|
Freelance writer for over 10 years here. I'm willing to review your service.
|
|
|
|
Your position is that a HF by the Classic team is preferable to a SF by the Core team, is it not? I think this is a oversimplification of my position, my preferred implementation is actually Bitcoin Unlimited, which is still compatible with any of the changes within Classic though. Bitcoin Unlimited is an even smashier trainwreck than XT or Classic by any metric which matters; node count, adoption, user or developer support. This is not some Disney movie where supporting the plucky underdog leads to some heartwarming ending. Bitcoin is a crucible in which bad ideas are quickly revealed and rejected. By supporting demonstrably failed ideas, you become a hindrance and timewaster. Present fresh alternative ideas if you're so determined to play devil's advocate. One doesn't even need to get into the various technical reasons why this is a foolish position, the risk-reward alone makes it an obvious call. In the worst case of SegWit leading to unexpected problems, those who upgraded can simply roll back. There's no rolling back the damage from a contentious HF, that would be a long and painful process in which altcoins are liable to overtake Bitcoin. This is why certain altcoins are invested in promoting just such an occurence. I am certain that if we do not scale Bitcoin directly altcoins and chain forks of Bitcoin will overtake it. It is simple economics really, Bitcoin needs to be able to compete. So only a hardfork can save us from inevitable doom, comparative risks and rewards be damned? And you base this assertion on nothing but your own certainty? Misguided zealotry. If you can't acknowledge the simple reality that Classic has failed due it being a less credible, useful and valuable plan than Bitcoin's roadmap, there seems little point in further engagement. I do not think classic has failed, it is about the freedom of choice, and the Core node count is steadily dwindling I would call that progress. Well if falling node counts are what you call progress, then no wonder you support datacentre-only gigablox. By this measure, XT and Unlimited are leading the field, down to about 100 and 54 nodes respectively. The market has spoken unequivocally and you're only wasting your time by arguing with it and people in this thread. People that think discussion is a waste of time are often not right, considering they are not allowing their beliefs to be tested, and are not contributing to the market place of ideas. Endless and increasingly heated talk gets us nowhere. Miners and developers have reached consensus on the way forward and the market clearly approves. What you might think of this situation is of little interest to anyone else. If you're so convinced Bitcoin is on the wrong path, then like I say, present a better alternative. If it's truly better, it will be adopted. A better alternative already exists, Satoshi Nakamoto already had a solution to scaling, which is to increase the blocksize. Even back then Satoshi had its critics to this method of scaling to which he replied. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306I believe Lauda already requested that you stop quoting Satoshi out of context and I would echo this. Nothing said there supports your position, in fact you just shot yourself in the foot. Satoshi correctly predicted that mining would go to big server farms (albeit with ASIC hardware) but with advancements like SegWit, pruning and sidechains on the horizon, there's still space for validating nodes between light wallet users and miners. But more germane is Satoshi's envisioned solution for fast microtransactions, which he [ DO NOT POST SESC LINKS ]links[/url] to: "I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less."Surely Satoshi would be happy with the faster, cheaper, safer and more decentalised version of this, ie. the Lightning Network. His quote demonstrates that it was known since at least 2010 that, rather than blocksize increases, additional layers were the best solution to processing many small, quick transactions. |
|
|
|
You should try and counter what I have to say with actual arguments instead of just insulting me and using ad hominem. It is also false to simply say price is going up therefore what you are saying and what Core is doing is right. The markets are more complex then that. It is true I favor simplicity in design but that does not mean I am a simpleton. You seem like a good writer, I would engage with you if you actually made any real arguments, try and use your skill at writing in pursuits of reason instead of appeals to emotion. Your position is that a HF by the Classic team is preferable to a SF by the Core team, is it not? One doesn't even need to get into the various technical reasons why this is a foolish position, the risk-reward alone makes it an obvious call. In the worst case of SegWit leading to unexpected problems, those who upgraded can simply roll back. There's no rolling back the damage from a contentious HF, that would be a long and painful process in which altcoins are liable to overtake Bitcoin. This is why certain altcoins are invested in promoting just such an occurence. If you can't acknowledge the simple reality that Classic has failed due it being a less credible, useful and valuable plan than Bitcoin's roadmap, there seems little point in further engagement. The market has spoken unequivocally and you're only wasting your time by arguing with it and people in this thread. If you're so convinced Bitcoin is on the wrong path, then like I say, present a better alternative. If it's truly better, it will be adopted. |
|
|
|
I do not consider off chain solutions to be a way to scale Bitcoin directly at all. We can scale Bitcoin directly, if Bitcoin will not do it alternative cryptocurrencies will. I do not see any reason why people would choose to use a layer build on top of the blockchain when they can just use the blockchain directly, easily, quickly and cheaply. Without the added complexion and abstraction that is required by having to use a third party on top of the blockchain in order to transact.
