I deleted the posts in question. Altcoin shilling/trolling was never actually allowed here, but the rules were never enforced strictly.
I normally tolerate it from regulars like jbreher and Peter R, but they've been emboldened lately. And I've been receiving a lot more complaint PMs recently.
However much the snowflakes whine, should not the criteria be whether the posts adhere to the threads stated topics? I submit that you are deleting posts having direct bearing on walls and price of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I am witnessing this censorship.
As much as I disagree with them, deleting posts is cowardly and shameful.
Let us confront their ideas in a free and open forum, selective deletion only strengthens their claims, a corollary of the Streisand effect, foolish and counterproductive.
It may be hard to get to the bottom of this. We don't yet know if any censorship occurred. Peter R would have been sent a message about the removal of his post. If there is any proof, please let's see it. Otherwise it must be construed as further dishonesty. Whether or not you wish to consider it censorship or not is open to interpretation. However, posts dealing directly with the topic at hand -- "Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion" -- are being suppressed by mod deletion. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2402558.0 |
|
|
|
Referring to ASICBOOST as an exploit seems rather silly. After all, its availability is a direct consequence of the algorithm chosen, derivable directly from first principles. And you can bet your sweet bippy that -- should TPTB ever get into the mining biz in order to coopt Bitcoin -- they'll be using the exact same techniques. We need to be ready to match them hash-for-hash. For only in an _excess_ of honest miners do we retain a usable system. |
|
|
|
there 1024 MB=1GB and i not was sure if 1.000.000.000 bytes is 1 GB or 1.024.000.000 is 1GB.
I hate to pile on, but you are absolutely incorrect in your claim that there are 1024 MB in 1 GB. Relying on non-authoritative websites for your source of truth does nothing to resolve the error. The SI system was devised ages ago, and is universally used as the measure of such things. The prefix G or giga always denotes 10^9. Some time ago, lazy programmers noted that 2^10 is kinda sorta approximately equal 10^3. So they started sloppily referring to 2^10 as kilo, 2^20 as mega, etc. But this has introduced error and ambiguity where none is warranted. And this ambiguity has killed. If you mean 2^30, then the proper prefix is Gi or gibi. The scientific and engineering standards communities are universally aligned on this point. Or to make it concrete for you, 1024 MiB = 1 GiB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix and while WikiPedia is only quasi-authoritative, they provide more explanation that truly authoritative sites such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology: https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.htmlAnd for the love of all that is holy, stop misusing SI prefixes. Before they kill again. |
|
|
|
Well, that's one louder, innit? I laughed.
bcash folks not only spam the network. their EDA sucks away mining power from bitcoin.
their very own malicious EDA CREATES the btc transaction backlog
Serious question: Do you think the miners owe you their hash rate? If you are worried about Bitcoin Segwit's mining, you could always make the investment of time, effort, and treasure in order to become a miner. Otherwise, you really have no say in where hash power gets directed, right?
Odious? Why the hate?
Yeah, excellent strategy.
Killing animals to eat them works until there are no more animals to kill and suddenly it doesn't work and you die of hunger.
Well, that's a funny way of coming out as being vegan.
You can't just trivialize and hand wave it all away as a simple block size increase will solve everything and still retain network stability while maintaining mining decentralization.
'Splain me how block size has anything whatsoever to do with mining centralization.
Any thoughts on how high the next BCH rally will go?
I have no idea. I expect multiple cycles of up and down. Call it pump n dump if you want, but I think it will more properly be overbuying by BCH believers followed by dumping of free coinz by BTC believers. Seeing as I have no way to guess properly at inflection points, I'll just buy when low and hodl when high. A strategy that has benefited me tremendously for some years now.
How is this for a new scam idea - send me 500BTC and I will send you an image of my own creation, with a resolution of 1280x960 - great for a desktop background.
Back in the day, I sold several handfuls of one of my CDs for 1.2BTC a pop. And they were damn worth it, too!
I don't understand.
They deleted Peter R. answer to my question about the relationship between the nodes and the consensus rules (I suppose that for being "off topic"), but they did not erase all other comments from other users on the same subject.
Yes. Moderation getting very partisan. And veering far from stated policies. |
|
|
|
Judge for yourself whether or not this has anything to do with "Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion", as per the title of the thread from which it was deleted. Feel free to add your own deletions here. This is a self-moderated thread, which I think means mods will treat it as hands-off. I will delete commercial spam if any. Otherwise, hands-off - as long as it pertains to stuff deleted from the WO thread.
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. How about nodes? Does BCH actually have any that aren't Bitmain?
