There's a whole swarm of them, not only the one account. Just report them where you see them. See this thread. |
|
|
|
|
I think this thread illustrates the crux of the issue. Everyone thinks there should be more moderators, but few actually want to be the moderators. It's a really tough one. This may just be a case of waiting for the right candidates to present themselves, so maybe don't give theymos too much of a hard time about it if you aren't volunteering your own time to improve the situation.
|
|
|
|
The main focus should be mining full nodes which have been slaughtered out by pools and coffin nailed by ASICs while we were debating block size and SW to have LN running.
Right... so now everything else is to blame except for the actual cause? SegWit and Lighting have no relevance to this matter whatsoever. The economic incentive was there, so some people took advantage. That's all there is to it. It also bit them in the ass in 2015 when they got it wrong and cost themselves money by building on the wrong chain. So perhaps they learned something and will be less likely to make the same mistake again. The network is resilient enough for it not to be a major issue. Whatever we were debating in the community at the time, it wouldn't have changed a thing. The miners tried taking a shortcut and paid the price for their lapse in judgement. They should now understand the importance of validating. It is totally nonsense. How is it possible not to blame distraction and distractors? Heh? A new promising technology naturally faces challenges and obstacles? Whose responsibility is to keep it safe and secure other than its community and the devs? The thing that keeps it in check is the alignment of incentives. You know, that thing you arrogantly think you can screw around with and there won't be any consequences? That. I'm blaming bitcoin community and its devs for being in a mental state in which they have lost focus and misjudgingly devoted their resources to issues not of vital importance at the same time that we have been and still we are face to face with critical centralization challenges. It is called distraction in plain English, add it to your dictionary.
Blame whoever you want, I still think you're an arrogant tool. Devs aren't here to bow to your every whim. They have the freedom to work on whatever appeals to them. Again, you clearly care about pools and ASICs more than anyone else does. If it's so important to you, go start your own coin where those elements don't factor into it. I consider your technical arguments wrong and confused. |
|
|
|
|
Less Lambo memes, more Rollers, heh.
For the skeptic in me, I can't help but think this is more of a publicity stunt by the dealership and less about the desire to further the legitimisation of Bitcoin. Still, publicity cuts both ways, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
The main focus should be mining full nodes which have been slaughtered out by pools and coffin nailed by ASICs while we were debating block size and SW to have LN running.
Right... so now everything else is to blame except for the actual cause? SegWit and Lighting have no relevance to this matter whatsoever. The economic incentive was there, so some people took advantage. That's all there is to it. It also bit them in the ass in 2015 when they got it wrong and cost themselves money by building on the wrong chain. So perhaps they learned something and will be less likely to make the same mistake again. The network is resilient enough for it not to be a major issue. Whatever we were debating in the community at the time, it wouldn't have changed a thing. The miners tried taking a shortcut and paid the price for their lapse in judgement. They should now understand the importance of validating. Just because you perceive pools and ASICs to be the most prevalent issues in Bitcoin, it doesn't mean you get to convince yourself that everyone else thinks that too. For a seemingly smart person, you do say some dumb things. Stick to the math, you seem to be good at that. Reasoning, not so much. |
|
|
|
|
Adoption isn't something that we should try to artificially force. It has to be a natural progression where people make the decision for themselves, because they want to. If you recognise the benefits it gives you, great. But not everyone will see it the same way. And if you are trying to promote Bitcoin usage to the uninitiated, make sure you highlight the potential disadvantages just as clearly as the advantages. Explain that it requires far more personal responsibility in comparison to the banking system they've grown accustomed to. There are also the security considerations, where it's quite easy for new users to make mistakes and lose funds. It's fair to say this will take time before it reaches the stage where it's user-friendly enough to on-ramp the "mainstream" users. We can't rush things.
|
|
|
|
 Bring the popcorn, and I will bring the drinks. What will be the most imaginable outcome out of this?  I believe that a chain split would keep everyone in any side happy. They have already set an example that "it's ok" by splitting from Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash, another split will not make a difference. Interesting that Jihan would repeat the very same argument that was used against him. Why is it always an " attack" where other people want to " take control"? Why is it never simply " these people have different ideas, so just ignore them while they fork away peacefully"? No one is in control. That's the entire point. Still, it's more entertaining this way. Keep poking that hornet's nest, Jihan.  |
|
|
|
|
Before the hype? I think you'd probably have to go back to a period before BTC achieved parity with the dollar for that. I've been around since late 2013 and there was already plenty of hype then.
