Don't bother with him.
Most of it is panick from the fact that once again Core prevails and him and his shitty crew is on the verge of being irrelevant (if we pretend they weren't already).
Ohh... I understand, he is bitter and lashing out because he didn't think blockstreem would develop better solutions than BIP 101. I hope he comes around and assumes that everyone has good faith whether they are Gavin or Wuille. This is really petty and we need to get beyond this for the sake of bitcoin. No, I knew what will come: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12955016;topicseen#msg12955016 |
|
|
|
My prediction came true. The pressures of the marketplace force them to raise the block capacity. The business model of an artificial fee market (which you are cheerleading) is officially REKT anyway. Means: dead. Which is great.
Moral victories is for minor league coaches - Jay-Z |
|
|
|
Offtopic? Why does CryptoNote need to be mentioned here or the presentation? Because ... The original implementation of segregated witness was also CryptoNote coins, as I mention here. Wuille's presentation fails to credit this alternative cryptocurrency at all (as did the Elements sidechains presentations/implementation/notes). Ironically the second time a major Bitcoin soft fork has come from an alt.
Are you panicking yet? Why? My prediction came true. Why? Because Core prevails and your shitty attempt at a governance coup failed. |
|
|
|
Because ...
The original implementation of segregated witness was also CryptoNote coins, as I mention here. Wuille's presentation fails to credit this alternative cryptocurrency at all (as did the Elements sidechains presentations/implementation/notes). Ironically the second time a major Bitcoin soft fork has come from an alt.
If the ideas didn't come from Cryptonote developers(In fact cryptonote developers took the ideas from the bitcoin community) and none of the code was borrowed or forked from Cryptonote than what is the point? It is quite possible that the blocksteam devs weren't even aware of Cryptonote seg witness and were simply carrying on with developing what was being discussed since 2011 in the bitcoin community. Even if the ideas were taken ... what is the point? This is open source... why are you bitter? Are you a cryptonote pumper? Don't bother with him. Most of it is panic from the fact that once again Core prevails and him and his shitty crew is on the verge of being irrelevant (if we pretend they weren't already). |
|
|
|
Offtopic? Why does CryptoNote need to be mentioned here or the presentation? Because ... The original implementation of segregated witness was also CryptoNote coins, as I mention here. Wuille's presentation fails to credit this alternative cryptocurrency at all (as did the Elements sidechains presentations/implementation/notes). Ironically the second time a major Bitcoin soft fork has come from an alt.
You seem rather panicked? Are you panicking yet? |
|
|
|
Pieter is sharp. This is an actual innovative breakthrough in the field and a very promising development. |
|
|
|
 In true cypherpunk fashion Peter Wuille just hammered the final nails into Bitcoin bloaters coffin, with code. |
|
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille live at Scaling Bitcoin presenting how we can use a soft fork to increase the block size using segregated witness. Proposes a raise to 4MB.
Bullish.
|
|
|
|
Seems to be a lot of resistence, people don't want us to get past 400.
Just wait an hour or two... |
|
|
|
I have no idea what drives this price, this is extremely manipulated isn't it?  buyers |
|
|
|
ech... who cares?
Bitcoin XT is winning now that Gavin Andresen is at the helm.
I'm actually curious to see if you and hdbuck will keep bitching on about this stupidity when it's all over.
Over 25% of the hashing power has explicitly said they wouldn't be doing 101, especially as XT. Both fundamentalist camps are going to have to swallow their pride and come to a compromise in the form of a more conservative increase schedule. You friggin twerp! I was trying to troll brg444! Of course Bitcoin XT is dead, but it would be nice to annoy brg444 one last time.  |
|
|
|
Original Bitcoin collectors are enjoying tremendous returns  Worthy of emulation, right? So, realistically, you had about 1 year of time to buy at a "loss" compared to current prices, between Nov. 2013 and Nov. 2014. Buying at any other time means you're not in the red, and, in fact, made a profit (on paper, assuming you're long)
Date Registered: February 16, 2014, 06:46:12 PM  I know, it's a shame you've been here 2 years longer than me yet can't seem to grasp the most simple concepts |
|
|
|
...
