this thread is the laughing stock of bitcointalk
Cool isn t it? So much fun here and poetism.  |
|
|
|
Has Vitalik congratulated Ripple yet?
had to lol this But seriously, wtf is going on with ripple, It seems like it is all new capital coming in Visa found out the they can have a Lightening Network per today and no need to wait for 18 month. |
|
|
|
Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....
Claiming? What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand? There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision". That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency. As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe. These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math. I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow. We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try. Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is. Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities. In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption. This is certainly true, however we can use eighth grade math to figure how transaction speed and volume scale with a simple change of block size. Just pick a desirable range for future volume, and ask how do we get there. Let's take 100x current or 300 transactions per second. It is not required to test solutions which will fail at 2x or 4x current volume. We already have studies that show at what rate nodes would get wiped out at current block size and in increases of 2MB up to 8MB. This study was developed by Bitfury:  So if BCash was getting used AND spammed as BTC does, blocks would get filled and 95% of current nodes would get wiped out of the system. Again, Bitcoin Cash is about scaling on the miner node network. Core claims that you would need lots of non mining nodes where Bitcoin Cash claims non mining nodes are slowing down the network and are not needed minimumfor a needed degree of decentralization. Here it starts to be seen orthogonal to each other. And I understand why many have issues to accept this. No math needed up to this point. |
|
|
|
Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....
Claiming? What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand? There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision". That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency. As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe. These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math. I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow. We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try. Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is. Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities. In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption. |
|
|
|
Lightning Network is best idea to solve all bitcoin problems.
Perhaps the best, but unfortunately not resolved in time. Now this is becoming a serious problem with the BCH The 'biggest' problem here only is, that BCH is open to all scaling options. That's real decentralization. |
|
|
|
Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins. Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.
Yep. Your best post ever. |
|
|
|
For me BCH is the coin that most closely implements the white paper, which is what all of my posts since 2011 have been based on.
I wish BTC all the best with their project. No hard feelings. It's just not what I bought into.
Fair enough but I sure as shit did not sign up for a coin mined and controlled by one entity. I think that's even a tad further away from the white paper than blockstreamcorelizardbilderbergcoin. If this is th only and last argument against then it s gonna be fixxed anyway by the flippening when miners change to mine BItcoin Cash in the mayority. LOL! Keep dreaming man! You're definitely drinking the Roger Ver Kool-Aid. Bcash lives from the Bitcoin core devs code. Even the Judas admitted that on TV. Your dream of a flippening will just keep being a dream. A dream of you naive guys. And at a certain point in time Judas will drop you all, like a hot potato, leaving you with all those big bcash bags while he cashed out millions again. You seem to give Roger little too much power? Check reality and that many change the support: denk er again. |
|
|
|
BCH is so boring technologically.
Who the hell wants the excitement in their life to be provided by their money? Certainly not me. Money should Just Plain Work. Yeha, I m still exited about the bitcoin basics and its genius protocol. But thats done and why try to change the E=m*c^2? Next is to get cool clients on top. But SW? Sorry! Recentralization due to size has nothing to do with the original decentralization vision. Nobody has defined what measure is enough here. Economics will find that optimum and yes there will be lots of volatility also in 'decentralization'. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
BCH is so boring technologically.
Who the hell wants the excitement in their life to be provided by their money? Certainly not me. Money should Just Plain Work. Yeha, I m still exited about the bitcoin basics and its genius protocol. But thats done and why try to change the E=m*c^2? Next is to get cool clients on top. But SW? Sorry! |
|
|
|
For me BCH is the coin that most closely implements the white paper, which is what all of my posts since 2011 have been based on.
I wish BTC all the best with their project. No hard feelings. It's just not what I bought into.