I think that you are fooling yourself if you think that Bitcoin can become the dominant currency of the world with high fees. Especially considering that it is not even a technological necessity yet. I accept that with far greater adoption this might be the case but blocking the growth in transaction volume now at this stage so early in its development will guarantee that Bitcoin will be outcompeted and obsolesced. I think that the blocksize limit should be significantly above the average transaction volume, this way the blocksize limit serves its original purpose as an anti spam feature, not as an economic policy tool for central planning, wielded by a group of technocrats.
If you don't see that off-chain solutions are the best, indeed only, way to effectively scale Bitcoin then I'm sorry, but you're a simpleton, lacking in both understanding and imagination. I'm not claiming to be an expert on blockchain technology but judging the relative risk-rewards of a contentious hard fork vs. a bug-fixing and protocol-extending soft fork is really a no-brainer. Use your melon. The word you're struggling for is "complexity." Unfortunately, but unavoidably due to its nature, Bitcoin is complex from whichever angle you view it. Simple block bumps are popular with misguided or drama-seeking devs, and with simpletons. I've identified 3 subsets of simpleton plaguing Bitcoin: 1) those who know jackshit about Bitcoin but try to force their way in by banding together as a mob. Just a casual read through r/btc reveals tons of flailing morons, clueless about even basic facts of Bitcoin.* I lost count how many times I'd be debating "Classic people" and they'd confuse LN features with SW features, for eg. This could all be corrected with proper study but tragically, most of this ilk seem obstinately learning-resistant. 2) those who trail Gavin, Brian, Mike and other assorted characters with dubious agendas. These people are a lost cause. 3) buttcoiners, bank shills, altcoiners and other dicks with an axe to grind against Bitcoin. Frig all these people too. So look, I'm going to give all the Classic supporters in this thread the benefit of the doubt and assume you're in category 1. If so, there are plenty of free resources where you can learn more about Bitcoin. Get more knowledge then come back to this topic, you're just making caricatures of yourselves by beating all your dead horses. Veritas, when you have a clearer picture, you'll realise that the ignorance spouted in your 1st paragraph is what blinds you to more elegant solutions; which address all the concerns and more raised in your 2nd paragraph. Side-chains will allow vastly more quick and low-fee Bitcoin transactions. That's the whole point of going in that direction. So Bitcoiners should pull together to intelligently expand the system's capabilities, using the best tools available. Core devs should be supported in their efforts to unlock more of the tremendous potential which Satoshi built into Bitcoin. You might not like how these "technocrats" are going about achieving these improvements. But suck it up. Price is clearly rising now the industry has given them its vote of confidence, so markets, miners and the majority of experts agree with their plan. Do you think your vision is clearer than the markets, miners and experts? If that's your belief, you need to prove it with a much better technical solution than this rekt Classic bullshit. * this might make for a good thread if anyone has the stomach for it. |
|
|
|
The number one reason why smart, revolutionary people I know don't use bitcoin isn't because the tech is bad, it's because the social dynamics are.
How smart and revolutionary can they be if they reject technology based on "social dynamics?" That's like refusing to get a flying car because too many jocks have one - in other words, the opposite of smart and revolutionary. Tell these precious snowflakes that they can run the technology without having to interact with the community. |
|
|
|
We are no longer being ignored or scoffed at , but actively attacked and we must recognize and not underestimate our enemies.