I cannot speak definitively. There's mine. I ain't Bitmain. I assume that many others -- who I know to believe in the direction Bitcoin Cash has set for Bitcoin's future -- likewise run nodes. Not much of an answer, that. Sort of hand-wavey. I agree. Of course it is hand-wavey. What do you want me to do? I have no definitive list of all nodes. Do you have one for Bitcoin Segwit? Tallying them up -- in a permissionless environment -- would seem to be the responsibility of the person desiring the statistic, no? I guess in this case, that would be you. Right? Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving.
Node count and distribution is important. Why are you pretending it's a non-issue? I am not pretending it is a non-issue. I assume there are currently fully-validating non-mining 'nodes' in sufficient number. I am also assuming as people who operate fully-validating non-mining 'nodes' shift from focused upon Bitcoin Segwit to being focused upon Bitcoin Cash, that they will start operating 'nodes' upon Bitcoin Cash. Does this seem unreasonable to you? If so, why? Of course, it is true that I have much less regard for the operation of such non-mining, fully-validating 'nodes' than do most. Indeed, I believe they provide essentially zero benefit to the system as a whole (though they do provide some measure of benefit to their individual owners). Further, I believe that any system that does not provide forcible barriers to entry is decentralized to the extent that it need be. If the decentralization is purported to 'keep another class of parties in check', then spinning up a single said decentralizing element is sufficient to perform the task at hand. The system need not depend upon ridiculous oversubscription to perform the requisite function. So presumably, that was your best 'cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash'? What else ya got? (apologies for the somewhat aggressive tone)
OUR SEVEN SOCIAL PRINCIPLES:
WE ASSUME GOOD FAITH.
WE REWARD THE POSITIVE.
WE ACT WITH DIGNITY.
WE TRUST EACH OTHER TO FAIL WELL.
WE DO NOT ASK PERMISSION.
THE NETWORK IS MOTHER, THE NETWORK IS FATHER.
WE HAVE FUN, BECAUSE IT ATTRACTS MORE PEOPLE. drugs are bad mmmmmmkay? OTOH, vision statements are usually good. mmmmmmkay?
10.600 BTC sell wall on Bittrex, @ 0.1 BTC/BCH
Edit: probably Roger Ver's last stash in this pump.
Probably not. I've been trading 10 BTC per day into Bitcoin Cash most days for the last few weeks. I ain't outta ammo yet. And I'm just an itty-bitty minnow.
BCH doesn't give to users anything that BTC doesn't!
Well, other than affordable and fast transactions. Oh - it also gave better than 100% in the last few days. Bitcoin Segwit? Not so much. Cheers!
BTC actually has significant advantages over Bitcoin Cash, even if it has higher fees and transaction times, simply because it's the common denominator for literally every altcoin.
True statement. At least at this moment in time. Don't get too cocky now.
BCashers got rekt.
In whatever bizzaro universe better than doubling your money (closer to 4x) in the last few days can be considered 'rekt'. |
|
|
|
Better if you provide actual reasons, rather than repeat unfounded accusations and hearsay, fully bereft of any evidence. If merely a link, it would be helpful if you can identify therein what you consider to be the actual evidence of asymmetric centralization.
Isn't it because attempts to increase scalability on the first layer always lead to less entities being able to operate a full node, therefore leading to centralization of mining. Most likely most mining will happen in places where electricity and mining equipment is the cheapest, so maybe China? What the community nearly universally mis-refers to as a 'full node' is not a mining entity. Miners have significant investment in their mining equipment. And a single non-mining node can validate for a any size assemblage of mining equipment. Such single fully-validating, non-mining node (real cost of my fully-validating non-mining node was about $500, and I run several nodes on it concurrently while using the machine for other purposes at the same time) is a drop in the bucket compared to the hashing equipment cost. The hashing equipment cares not what the block size is. The net is that block size has nothing to do with mining costs, thereby nothing to do with mining centralization. On the topic of geographic centralization. This is just another operational cost borne by miners. Other significant costs include labor, real estate, construction, ... the list goes on. But China is not the world's cheapest source of electricity, so we can tell that is not the final word in miner profitability. And yes, China is currently the source of the bulk of mining ASICs. Yet the leading products (as far as we know of) are freely available to anyone that wants to buy one*. So the China claim fails also. *Of course, if you want the world's best, you'll need BCH. Because the manufacturer is insisting upon payments in that currency. More germane, these considerations apply equally to Bitcoin Segwit (max 4MB for 1.7MB effective equivalent transaction capacity) as to Bitcoin Cash. After all, mining Bitcoin Segwit and Bitcoin Cash is available to the exact same set of miners. So no - you are going to need to look elsewhere to find asymmetric centralization. |
|
|
|
segwit fixed a transaction bug
Please specify in detail the nature of the claimed bug. that makes future upgrades more difficult
Exactly _what_ future upgrades? Why are they needed? Could this plasticity also be used to new bad behavior -- either intentionally or as bugs -- in the protocol? How do we know the good will outweigh the bad? Especially as these future upgrades are currently unknown and unspecified. schnorr signatures
No. Schnorr sigs are not in The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. helps combat spam transactions
Evidently not, seeing as what people cavalierly call 'spam transactions' still seem to be a problem for Bitcoin Segwit. |
|
|
|
It is unbecoming for you to sully your position as CEO of Synereo by spreading false propaganda besmirching Bitcoin Cash. If you have some evidence to back up your FUD, that would be one thing. But your accusations of centralization are content-free. You realize, of course, that any party capable of mining Bitcoin Segwit is free to mine Bitcoin Cash, right? Knowing this, how do you defend your accusations of centralization?