Instead of ICO, it was just regular altcoins promising the world but delivering substantially less. They were mostly still pump'n'dumps, just fewer in number. But at least you knew what you were getting before you bought it because there was an actual blockchain to go look at. None of this "give me money for my half-baked idea" BS that seems so ubiquitous now. I don't think ICO has ever had a "good" image, heh.
People still thought Gox was a great place to do business. Most of the big exchanges hadn't been hacked yet. Few had really been given a clear opportunity to learn the lesson that you shouldn't leave your entire crypto wealth in the hands of total strangers on the internet, so in hindsight it was kind of inevitable that some of them would have to find out the hard way. Strange that some people still don't "get it" even today.
|
|
|
|
You are unbelievably wrong:  Mining nodes are the most important full nodes because not only they validate the blockchain they actively participate in building and maintaining it. A miner without a full node is not a real miner as I said s/he is just a slave who has no clue about what is going on in the network. Actually mining full nodes are critical components of bitcoin security. Unfortunately there is no concrete statistics to show how many people are participating in mining right now but the number of mining full nodes is definitively very low, it is because of pools and the alienation of miners from the actual process by them. A non-mining full node is just a liability because of its costs and very small benefits only a few of bitcoin whales have a practical incentive to run such a node, average holders are more likely to choose running a spv wallet. I got what you said now. You are saying that we would have more full nodes, if all miners had an incentive to have a full node. I do not agree with that, as miners should not waste their computer resources running a full node. Forcing nodes to invest in hardware and internet connection to run a full node will make mining even more expensive (and harder for new people to join) than it is now. It may cause a bigger problem. Even higher mining centralization. My stance is somewhere in the middle. It's not realistic to expect all miners to run a full node, but it's not safe if none of them do. There have been past problems with miners not bothering to validate transactions correctly. In 2015, careless SPV-mining led to a brief fork. If a majority of the hashrate skips validation, it sometimes doesn't end well. It's better if there are "enough" miners running full nodes, but it's anyone's best guess (or perhaps a skilled mathematician's calculations) to determine what number constitutes "enough". |
|
|
|
|
If PSBT (partially signed Bitcoin transactions) starts to see common usage and people get comfortable making "offline transactions", it's the type of idea we could revisit later. At present, though, I'm not really seeing it. We can test the waters when 0.17.0 is out and PSBT is (most likely) implemented.
|
|
|
|
~
Exactly, if bitcoin is not volatile then it is not worth to invest, the best asset should have been making it's value unpredictable, and does not know stability. It is good if it goes down or up so there should be a balance to evaluate your funds. That's not quite what I meant, but okay... My point was that, whether you prefer volatility or stability, it's best for Bitcoin if you don't attempt to force your preference upon everyone. If it's obvious someone is pulling the strings, that leads to people losing confidence in a market faster than anything else. Manipulation is bad, regardless of what someone is trying to accomplish with it. Whatever figure it goes to and however changeable it might be, it needs to get there through natural price discovery. |
|
|
|
|
If your question is purely hypothetical, then I suppose that's okay, but if you're asking what price we should be "aiming for", then cut it out. Technically, the best thing for the future of Bitcoin is for people to stop trying to preempt what they think would be best and stop attempting to steer things in their preferred direction. Just leave it alone and let it do its thing. That's how markets are supposed to work. If a market behaves how certain groups of people want it to, it's clearly not a very good market and there's some manipulation going on.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what people think would be best. What matters is that it does whatever it does without undue interference.
|
|
|
|
I would like to dispell the myth that you need a mobile device to pay at a store with lightning. I personally don't carry a phone or such device with me when I am outside.
I think it is quite simple actually.
1) Set up a lightning node at home
2) Print little paper bills with QR codes that act as one time auth keys for telling your node to send money with lightning. Print different denominations such as 10k satoshi, 50k satoshi, 100k satoshi
3) At the store, whatever the price, you give the paper bills and they scan them, and (as long as they have a computer with an internet connection) then your node sends the right amount. The denomination of the bill would specify the maximum that your node would send for the auth key. So if you have to pay the store cashier 152k satoshi, then you would give a 100k bill, a 50k bill, and a 10k bill. Yes they may steal 8k satoshi from the extra amount allowed by your 10k bill, but that's worth like 50 cents now, so it's a small risk, and you can use smaller denominations if you wish.
This type of setup would need a standard protocol that nodes use and cashiers would have on their computers, so would be worth starting on this if someone wants.