Seems like Gavin has joined the dark side. What makes you say so? Still unknown and we shouldn't unjustly insinuate, but the fact that he worked with and partnered with Hearn and the fact that he was trying to push through a contentious HF with such a low threshold which is very dangerous should make people concerned and slightly suspicious. Hopefully in time he can redeem himself to the community, and admit he made some mistakes. More like he is a statist piece of shiet. CIA meeting, MIT (eg USG) payroll, pushing contentious hardfork using (NSA) social media engineering tactics, and also he has been on the town council thing of Amherst mass for years. He is literally a politician. A big polished TURD. , that gang of war criminals and wannabe world-rulers, to tell them all about Bitcoin. Shady behaviour. Ah well, seems everything is working out for the best despite Gavhearn et al... Hey, Peter Rizun, whatever happened to your smug "I eat small blockers for breakfast" personal text? I always liked that, reminded me of this Happy Gilmore scene. |
|
|
|
You sig spammers and your shallow statements. "Bad PR?"  That's the absolute last thing honey badger gives a shit about!  Read "Only the Black Market Matters" by Justus Ranvier, he really nails it: "Anyone who isn’t actively working to expand and empower the informal economy is wasting their time." No need to be offensive, actually both sides have arguments, sadly in this forum there are a lot of black and white people and that's what stops Bitcoin grow. I do agree with the article you mentioned to a certain extent, however we can't live in that utopia, at least those of us who run businesses and have credit cards because well, you can't basically exist without regulation, you are limited in many ways by the government and that's sad but just as you don't hand over your house keys to a homeless person, the government does its job in protecting itself too. Bitcoin has without a doubt a bad image for the average person but not only that, it's very hard to adopt for non tech savvy people, for me those are huge barriers if we truly want a new currency, or perhaps you want it to be controlled by the elite alone? Saying black and white thinking stops Bitcoin's growth is itself a black and white statement and also false; Bitcoin is growing nicely. I think you should re-read the article. People in the informal economy are by definition doing unregulated business. They're people like street vendors selling snacks for cash or labourers who do handyman work for cash. Drugs and prostitution are a very small slice of this pie, terrorism funding is an even tinier slice (if it currently exists at all). However, controversial goods and services are justifications for governments to attempt to control the entire informal economy. Many governments are working on banning cash so that all transactions must go through the banks, to be "properly" taxed and regulated. Not only will this enrich the state, expanding their warmaking and surveillance capabilities, but it will put many of these marginal workers out of business and into poverty. It's essential that Bitcoin be able to take the place of cash, if or when it's banned, lest we all end up living in some tyrannical dystopia. There's nothing elitist in wanting currency which can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Prostitution and drug sales are only a small part of the tremendous personal freedom which Bitcoin offers. You can't stop Bitcoin being used for such purposes without destroying Bitcoin, so find a way to tolerate such victimless "crimes." Forget about the disapproval of the traditional media, who often serve the purposes of government. Like the article points out, there are now (or soon will be) more people employed by the informal economy than the regulated one. That people like sex-workers are actively adopting Bitcoin, despite its "bad PR" and technical complexity, is very encouraging for Bitcoin's future success and for individual liberty. |
|
|
|
You sig spammers and your shallow statements. "Bad PR?" That's the absolute last thing honey badger gives a shit about! Read "Only the Black Market Matters" by Justus Ranvier, he really nails it: "Anyone who isn’t actively working to expand and empower the informal economy is wasting their time." So you are telling off sig spammers, and here you are wearing a sig and making a bullshit post. Hypocrite much. Stuff in my sig is all my own work, purpose is to demonstrate I have some clue of what I'm talking about (still lots to learn though!) and haven't scammed anyone. It irritates me when people talk nonsense simply to earn some satoshis. Your time would be better spent gaining knowledge than making low-info posts. Sig campaigns have created an incentive for noobs to spam ignorance all over the forum and it sucks. The campagns should really start testing people's understanding of Bitcoin before signing them up. People who don't get why sex-workers accepting Bitcoin is a good thing really don't get Bitcoin. Censorship-resistance is one of the fundamental properties. The moment you can no longer buy drugs and hookers with Bitcoin, this experiment in private money may be considered failed. |
|
|
|
|
That there's such an obvious anti-Core bias does not inspire much confidence in your data, colinistheman. The site should describe how data is gathered and explain how it can be verified.