Just shut up. He is right. Ok, seeing as you are wading in the middle here, you can ostensibly continue the thread. Then certainly you can defend the accusations of centralization. So what is your evidence? Incidentally, I will not "just shut up". I'll find a link exploring the technical differences leading to BCH being more centralized by nature than the existing BTC implementation and post it here.
That would be helpful. Better if you provide actual reasons, rather than repeat unfounded accusations and hearsay, fully bereft of any evidence. If merely a link, it would be helpful if you can identify therein what you consider to be the actual evidence of asymmetric centralization. |
|
|
|
It is unbecoming for you to sully your position as CEO of Synereo by spreading false propaganda besmirching Bitcoin Cash. If you have some evidence to back up your FUD, that would be one thing. But your accusations of centralization are content-free. You realize, of course, that any party capable of mining Bitcoin Segwit is free to mine Bitcoin Cash, right? Knowing this, how do you defend your accusations of centralization? |
|
|
|
"And their reasons aren’t going to be “decentralization”, “censorship resistance”, “non-aggression money”, or any other nice theoretical construct. Their three reasons for joining Bitcoin Cash, in 99.999% of cases, are going to be profit, profit, and more profit, in that order."
CEO Rick
Why does he think Bitcoin would be worth anything without these things? I'm trying to understand.
He didn't say that Bitcoin would be worth anything without these things. He said that the reason people will swarm to it is profit. Sure - we know that decentralization, censorship resistance, and non-aggression qualities enhance its ability to render profit. But the masses don't need to know this -- at least at first involvement -- and furthermore likely do not care. Profit is profit. Most of the populace spends a huge portion of their waking hours seeking profit. So the potential for profit is what will first bring them to Bitcoin. It need not be the latter at the exclusion of the former. 
So this guy is utterly convinced that scaling is impossible without centralisation.
Exactly where in that video did you see Falkvinge make this statement?
How about nodes? Does BCH actually have any that aren't Bitmain?
I cannot speak definitively. There's mine. I ain't Bitmain. I assume that many others -- who I know to believe in the direction Bitcoin Cash has set for Bitcoin's future -- likewise run nodes.
"Bitcoin is a worldwide cryptocurrency and digital payment system called the first decentralized digital currency, as the system works without a central repository or single administrator."
Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving. Actually he has very good point. What you call Bitcoin Segwit can do ALL the things so called Bitcoin Cash can do and a lot more. This is why BCH is dead. It was born dead. Notice how jbreher the troll doesn't acknowledge that Bitcoin Cash is the ULTIMATE in a 98%+ centralized mining operation, nor ever gives any evidence to the contrary. He doesn't even care that it's a problem. He just deflects, hand-waves, and tries to turn the argument back on the other person.  He's fkn done this for years, it's his MO. The set of Bitcoin Cash miners is pretty much identical to the set of Bitcoin Segwit miners. Though I see you have not yet provided any sort of response to my post. To wit: Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving. And you have not provided any sort of response to my post. The latest one, as well as in general. Let's try again. Do you have anything other than ideology to back your support of clonecoin? Well, other than the fact that this conversation was demonstrably between not you and I, but rather between Torque and myself...What post of yours are you speaking of? I can hardly respond to a post you've not made. Yes. I have plenty to back my support of Bitcoin Cash. Which I have elucidated many times upthread. I'll trot some points out again, if you would so desire. But first, how about you actually point me to your purported earlier request. Hell, let's up the ante. I'll posit the same challenge to you as I did to Torque - Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving.
Yes I am serious. Did you read the paper? Are your reading skills that abysmal? The CEO appellation was clearly tongue-in-cheek! Jeebus Cripes! From the first page thereof: The Bitcoin Cash organization has no titles other than those which we make up for fun in the spur of the moment, or to make fun of the organizations of the old world that care for titlesI can't figure out of you are that far buried up Core's crack, that deluded, that disingenuous, or just plain that thick.