How would it work with multiple stores? I'm guessing you'd need a channel open with each of them? Without a device, you won't know what routing is available in real-time. Do you then have to be a bit more careful and make sure you've given them the bills for the right channel? Could get slightly messy. |
|
|
|
|
No doubt it's partly the issue of shitposters, but I'm also noticing a bit of a lull in newsworthy content to discuss lately. Just about everything in the media is either "Price", "ETF" or "ICO". All the least interesting aspects of crypto. I have little to no interest in talking about any of that, other than perhaps pointing out how inane and boring it is. I'm hoping this is just temporary and we'll have some better topics to discuss when something new and interesting actually occurs.
|
|
|
|
|
It's generally considered something better suited to being built as a layer on top of Bitcoin, rather than cluttering up the main chain with it. Plus, despite the fact it's perceived as a revolutionary concept, people aren't really as enthralled by the idea as you might like to think. There's still a large amount of trust involved since someone is generally holding the physical assets these tokens are meant to represent. You might have trustless transfer of the token, but it's more difficult to make guarantees for the underlying asset itself. As such, it has a fairly niche existence at the moment, at least when it comes to BTC. I'm sure there are about a bajillion projects for it in the ETH community, but they're most likely as fruitless as all the other ERC20 crapcoins. There's also OMNI, which (last I heard anyways) is underpinned by BTC's blockchain.
|
|
|
|
• Require at least one merit to become a Junior Member (bots will never rise past Newbie status then and can be nuked once spotted).
No. Or not yet. Or the idea would need to be significantly modified. This is the only idea I'm expecting that will be implemented for sure but, I still can't imagine why it's in the "No" list. I proudly said in some of my fellows citizens a few days ago that once this idea was implemented, bounty abusers as well as spammers will be lessen as I'm a hundred percent sure that this one will be implemented but seems like it was now just a dream. I'm wondering, Why no? Or not yet? I really thought that this will be prioritised along with remove signatures from Jr. Members and Newbies but it didn't even passed the "Maybe" list. What a surprising result. Unexpected. If I had to guess, there are probably concerns over the longevity of the forum in the future. If the number of older, more experienced members starts to dwindle, newer users need to be able to rise up the ranks in order to replace them. Perhaps theymos doesn't want to create an environment that's deemed too hostile towards newbies and risk scaring the legitimate ones away? The older members should probably remember the likelihood that their early contributions to the forum may not have been quite up to the standards they would like to see now. We can't expect too much, too soon. |
|
|
|
I use my local bitcoin exchange as my wallet, so when I get paid for something it directly goes there and turns into turkish lira and goes to my bank account. Hence never needed to check if a wallet is segwit or not.
I'm not a financial adviser or anything, but, given what's been happening to the Lira, is it not worth considering holding on to some of your BTC in a wallet you control? |
|
|
|
FIAT currency cannot be replaced fully by bitcoin and crypto because it offers society
a chance to progress through debt. Bitcoin cannot create a debt system like FIAT.
Everyone wants to progress in life whether they want to be self employed or want to
work for someone else. This puts certain demands on a persons financial situation
by way of food, clothing, education, transport and housing.
Everyone speculates to try and progress and we speculate with other peoples money
which the banks issue as loans. As we progress we are able to repay those loans and
avail of more and so on and so on.
Of course it goes wrong sometimes but that is a seperate discussion but Bitcoin cannot
offer this system i just explained so i am happy to use the fiat system for one aspect
of my financial life but bitcoin is truly a seperate part of my life
Salient point. It's fair to say that debt is being abused on a grand scale, in a way that's unsustainable over the long term, but it's not like the world would continue to function normally if we somehow succeeded in eliminating the entire concept of debt. That's just not practical. People simply need a better understanding of debt and perhaps demonstrate a little more responsibility around it. But there's an important distinction between regular consumer debt and the gross, perverted monstrosity the banks play with. They're taking it too far. That farcical rehypothecated derivatives casino needs to be seriously curtailed before it implodes. That's the kind of wholly reckless behaviour we have to thank for Bitcoin needing to be invented in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Is this turd of a thread still going? It's not "arrogance", it's "network effects". Bitcoin has the value it does (whether you choose to ascribe that "value" in utility or dollars), above and beyond what other coins manage to achieve, by having the largest numbers behind it. More active developers, more users, more hashrate, more nodes, more merchants and acceptance in the real world. Whether you're merely a speculator or a believer in open-source, permissionless freedom and censorship resistance, that's what gives it its value.
|
|
|
|
I think guys like @Doomad and @cellard have not completely understood this proposal. It is simply a block size increase without hard fork.
These guys are interested in just its soft fork style of implementation and apparently don't care about the contents. it is weird.
It's probably just your reading comprehension that's off. This proposal clearly requires a softfork and cellard's comment was simply stating that those might be more problematic after all the drama that came with the last one. This may well be a moderate proposal, but many in the community are highly conservative, so even a moderate impact on centralisation is deemed unacceptable by some. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