Fair enough but I sure as shit did not sign up for a coin mined and controlled by one entity. I think that's even a tad further away from the white paper than blockstreamcorelizardbilderbergcoin. If this is th only and last argument against then it s gonna be fixxed anyway by the flippening when miners change to mine BItcoin Cash in the mayority. |
|
|
|
Macht euch nur lustig aber heult nicht wenn keiner BitcoinSegwit mint weil die miner auf Bitcoin umsteigen
Das einzige was umsteigt ist dein Geld, von deiner in Vers Tasche. Lass dich nicht verarschen. Ver mag ja ein Unsympathling sein und das Gelaber von Satoshis wahrer Intention geht mir auch auf den Senkfuß aber wo ist das Problem wenn die Blockchain so groß ist, dass nur Miner sie Laden können? Es gibt doch gar keinen Ökonomischen Anreiz dafür, dass jeder einen Full-Node betreibt. Ganz gleich wie groß die BC ist. bin gespannt was Bcash für eine Daseinsberechtigung hat wenns dann doch funktioniert und vorallem ob dann Bitcoin Jesus seinem Bcash treu bleibt. Ja, ich bin gespannt WENN es in 3 Jahren evtl. funktioniert ob dann noch jemand Lust auf BTC hat. Ich glaube du hast so einige Prinzipien das Bitcoin noch nicht verstanden. Eine wäre z.B. Dezentralisierung. Weiterhin hast du nicht verstanden wie diese Prinzipien mit dem Wert zusammenhängen, bzw. den Wert erst generieren. Lol, genau WEGEN dezentralisierung ist BCH(dezentraler) besser als BTC. Btw. über 271790 unbestätigte Transaktionen. nice Blockstream=Zentral LN=Zentral Hohe komplexität neigt zu zentralität weil schwer adaptierbar Sieht's du ... Nix verstanden. Sag ich doch. Entwaffnend, wirklich. So schnell gibt ein doc nicht auf, oder? Bald glaub ich's auch noch. |
|
|
|
is it true a consortium of chinese and russian investors holding 8 billion in bitcoin cash are going to dump in a few hours? this could send BCC below 1000$ if people panic
No - they've privately contacted me and I bought all for 1$ each - sorry. |
|
|
|
The only "improvement" bcash has on bitcoin is that it has an 8mb block size. Well bitbean has 20mb blocks so is bitbean then the REAL bitcoin @rogerkver ? $
8mb it's not the only "improvement", it's BCH's major advantage because it makes it cheap, reliable and usable. Other coins with big blocks have not the same user base as BTC - basically, BCH is copy of BTC without BTC's limitations. Can you explain what are these advantages and improvement and what is problem with major institutional investments why they are not understanding the point of BCH. Upcoming year is full of forks than what will happen into this ecosystem? Any fork needs work & energy = reasoning, business case - a strong story book BCH case was to reset the original path of Satoshi - scale along Moore's law... no Segwit - true mining security.... Other forks might come but need to have some strong case - I fail to see stronger ones. |
|
|
|
Ich sage: BTC kann keine "gerechtere" Alternative zur Fiatwelt sein, weil es in der Grundverteilung eine Ungerechtigkeit gibt.
Du brauchst gar nicht weitermachen, da ich Dir hier gar nicht widerspreche. Aus meiner Sicht gibt es kein gerechtes Geldsystem, welches Gerechtigkeit - im Sinne von ewigwährender Gleichverteilung - dauerhaft sicherstellt. Kann es gar nicht geben. Für mich ist nur wichtig, dass das System zu jeder Zeit jedem die gleiche Chance verschafft. Wer diese Chance nicht nutzt, braucht auch nicht jammern. Ausserdem soll niemand zu seinem Glück gezwungen werden. Auch das haben wir hier - niemand muss Bitcoin nutzen. Meine weitere These: Mit diesem grundsätzlichen Problem - das tatsächlich in der menschlichen Natur liegt, oder wie Du so schön geschrieben hast "wale wird es immer geben" - sehe ich ein Problem das Projekt als "dezentrale" Alternative zum aktuellen System zu verkaufen.
Ich sehe nicht, wo unser aktuelles Geldsystem jedem die gleiche Chance verschafft. Marktanteil BTC < 50% spricht doch Bände.
