So in your view, to be a true fiat user, you have to work at a bank or have a government job at the reserve bank? What is the most important for you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that accepts bitcoins as a payment option.  More or less - correct. The FIAT FULL users are FEDs on the planet. Civils are just share holders and convert the shit in 5 min into bitcoin. We do not decide on the interest rules, color, ..... We are CONSUMERS. If you wanna be a decider in any place, you need to do proper investments FRONT UP. Exactly, and that was the reason why I asked the question. Some people wants to be knee deep into the politics and some people just want to be a consumer or a merchant supporting the network. All of them have a big role in the whole ecosystem/community of the Bitcoin network as a whole. Bitcoin will be nothing without users and it will be worthless if no merchants accepted it as a payment option, but it also needs people who wants to vote on changes. We are all important to make Bitcoin a success.  Sure, but major tasks to attract consumers, ensure security of products,... are not in consumers hands at first place. Risk takers do that and need to decide where to keep consumers happy. |
|
|
|
Do you think it's 2009-2012 where bitcoiner could mine bitcoin from home and earn profit ? Mining for regular bitcoiner is impossible because ASIC and crazy chinise miners with crazy investment.
Maybe you should make BIP to enable bitcoiner could mine bitcoin from home and earn profit again by change bitcoin mining algorithm which only can be mined with CPU , but your race-car story is great.
I think own bitcoin and participate in bitcoin community/economy are enough for someone to be real bitcoin users.
Thx - I'm not good in writing this up also not in my mother lang. And no - I'm very fine with bitcoin needs most expensive high end comp tech stuff at the planet -> this is bitcoins floor security! If you go back to CPU- what does that get you? Sure 'more' miners - but easy switch to other stuff - this is intrinsic value of a CPU. ASIC miners do not have other usage / no intrinsic value. As long bitcoiner you know, that's great! > That means pretty much, your shit hot expensive race car can only be used on bitcoin tracks - so go and keep the show up and play with the rules! |
|
|
|
So in your view, to be a true fiat user, you have to work at a bank or have a government job at the reserve bank? What is the most important for you? A : Running a FULL node and competing with the likes of Jihan or one of these massive mining farms OR B : Running a business that accepts bitcoins as a payment option. More or less - correct. The FIAT FULL users are FEDs on the planet. Civils are just share holders and convert the shit in 5 min into bitcoin. We do not decide on the interest rules, color, ..... We are CONSUMERS. If you wanna be a decider in any place, you need to do proper investments FRONT UP. Or As I've posted long time ago in a invest & risk thread, if you want to invest big in bitcoin today, your hired risk manager will tell you to invest a decent share of your investment into mining power / infrastructure - in order to reduce the systemic / operational risks of your bitcoin owning. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
In the bitcoin economy, and no unnecessary links. For the normal existence of needs and users and miners. This argument recalls the dispute about what is more important, the chicken or the egg. We cannot exist without each other and it would be foolish to argue. You need to negotiate.
Sure. But in an exponential growth process lots of the small stay small, some could get big. A few do the big game = race. Since there is a proper Nash equilibrium in place (pre-SewgWit), the thing is rock -save and ensures small's saving perfectly. You do not need to scare. The big ones will take care and scale it. Only proper help we all can do is buy little bitcoin, and pay for the show. You could also try to compete with better code / solutions - and hope the big will pick it up. |
|
|
|
All so called 'active user' (UASF) here are either just small Hodlers or Trolls.
why?
Satoshis first job as a real USER was: launch a miner ( full client )
All following code / task splits were only to optimize things and share tasks ( miner, node, wallet, hodl ), but the biggest users invested most in mining also because of incentives.
So to claim to be a full Bitcoin user, you should :
Run a full node, mine and hodl. Be a maximal supporter of the network and scale the shit!
Just runnign a Rasp PI and own less than say e.g. 1 Bitcoin is nice and a good start, but does not qualify enough to say : full user.
Finally, these full users should also do full risk checks about any code, hardware and all the rest and decide what to set into production -> their risk!
BTW, beeing a miner safes your ownings best!
Yeah the current situation is users vs miners, but I don't agree with an user who mines can only be called a real bitcoin user. Do you think each and every bitcoin user can afford mining equipments? No - they cannot and they do not really need to. We do not need 1Mil cars on the track. In terms of the strict real Bitcoin USER, they ARE already there, have spent lots of money = full voting power (their cars !) Rest is economic shopper / mostly minority shareholder. No real voting power, but vote with their feet and sell if race gets boring. Maybe their power is coming up with a petition to change things, but they simply cannot fork of the tracks or change cars and rules. But: They could mask their heads with funny caps and destroy things. |
|
|
|
It's this crap that makes all pro SegWit folks suspect in my mind...