There's a time for everything. While Bitcoin is doing the thing called price discovery any attempt to compare it to cash in terms of velocity and ease of exchange is positively retarded and shows an absolute lack of economic aptitude.
"buttt bbbbbuttt buttt Satoshi told me I could send it all over the world NOW"
Oh well.. if spending bitcoins makes you "warm and fuzzy" inside go right ahead...
I agree. For now, Bitcoin is useless as money. As are Beanie Babies. OTOH, both could be used as "stores of value." When pitching BTC to the neighbor you've trapped in the elevator, make sure not to bring up the fact that Bitcoins have lost 2/3rds of the value they were storing over the last 2 years, while Beanies did not. Original Bitcoin collectors are enjoying tremendous returns Didn't you get humiliated enough by oda.krell last time you recycled this trolling point? Or did you miss the part where I mention "price discovery"? So, realistically, you had about 1 year of time to buy at a "loss" compared to current prices, between Nov. 2013 and Nov. 2014. Buying at any other time means you're not in the red, and, in fact, made a profit (on paper, assuming you're long)
Jesus Lambie, you've really become a weak, washed-up version of yourself  "Looking like Larry Holmes, flabby and sick" |
|
|
|
edit: speaking of Popescu.... I don't think it's either practical nor feasible nor even desirable to use Bitcoin in the day to day dabble of pizzas, phone credits, hairspray and sneakers. People try to, because of the misguided belief that Bitcoin value is somehow related to or deriving from its crossection in the retail market. This happens to be completely untrue : you can't buy any pizza with SDRs, and yet that doesn't somehow make SDRs worthless. The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference. "Interraction" with the economy... like exchanging shares of blogs and gambling sites with other titans?
Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System
vs
Peer to Peer Electronic Wealth Storage System
I think we've distilled it down. I also think it can be both, but the former facilitates the latter.
I'm not even sure if you're trolling or actually stupid... maybe just shortsighted. There's a time for everything. While Bitcoin is doing the thing called price discovery any attempt to compare it to cash in terms of velocity and ease of exchange is positively retarded and shows an absolute lack of economic aptitude. "buttt bbbbbuttt buttt Satoshi told me I could send it all over the world NOW" Oh well.. if spending bitcoins makes you "warm and fuzzy" inside go right ahead... |
|
|
|
Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.
Restricted space => fee competition More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees Expensive fees => stalled adoption Stalled adoption => declining interest Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here? This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable. I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market. Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold. Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide. Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers. no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency. Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning. The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard. Such a strange fantasy world you erect around yourself... Titans of industry, meeting in back alleys or smoke filled basements to buy thousands of bitcoin... (surely they wouldn't send fiat wires to regulated exchanges that will have their identity and amounts on file, along with the addresses those coins were removed to.)  Good one. Of course everyone knows BitFinex is where whales meet to exchange large lots of coins  edit: speaking of Popescu.... I don't think it's either practical nor feasible nor even desirable to use Bitcoin in the day to day dabble of pizzas, phone credits, hairspray and sneakers. People try to, because of the misguided belief that Bitcoin value is somehow related to or deriving from its crossection in the retail market. This happens to be completely untrue : you can't buy any pizza with SDRs, and yet that doesn't somehow make SDRs worthless. The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference. |
|
|
|
I am currently short, but only looking for a $15-$20 move down from top.....
that should go over well |
|
|
|
Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.
Restricted space => fee competition More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees Expensive fees => stalled adoption Stalled adoption => declining interest Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here? This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable. I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market. Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold. Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide. Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers. no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency. Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning. The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard. oh ya i always forget about that complicated idea with no real implementation.... wtv i'm fairly certain we'll never get to find out what will happen to bitcoin if we limit its main chain scalability. 8MB blocks here we come! Bitcoin also used to be a complicated idea with no real implementation, development takes time |
|
|
|
Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.
Restricted space => fee competition More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees Expensive fees => stalled adoption Stalled adoption => declining interest Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here? This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable. I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market. Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold. Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide. Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers. no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency. Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning. The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard. |
|
|
|
Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.
Restricted space => fee competition More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees Expensive fees => stalled adoption Stalled adoption => declining interest Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here? This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable. I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market. Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold. Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide. Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