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't get all the complaining. So these financial services want to put their doings onto public blockchains (presumably Bitcoin sidechains), instead of messing about with private blockchains. Surely this is good news for customers of these services? They'll get a measure of transparency, quicker processing times and lower fees, probably better security too.
Surely it's also good news for Bitcoin? Having corporate sidechains dependent on the blockchain will raise Bitcoin's status and value, while giving major financial players a reason to defend it against attackers. Once the banks are dependent on Bitcoin's blockchain, we have far less to fear from them. Better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in, yes?
I do believe we need to keep a critical eye on Blocksteam's future moves. But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin, as well as bringing freedom-enhancing stuff like Confidential Transactions, it's ridiculous to accuse them of selling out.
|
|
|
|
You sig spammers and your shallow statements. "Bad PR?" That's the absolute last thing honey badger gives a shit about! Read "Only the Black Market Matters" by Justus Ranvier, he really nails it: "Anyone who isn’t actively working to expand and empower the informal economy is wasting their time." |
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER, sure it's all good. Was asking croTek4 why he quoted that line out of context, seems like he's implying something.
There's a lot of FUD swirling about Blockstream in this thread. I don't see any real conflicts of interest between their business model and Bitcoin's principles. They're under the spotlight when it comes to such things. If there were any real problems, we'd know.
Out of context? Seriously? Try reading the thread ( protip: start at the title) again and then come back to us. Here is Manish Agarwal's full quote: ”We believe that the blockchain technology has the potential to dramatically reshape the financial services landscape. The public blockchain is a key part of that, in my view. We are not that interested in the actual bitcoin as a currency, but the tech is the key.”Quoting only a part of someone's statements, particularly in a way which twists their intended meaning, is called quoting out of context. Pro-tip: stay calm and think things through when replying to people. If you let emotion cloud your reason, your responses may appear foolish. AXA sees business advantage in the public blockchain so they're funding the premier experts in that technology. These experts will use that money to further develop Bitcoin, in ways which benefit all users. What is there to be upset about? If you take off your Classic goggles for one minute, you'll see that this is a very promising development for Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER, sure it's all good. Was asking croTek4 why he quoted that line out of context, seems like he's implying something.
There's a lot of FUD swirling about Blockstream in this thread. I don't see any real conflicts of interest between their business model and Bitcoin's principles. They're under the spotlight when it comes to such things. If there were any real problems, we'd know.
|
|
|
|
So they're more interested in using sidechains than hodling BTC. What's your problem with that? |
|
|
|
Here are 5 good reasons why LocalBitcoins is a better choice for individuals as well as the Bitcoin network. |
|
|
|
there needs to be websites like live cam shows that has officially started using bitcoin at first so these workers can start using those services and advertise it through them.
Xotika.TV has been doing this for ages. |
|
|
|
You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.
I'm sure there were people that tried to stop Hitler? Maybe too many thought the 'bickering' wasn't worth the trouble. All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. If anything, it will be silence that spells the death of bitcoin - not the voices of concern. You Godwin the thread, bro. |
|
|
|
I mean, it makes sense right? Lots of transactions, they can teach their clients. I started a resource here as a good step. But what are some other ways? Show them BED, the Bitcoin Escort Directory. It's free to list on there, they just need to provide their details. If they take the time to figure out Bitcoin, it becomes a more secure option than cash. Special rates for clients who pay in Bitcoin (ideally through anonymizing services / altcoin conversions) are the next step. |
|
|
|
Think people would have learned by now ... every time you see Gavin's smiling face on reddit r/bitcoin front page the price tanks precipitously.  ... and down we go.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
