Failure to provide evidence of your claim is duly noted.
You should already be aware of such a standard that there is no burden to provide evidence when rebutting off topic claims.. those can be summarily dismissed without any kind of evidence whatsoever, because providing evidence would be to sustain and perhaps pursue the off-topicness, which deserves to go to another thread. Diversion and dissemblance duly detected. |
|
|
|
Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....??   Haha. I'd guess you'd get a few takers. A win is a win, right? However, I've not participated in any of your contests so far. many didn't participated what i don't understand.... just a freeroll why wouldn't one not participate?? No disrespect intended, but... I'd rather not see the WO thread cluttered up with an unrelated topic. To participate would be hypocritical. And yes, I realize that several of you would find this ironic. On two levels. Whatevs. |
|
|
|
So why spend all this time on the topic of supposed value of zero confirmations,
Well, for my part, I am just continuing the conversation that ensued when BobLawblaw issued an edict* that zero conf 'was not the way Bitcoin is supposed to work' (* I guess BLB doesn't understand 'permissionless'). Why are _you_ spending all this time on the topic? 1) Your permissionless assertion seems to be a stupid concept. You are now arguing that getting a confirmation is a form of seeking permission? Absolutely nothing of the sort. I was pointing out that Bob's declaration of 'how Bitcoin is supposed to work' is irrelevant in a permissionless technology. The 'way Bitcoin is supposed to work' is any manner that anyone might try and succeed in making it work. Due precisely to its permissionless nature. |
|
|
|
Surely, zero confirmation transactions contradict satoshi's vision whether we are talking about the whitepaper itself or other implementation statements from Satoshi...
Surely, then, you can support your outrageous claim with quotes from the whitepaper or other implementation statements from Satoshi, which specifically show zero conf txs to be in contradiction, right? inb4: 'I'm not going to <blah blah blah>' Yes... You almost know what I am going to say before I say it... hahahahaha....  Manifestly. For the record: People label you as disingenuous because you seem to be smart, so frequently, what you are asserting comes off as disingenuous, because you know better (or at least you should know better).
Accordingly, even you are aware that bitcoin is an evolving concept that is not locked into some past renditions, but is a product of what the community wants, pursuant to consensus, which does not seem to be easily achieved - yet has a process.... So, yes, do you remember mid-=2017? The little ploy from segwit2x and NY agreement folks seemed to have backfired, but allowed bitcoin to achieve segwit consensus and the lightning network pathway that follows.
Can you deal with it? Apparently not. You want to continue to pump on chain scaling and other baloney bullshit in order to attempt to assert that there is some kind of segwit/lightning network lacking that the inferior bcash proposals, such as zero confirmation transactions can deal with better.... but you and your stupid ass bcasher trolls are wrong about this, so go back to your stupid ass coin and play with your zero confirmations, rather than trying to get that sailed ship into bitcoin.. because it does not make much sense for bitcoin when bitcoin has better solutions - even if they are more sophisticated, including second layer escrowing like services.
Accordingly, even if zero confirmations may have been more acceptable in bitcoin in the past, when bitcoin was more in its test phases (lets say 2011 to 2013), currently, there is much wider adoption of bitcoin, more avenues for scammers to take advantage of vulnerabilities, such as zero confirmation, so even if you and your trusted buddies want to engage in some zero confirmation transactions on bitcoin because you trust each other, zero confirmations are no longer good to implement into bitcoin on a broader scale in which more innocent folks could end up getting screwed by such nonsense that would exist in a world of manevolent players who would like to separate you from your bitcoins.
The logic of why zero confirmations are impractical and cause too many vulnerabilities should seem so obvious on this, but you still want to argue your bcash shill talking-points to try to selectively chose some aspect of bitcoin's history and passionately argue that such practice should continue in bitcoin, as if bitcoin were locked in some past infancy status, which it is not..
Even though bitcoin is still in early adopter stages (with continuing to be quite less than 1% of world adoption), there is a considerable amount of value and confidence that should not be risked in bitcoin merely due to expediency concerns or some whining concerns of a minority who don't really seem genuine towards the better interest of bitcoin, anyhow. In other words, stop your stupid ass whining about water under the bridge because that zero confirmation ship has sailed in bitcoin and it is not really necessary, except perhaps in a narrow set of trust circumstances of sending money to your self or between trusted parties.
Failure to provide evidence of your claim is duly noted. |
|
|
|
May I have your attention please?
BTC is the real Bitcoin, Bcash is the real Bitconnect
BTC is currently the real Bitcoin. As it is the chain with the greatest accumulated SHA256 PoW tracable to the Satoshi genesis block. When BCH accumulates more PoW than BTC, then BCH will be the real Bitcoin. And Bitcoin Segwit will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Bitconnect is just a fraud. |
|
|
|
Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....?? Probably even jbreher would prefer to receive payment in bitcoin, even though he would resist to admit such, publicly. You are returning to your bad old habits, JJG. Just stop. |
|
|
|
Removal of the 21M cap: soon!
