



Note Danny Hamilton's sudden evaporation of confidence after saying "A fool and his money are easily parted"

If we're (current Core supporters) such fools, why did no-one want to take the offer? Or even attempt to negotiate!!!    I got zero feedback from Danny "the coward" Hamilton, and zero from any of the rest of the BU jackals

Remember the door you came through, to get your Bitcoins? Use it


The code speaks for itself, and there's nothing anyone can realistically do to ensure that every single iota of desision making is publicly observed, without destroying the privacy of the developers. If you don't like that, Bitcoin is not for you.

You're right, I was skimming.

In before "many-eyes fallacy"

It only took 2 pairs of expert eyes to exploit the BU bugs. Sufficiently expert coders need the chance to look at the code, that's the real point of open source.

And who knows, it might've been the same person, who happens to be blind in 1 or both eyes, lol

If any of you can explain why 95% of users of Bitcoin would not (given enough time) accept a fork where they can:

• Take back control from ASIC miners
• Become the new miners, with their regular CPUs
• Activate Segwit

....then I'd be interested to hear it. Keep it short gentlemen, it's almost as if you believe writing dozens of paragraphs saying "it's not gonna happen... it's not gonna happen... it's not gonna happen... it's not gonna happen..." is a substitute for an actual reason Who are you trying to convince, us, or yourselves

Again, get your story straight

You were saying "I welcome a PoW change to oust the miners acting in bad faith" something like 20 minutes ago.

It comes down to the same thing with every hard-fork proposed by an external programming team.


They all, XT, Classic and BU, refuse to write their code in a way that minimises disruption, they insist on leaving inter-chain attacks possible. They are determined to force an all-or-nothing situation on the users, where inter-chain attacks prevent the 2 chains from operating in parallel and competing without interference.

We're all bound by a moral code, whether those that choose to act like a pack of wolves like it or not. Marauding wolf packs can be successful, for a limited time.

I wouldn't

Until geo-political tensions calm down (governments stop turning their internet into Great Firewall styled intranets, governments don't look like they're set to start even more military conflicts globally, the threat of major terrorist attacks begins to subside), then it's a stupid, stupid way of handling it.


If there's any risk that average speeds and latencies across the global internet could be degraded, blocksize increases are crazy, especially considering that several true on-chain scaling options exist and do not carry those risks.

Sure that means more development work, but it's win-win if we go that route, we would have the kind of transaction capacity on the Bitcoin network that could both survive and perhaps even help to end major 21st century world warfare. What's not to like, eh Lauda?

You should try to keep it just even slightly consistent, you were saying Segwit was a technically superior solution this morning, and now you're advocating that everyone should have just shut their mouths and swallowed the poisoned kool-aid?

Which part of "miners are trying to bully the network and it's users" do you not understand?

Who?

I've heard of the Jihan guy, but he's going to be the proud owner of a factory full of mega-expensive slow-ass toasters, once we get a PoW fork going. He's a nobody

Fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of on-chain and off-chain growth, jonald


On-chain blocksize increases come with a serious cost: network resources (processing power to check all blocks and all transactions, bandwidth to relay transactions and blocks, hard disk space for the blocks, space in RAM for transactions in the mempool)


Off-chain Lightning transactions reduce the costs by several orders of magnitude: only processing transactions to check whether they're valid needs to happen with Lightning, and it's only those transactions which are routed through your channel, not every transaction on the whole Bitcoin network, so only processing and RAM are consumed, and not much. The bandwidth is negligible for that, and there is no hard disk cost, because it's off chain there are no blocks to store.

But, even better, we have....

On-chain transaction scaling: by making transactions more efficient using the same blocksize we already have, far safer methods of increasing on-chain capacity can be achieved. They're all hard forks, and they will all consume more processing, there's no getting around that. But of course, BU hard forks every time the blocksize changes by 100 Kb, so I know that doesn't concern you; actual on-chain scaling changes would only need a 1-off fork each, instead of once a week for all eternity.


Now, can you address any of these facts directly, or will you derail and divert because you're, as usual, too afraid to face the truth

Lol, Erik needs to check himself before he wrecks himself. Altcoin exchange owner and writer of early articles, versus Bittorrent's Satoshi?



Voorhees, you need to wind your neck back into that CIA fiefdom you and your conspicuous Bitcoin business call home.