I m sure with some max will you could read out suckwitt between the lines or satelitlayer or arghcash?  |
|
|
|
Sieht so aus, als ob den Russen klar wird, dass Crypto's der Schlüssel für ihr langgehegtes Ziel sind: Ablösung des USD als Weltreservewährung. Chinamannvoran |
|
|
|
Target price 1 BTC = $9840... The Silver Eagle monster box: 500-Coin Silver American Eagle Monster Box (Sealed) / Any Qty: $9,840.00  .. useless box ... sell this sh_t for bitcoin  |
|
|
|
I would like to thank everyone for getting in nice and high before the short down to test the trend lines:  When will you metal supporters learn that bitcoin has no gravity? It just cannot fall on your feet. |
|
|
|
Schön, dass Segwit uns beides gibt.
Unsicheres off chain skaling und kompliziertes SW findest du 'schön' ? Wir müssen warten... |
|
|
|
Kleinblock macht eher Mist, und treibt die Armen in weniger sichere TX Modelle
Weniger sicher sagt wer? Vitalik, P. Todd und ich über LN usw, wir halten zusammen ä Steht doch da getwittert so, oder nicht? Bitcoin braucht einfach grössere Blöcke oder wir machen weiter hier geblöööke! |
|
|
|
Have you any idea how easy it is to re-provision the existing BTC infrastructure for BCC? Let's put it this way, it's probably 100 times easier to migrate to BCC than it is to code up Segwit transaction support in every exchange site, vendor app, etc. And remember that Segwit software utility support is still below 50%...
If the SHTF with Segwit2x vs. Segwit, things can start happening fast again, like they did in late July...
The fact is bitcoin cash doesn't work until today, it just stuck somewhere and barely did not move up in few days. People won't believe in bitcoin cash as they are believe in bitcoin, simply because it's natures law of be the first digital currency and I consider bitcoin is better than bitcoin cash. If another hard fork or chain split will happen because of segwit2x, people will chose bitcoin over segwit2x. Segwit software will go in Live on August 21st, hopefully it could be 100% works. Yeah. Thats how we humans act. It takes a little while and we get used to, no matter if sth better comes up. It took about 8 years to get used to Bitcoin. So why use Bitcoin Cash? I predict same for SW, at least for some 'users' and many miners... |
|
|
|
Thats mean from you. Now I feel utterly nichy again !  . |
|
|
|
Für mich als BitcoinMaximalist zählt immer die längste Kette - da müsste Bitcoin Cash ein paar hundert Blöcke aufholen, um wirklich interessant zu werden.
Was zählen (sollte) ist nicht die Länge der Kette in Anzahl Blöcken, sondern die kummulierte Arbeit (so wie auch Bitcoin im Protokoll feststellt, welche Kette die "beste" ist). Und da Bitcoin Cash die Difficulty drastisch reduziert hat, müsste die Kette nicht nur aufholen, sondern auch deutlich länger werden als die von Bitcoin. Jo, schwere Last. Dafür ist aber der Name länger |
|
|
|
|
Shelby is a good human but(!) critical thinker.
This is not there in core (AFAIK) - we have a strong leader there and cooperative effects (very odd but strong binding force seen in nature like cellulose or DNA or other polymers - Shelby had other words from German history for this dictatorship) - so it is not easy to break this and oppose or you will be Hearniated.
To me I do not fear 8 or 10MB or more at all - the constraints are 'in-silico' , 'in-relay' and in economics combined and embedded.
Satoshi did not want flood control, but memory prices were way higher 2010 - so he agreed and kept the limit increase un-discussed as a no-brainer.
Decentralization collapse that Shelby sees - I also don't fear as well - there is a clear repulsion force from the Nash Equilibrium - there cannot be a winning (mining) team for long (Risk of Reputation plays in here, despite you argued against, but this is higher level I think ) - I'm sure Bitmain knows that as well - these guys are not stupid otherwise they will be washed out - fine for Nash as well.
|
|
|
|
What I don't get is, if segwit is such a flaw, how come all these programmers are saying it's perfectly fine, risking their reputation for life? I mean everyone in Core is wrong? Andreas A is wrong?, why are they gambling with their reputation? because I don't believe no one of these guys has realized the supposed flaws that have been commented about segwit for a while.