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for your absurd assertion? Bcash blockchain is Bitmain's private blockchain. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for your absurd assertion? |
|
|
|
Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....?? Haha. I'd guess you'd get a few takers. A win is a win, right? However, I've not participated in any of your contests so far. |
|
|
|
Removal of the 21M cap: soon!
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for your absurd assertion? |
|
|
|
0-confirmations ...The arguments against BCash ridiculous claim this is something new and better then BTC
Bitcoin Cash doesn't claim that zero conf is some great new thing. The claim is that zero conf is usable in commerce on Bitcoin Cash. And unusable in commerce on Bitcoin Segwit. For full blocks, unpredictable fees, and indeterminate confirmation times all serve to undermine the viability of accepting zero conf txs. Follow that with Core's poor decision to implement RBF, and it is downright unusable any longer on BCH. |
|
|
|
ouch. my asshole. I could be glib and point out the 'cash' in the title.
Are you fucking serious right now ? That's your ultimate argument ? It had 'cash' in the title, therefore Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcorn ? Well, it is obviously NOT my ultimate argument, as I went on to point out... There is really no arguing this point. They worked. To the point that freeking _payment_processors_ accepted zero conf txs.
Those "freeking" <sic> _payment_processors_ are fucking retarded for accepting zero confirmation Bitcorn transactions. They had a business model that was profitable in accepting zero conf at the time when Bitcoin was not perma-backlogged. You claim it is retarded to make money? Retardation comes in many guises. Some can apparently be found in mirrors in Montana and Texas. OK, go ahead and 'rip me a new asshole'. Big boy.
Back on ignore you go. Permanently. aw. you hurt my feelings. again. |
|
|
|
So why spend all this time on the topic of supposed value of zero confirmations,
Well, for my part, I am just continuing the conversation that ensued when BobLawblaw issued an edict* that zero conf 'was not the way Bitcoin is supposed to work' (* I guess BLB doesn't understand 'permissionless'). Why are _you_ spending all this time on the topic? |
|
|
|
Surely, zero confirmation transactions contradict satoshi's vision whether we are talking about the whitepaper itself or other implementation statements from Satoshi...
Surely, then, you can support your outrageous claim with quotes from the whitepaper or other implementation statements from Satoshi, which specifically show zero conf txs to be in contradiction, right? inb4: 'I'm not going to <blah blah blah>' |
|
|
|
No. I don't EVER trust 0 confirmations. That's not how its supposed to work in Bitcorn.
Yet it did. Work, that is. Hmm. Now you are pumping the trusting of 0 confirmations? No. I am just pointing out that, before persistently full blocks was A Thing, zero conf txs worked. Are you denying proven reality? |
|
|
|
the backwards bcash 0-conf crowd is basically saying "Trust, and maybe verify. But verification isn't really needed, since we trust Jihan Wu, Roger Ver, and Craig Wright so much".
Ouch. I expect more from you, infofront. Zeroconf is not built atop 'trust Wu, Ver and Wright'. It is built atop 'we don't have overwhelming tx backlog that makes doublespends hard to detect'. |
|
|
|
I am imagining this is what jbreher meant by "bcash has 0 confirmation transactions".
Hmm. I don't remember saying anything of the sort. I do remember confirming your suspicion that zero conf were once again usable under BCH. But that's a horse of a different color. I mean, any crypto "has 0 confirmation transactions". Many cryptos, however, make them less than usable. Bitcoin Segwit, for example, goes above and beyond to eliminate the possibility with RBF. |
|
|
|
No. I don't EVER trust 0 confirmations. That's not how its supposed to work in Bitcorn.
Yet it did. Work, that is. Hmm. Before I metaphorically rip you a new asshole, Haha. You funny. please show me the part in the Bitcoin white paper that tells us to trust 0 confirmation transactions.
I could be glib and point out the 'cash' in the title. But I don't have to. Back before the tx volume got big enough to be chronically delayed to the 'next' block, zero conf txs were routine. There is really no arguing this point. They worked. To the point that freeking _payment_processors_ accepted zero conf txs. OK, go ahead and 'rip me a new asshole'. Big boy. |
|
|
|
Hmm. Good song. Good singer. But I kept thinking the whole way through - what's with this clinical production? Where's the organic bleed? Did everyone record their parts at different times? Whatevs. I guess I'm just a curmudgeon. |
|
|
|
Anyone can put any price up whatever he sees fit.
Indeed. What's with those weird inflection points on your graph? |
|
|
|
No. I don't EVER trust 0 confirmations. That's not how its supposed to work in Bitcorn.
Yet it did. Work, that is. Hmm. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