Don't bother ragnar0k. JBreher will just hand-wave those ramblings of their CEO madman away as unimportant and ignore you.
Et tu, Torque? I'd never before judged you to be stupid.
They need an updated whitepaper, "A CEO-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".
I suppose it'll be rewritten by Cobra?
...
You serious bro? How about a letter from the CEO [of BCH] (how decentralized). Hey, jbreher! Did you receive your official title from Bitcoin Cash yet? Rick is CEO, Jihan is CSO, and Roger's new title is just "jesus." They gave me the humble title of assistant GIF-maker in residence  . Congrats! Judging by the attitudes of some here, I must be deserving of _some_ title. When do I start getting paid? |
|
|
|
That entire pdf is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. It sounds like it was written by a 3rd grader. And there's a lot of "We the Management will manage things better for you" garbage rhetoric. So centralized management will decide what's best for the lowly masses. Got it. Our pic'a'nic bear really is not arguing in good faith. At least we see through him.  Seems you _might_ be referring to me, though I have no idea why. |
|
|
|
"Bitcoin is a worldwide cryptocurrency and digital payment system called the first decentralized digital currency, as the system works without a central repository or single administrator."
Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving. Actually he has very good point. What you call Bitcoin Segwit can do ALL the things so called Bitcoin Cash can do and a lot more. This is why BCH is dead. It was born dead. Notice how jbreher the troll doesn't acknowledge that Bitcoin Cash is the ULTIMATE in a 98%+ centralized mining operation, nor ever gives any evidence to the contrary. He doesn't even care that it's a problem. He just deflects, hand-waves, and tries to turn the argument back on the other person. He's fkn done this for years, it's his MO. The set of Bitcoin Cash miners is pretty much identical to the set of Bitcoin Segwit miners. Though I see you have not yet provided any sort of response to my post. To wit: Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving. |
|
|
|
"Bitcoin is a worldwide cryptocurrency and digital payment system called the first decentralized digital currency, as the system works without a central repository or single administrator."
Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving. Actually he has very good point. What you call Bitcoin Segwit can do ALL the things so called Bitcoin Cash can do and a lot more. This is why BCH is dead. It was born dead. Well, no. Maybe at some point in the future. But for now, Bitcoin Segwit is useless for any but higher value transactions. You can tell yourself that you like it this way, but Bitcoin Cash supports everything that Bitcoin Segwit does, plus these cheaper items. |
|
|
|
"Bitcoin is a worldwide cryptocurrency and digital payment system called the first decentralized digital currency, as the system works without a central repository or single administrator."
Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving. |
|
|
|
Can you name one advantage BCH offers over LTC or other ALTs?
Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin. Shitcoins be shitcoins. Not too hard, is it? |
|
|
|
Satoshi definitely did not intend for anyone to run a centralized attack on his vision of a decentralized financial system.
While I think you are likely correct about this, we seem to see different implementations as the one being thusly corrupted. |
|
|
|
I'm just much bullishier on Bitcoin Cash.
Why ? I ask with no snark or ill-intention. Because it is purely and simply Bitcoin. In the form that I believe Satoshi intended. After all, it is Bitcoin largely as he left it, but with the insane centrally-planned production quota on transaction capacity relieved. Being of course a thing that he put in as an acquiescence and in order to stave off a potential problem that no longer exists. And also a thing that was orders of magnitude away from being hit at the time he left. Also for which he explained away a fine removal mechanism. Further, it doesn't suffer from the SegWit atrocity, nor the RBF abomination. Most germane, it supports the store of value function, and also fulfills the medium of exchange function that Core threw overboard in their insane Raspberry Pi fetish. It simply renders Bitcoin SegWit irrelevant. Everything I've witnessed thus far with BCH, is nothing but power-plays by selfish (State) Actors.
Well, I've been looking closely, and I just don't see it that way. I understand that the above is the narrative 'round these parts, but it looks completely false to me. It's against everything Satoshi stood for.
In what ways, exactly?
And yes, gentlemand calls it well.
BCH is capable of every use case that Bitcoin Segwit is capable of. Plus many more.
Truth be told, I'm bullish on Bitcoin Segwit too. I'm just much bullishier on Bitcoin Cash.
bullish? how. BCH will be forked into infinity, and because the user base and the real support is much smaller, it will slowly dissipate -there is no history of BCH, even though it copied bitcoins' years old blockchain. Bitcoin Cash _is_ Bitcoin. It's history extends unbroken back the the genesis block. It diverged from Core's crazy direction in time to be spared from the largest single change ever made to the protocol. The market movement would suggest that there is plenty of real support. I will rather go down with the bitcoin ship than into bitcash
Seems foolish, but hey - it's your money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