Marktanteil Zentralbanksystem knapp 100% - das spricht Bände. Korrekt - und der Trend ? |
|
|
|
Sie können aber noch reicher werden. Hier gehts zu den erleuchteten: KLICK.  Und du meinst die Masse der Armen kann sich die BTC Gebühren leisten ? Klar. Bei den erleuchteten gibt es ein Stück Hackfleisch einen Coin teilweise schon für wenige Cent. Und mit dem eigenen Coin kann man Transaktionen sogar kostenlos durchführen. Daher ist es völlig unverständlich, warum manche Unterprivilegierten noch beim teuren Coin hier rumhängen und nicht drüben, bei den billigen Coins. Marktanteil BTC < 50% spricht doch Bände. Transaktionen< 5 % oder so |
|
|
|
Ich glaube bitcoin hat leider tatsächlich einen Haufen Idioten reich gemacht - vielleicht ist das der Fehler im System.
Das war definitiv ein Fehler. Da die reichen Idioten allerdings definitionsgemäss nun ihr "echtes Geld" haben, ist das Problem bereits behoben. Sie können aber noch reicher werden. Hier gehts zu den erleuchteten: KLICK. Und du meinst die Masse der Armen kann sich die BTC Gebühren leisten ? |
|
|
|
Selbst die Zocker müssen Gründe haben auf etwas zu zocken und der Preis spricht gerade sehr Laut, selbst für die Leute die nicht hören wollen. Ich bin außerdem nicht mal so groß für BCH oder SegWit Coin. Ethereum hat schon länger mein Herz erorbert  Ja, und der Grund ist eben die Ankündigung, dass man auf Coinbase jetzt BCH traden kann. Die Spekulation dahinter ist die, dass Coinbase die beste Anlaufstelle für US Bürger ist, wo sie mit Fiat Geld einkaufen können. Da wird spekuliert, dass viel frisches Fiat Geld in BCH fließt. Aber Coinbase hat bereits angekündigt, in 2018 neue Altcoins zu bringen. Und sobald dieser BCH Hype vorbei ist, wird weiterspekuliert, welcher Altcoin nächstes Jahr kommt. Und deswegen denke ich, dass die Zocker dann ihr nächstes Ziel suchen werden. Ich halte selbst auch mehr ETH als BTC. man muss ehrlicherweise sagen, dass SegWit genau so ein Fork von Bitcoin ist wie Cash... Nein ist es nicht. BCash shill? Es gibt Bitcoin und einen Altcoin, einen schäbigen noch dazu. Im Prinzip ist es einfach nur ein Bitcoin clone mit größeren Blöcken. Die gab's 2013 zu tausenden. Bitcoin verfolgt einen Weg der zumindest die Möglichkeit bieten könnte massenhaft (exponentiell) zu skalieren. BCash hingegen kann höchstes linear skalieren und das auch nur sehr schlecht mit Nachteilen. Witzig auch das Argument, dass die Transaktionen günstig und schnell seien. Ja das liegt daran das niemand den Scheiss nutzt, Dogecoin ist auch günstig und schnell. So einfach ist das. Ich weiss nich ob die BCash Fans einfach nur extrem dumm sind oder eine Agenda verfolgen, aber dazwischen gibs nicht viel. So schwer ist der Sachverhalt nämlich nicht. Außerdem sollte man Dinge die von Leute wie Ver und CSW promotet werden sowieso eher meiden. Ich würden denen keine 5 euro anvertrauen. Das einzige was die entwickeln ist nämlich ihr Fiat Konto. Das Argument "es ist so, weil ich bin reich" ist doch Roger Vers gesamte Argumentationsbasis. Es gibt wirklich gute Altcoins, wo sehr viel Gehirnschmalz drinsteckt und die werden sich auch in Zukunft gut entwickelt, aber BCH ist eindeutig nicht in dieser Kategorie. Für die geniale Lösung ala E=mc^2 braucht es nur einmal sehr viel Gehirnschmalz - Segwit an sich mag auch genial sein, ist aber leider Gerhirndurchfall in Verbindung mit Bitcoin. Es braucht leider oft sehr viel Zeit und Irrwege, bis die Masse das Geniale auch versteht. Der freie Markt wird es richten. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