I am asking myself exactly the same question. I'Ve googled for Segwit and stealing transaction and didn' find a lot of matches. Why is there not more discussion about it? The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder) My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why? And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong. Quite interesting logic here, but I wonder about 2 points as well 1. Same question hold why most of the hashpower do (did) not support what these big and influencing core list strongly support and offer ? Reputation is much more risky to hashpower (hardware, bitcoin, long-term) investment than to coding business. 2. What chances have core to stay in power for as long as possible and do side chain coding business on 2nd layers, where a stupid block size increase solves a lot and makes this business redundant? - They just try to win where there is nothing really, but they have the historic track record allowing this to some degree. So I conclude the SW will still be delayed (attacked), no matter with or w/o the 2x by most hashpower - to get core to the final thing: Change PoW. This will be the ultimate alt CoreCoin to get rid of them. Miners reputation is way less relevant for their financial future than coders. A miner can fuck around with their signaling intention to manipulate the price and make some money. At the end of the day, people are still going to accept their hashrate on their coins because hashrate is hashrate. As far as their mining-gear sales, it's not clear to me it would have an impact. Bitmain has fucked around to the max and they still are the monopoly in sales. I want to see what happens once intel, nvidia and AMD join the mining game along other bigger actors. But what I mean is, Bitmain seems to be still doing ok ASIC sales wise. Now if a coder fucks up at the scale of the theoretical segwit disaster... his career is over. Who is going to hire you if you will be remembered for such a fail? Well you may still get some jobs, but as far as street creed as a coder goes, that would be a fatal mistake, specially in bitcoin. Any big mistake in bitcoin will cost a lot to the coder involved in the fuckup. This is why I don't understand why all these people are willing to gamble with their hard earned reputation across years, taking the risk to become a DAO-developer tier joke. I mean who is going to buy a project made by the DAO guys now? lol So that's what I don't get at all. And these people are all rich as fuck already, so im ruling out money. Therefore, why are they doing it? OK - I hear you. I've been working with many devs in industry for several years and I know devs are getting in love with pure code, functions and features - but just for sake of being code heroes. They lose contact to the earth and to economics totally and do lot of code work overtime just for own nerdy pleasure - I did escape. I know it is really needed to split tasks - things are getting way too complex and (protocol !!) code is only needed to ensure minimum requirements to enable easy client dev. All other stuff has to be done in the different clients and their very needs. Scaling comes mostly for free, if you keep code clean and easy (put it concurrent!) and get other hardware tech for free on top (get Moore !!). Economics is the chooser. I do not see we are even close to.. |
|
|
|
What I don't get is, if segwit is such a flaw, how come all these programmers are saying it's perfectly fine, risking their reputation for life? I mean everyone in Core is wrong? Andreas A is wrong?, why are they gambling with their reputation? because I don't believe no one of these guys has realized the supposed flaws that have been commented about segwit for a while.
I am asking myself exactly the same question. I'Ve googled for Segwit and stealing transaction and didn' find a lot of matches. Why is there not more discussion about it? The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder) My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why? And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong. Quite interesting logic here, but I wonder about 2 points as well 1. Same question hold why most of the hashpower do (did) not support what these big and influencing core list strongly support and offer ? Reputation is much more risky to hashpower (hardware, bitcoin, long-term) investment than to coding business. 2. What chances have core to stay in power for as long as possible and do side chain coding business on 2nd layers, where a stupid block size increase solves a lot and makes this business redundant? - They just try to win where there is nothing really, but they have the historic track record allowing this to some degree. So I conclude the SW will still be delayed (attacked), no matter with or w/o the 2x by most hashpower - to get core to the final thing: Change PoW. This will be the ultimate alt CoreCoin to get rid of them. |
|
|
|
Sehr lesenswert: https://blog.trezor.io/bitcoin-cash-bcash-integration-report-review-372f9eefcf09On the day of the fork, however, we started noticing odd things happening. During the maintenance of the BCH Bitcore server, we witnessed how the server started losing addresses and transactions. Addresses had negative balances, which should not be technically possible. This caused the initial delay in deployment, as we could not release a Wallet that would use corrupted data. Konsequenz: There are many lessons to take from this hard fork. We will name the most important ones here:
We will not announce support for fulfilment of certain conditions.
We will not announce features to be released for a certain date.
We will assume the code has bugs.
We will take our time to develop the code and avoid mistakes. Alles soweit gut und verantwortungsbewust! Einziger Kritikpunkt, der die Sache unnötig in ein politisches Licht zerrt, ist die Namensgebung - hierran könnte man wieder abdriften und die Ernsthaftigkeit in Frage stellen. Grundsäzlich bestätigt Bitcoin Cash (so ist's un-politisch), dass es ein HF und Big-Block Experiment ist, natürlich auch um einen Beweis zu führen, dass beides geht - leider fehlt hier aber der nötige Umsatz für die grossen Blöcke, also hinkt der Beweis deutlich. Für mich als BitcoinMaximalist zählt immer die längste Kette - da müsste Bitcoin Cash ein paar hundert Blöcke aufholen, um wirklich interessant zu werden. Jetzt sehe ich erstmal zu, wie sich SW behauptet - das ist genauso im Experiment Modus - also abwarten. |
|
|
|
ceterum censeo corethaginem esse delendam Catena maxima longa! Oder so |
|
|
|
Sure, thats what I knew already. Proof that you are a troll. No other logic needed. |
|
|
|
Parts of these emails are indeed not legit, but what you go on to say might well be worthy of further investigation. Thank you. Prove before you smear your shit. |
|
|
|
This ....
"Bitcoin can already scale much larger than (Visa) with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling." ~ Satoshi
Yeah, that is interesting. My guess would be that he's saying a single node could operate at that scale for less than the total operations of Visa. That could be true. As for the "scale ceiling", I think he's arguing that there isn't a quadratic (or higher) growth in cost. Which I think is also probably true in general. I haven't seen a convincing argument against it at least. I'm aware of the quadratic cost in signatures, but that's as the size of a transaction grows rather than as the number of transactions go. Really a very different perspective than certain key developers today who emphatically claim that 8MB is scary and dangerous. Here Satoshi breaks it all down during a discussion of client-only mode. https://pastebin.com/wA9Jn100It seems he liked to keep things simple, rather than the current trend of increasing complexity.  But simple things do not need much control... so what should devs do? |
|
|
|
Bei den Kurssprüngen kann Mann garnicht mehr schlafen 😄Das Fiat wächst ohne Ende 😁😁😁😁
Für Internet Ausreichende Technik Fiat 'ausreichend' Bitcoin 'sehr gut' |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