I wouldn't say "all", but a good chunk. The fanboys and stakeholders are usually pretty easy to separate from the logical believers. I lump all righteously pro SegWit posters together because I can't discern their true motives. The movement has lost all credibility in my view because of their censorship, scare tactics and strategic media campaigning. All of their arguments conveniently leave out the part about how Blockstream will fail if it's not implemented. Have you checked the code diffs (before & after SW) ? The design diffs to Satoshi's (drop the witness) ? The deployment diffs (SF vs HF) ? The miners acceptance (stalling) ? Fishy, fishy, fishy, fishy .... phhhhhh gmaxwell's reply to that article: Gregory Maxwell
Blockstream does not have any patents, patent applications, provisional patent applications, or anything similar, related to segwit. As is the case for other major protocol features, the Bitcoin developers worked carefully to not create patent complications. Segwit was a large-scale collaboration across the community, which included people who work for Blockstream among its many contributors.
Moreover, because the public disclosure of segwit was more than a year ago, we could not apply for patents now.
In the prior thread where this absurdity was alleged on Reddit I debunked it forcefully. Considering that Rick directly repeated the tortured misinterpretation of our patent pledge from that thread (a pledge which took an approach that was lauded by multiple online groups), I find it hard to believe that he missed these corrections, doubly so in that he provides an incomplete response to them as though he were anticipating a reply, when really he’d already seen the rebuttal and should have known that there was nothing to these claims.
As an executive of Blockstream and one of the contributors to segwit, my straightforward public responses 1) that we do not, have not, will not, and can not apply for patents on segwit, 2) that if had we done so we would have been ethically obligated to disclose it, and 3) that even if we had done so our pledge would have made it available to everyone not engaging in patent aggression (just as the plain language of our pledge states): If others depended upon these responses, it would create a reliance which would preclude enforcement by Blockstream or our successors in interest even if the statements were somehow all untrue–or so the lawyers tell me.
In short, Rick Falkvinge’s allegations are entirely without merit and are supported by nothing more than pure speculation which had already been debunked.
as well is that ^ So why on earth is GMAX's brain bound to legal shit? Should he not better be providing open source solutions for REAL BITCOINERS in a competitive open and fair / supporting way ? When does this childish stuff finally ends? We need a way of choosing parts & modules of competing teams- not a full singleton solution provider that also needs to care about legal, economics , game theory ... ? |
|
|
|
|
Sorry guys - this is definition just a bit too abstract for some....
I try to tell it better in a nice race-car story came into my mind with that. Try to find you in that story.
Some designer, sitting in his little house in a very quiet village, thought about an open race contest, to get some fun for all the few people in the neighborhood.
So he founded a 'racing company' with max 21 Mio shares, designed rules and also realized a flexible racing track, 1-2 cars to race on and some loge for the visitors that should be able to bet on the cars.
These people can only bet with parts of their shares and needed to be seated around the track. Seats were limited to 1 Mio for what reason ever...
The race was started every 10 min repeatedly, the people had to pass control gates to be seated always new into the limited betting-loges, place the bets (+fees) by throwing their shares onto the track, the cars had to collect as much as possible and the winner takes all fees and gets new 50 shares on top, than all betting shareholders have to exit and queue them again...
There is no rule on how the cars should look like, and first cars where just cheap as possible. First year there were only 2-3 friends, building up competitive teams, cars and stuff around, but mostly doing that race alone, mostly without any betting shareholders, mostly because it was fully unknown.
After some time more and more people joined that 'community', since it was good open fun and simple rules.
More and more racing teams appeared building better cars that were faster and could collect the bets faster.
And also the Chinese joined with 'infinitive' men power and energy resources...
The people came to watch from outside, to join (buy shares) & bet on the cars, trade the shares, helped to build new cars, improve the tracks. But finally it was clear that only a limited number of distinct racing teams could survive the material fight, and it is pretty much clear that you need at least 10-20 different teams to have a real race & bet condition, attracting more and more people. Who want's to watch just 3 cars ?
Only design issue still: The limited seats for the inner circle to bet on the race.
Who should be in charge to change things here? Who sits in the old design office (having no own team in the race anymore)? Who has most at stake and risk their lives and cars on any decent but crappy change?
Where are you seated?
Most of us are simple share holders - no real race-team owners or track supporters, no REAL BITCOINERS, with lots to loose and hard to get out the game.
These full teams I try to define as the real users in charge. Not just a simple shareholder that can sell all his shares in a minute....
|
|
|
|
ow yea...
then miners should be limited to use BTC only for them selves and not selling them ...
miners they don't do shit to btc price but they dump all time that is all.
And people who are prooviding initiatives for those miners are real users who buy those BTC.
BTC miners doesn't need BTC they want just USD how they fuck you are calling them only users.
I would called them full dumpers. Economy is like it is and miner =/= user.
Miners provides service for users. Your definition is fuked up.
Without users you won't have any miners, because no one will pay you for electricity.
Without miners users we can live we ca go back to descop mining i don't see it that bad.
I m not saying, that bitcoin does not need plenty of hodlers, traders and other typ of users thats the surrounding economy. I only say, that full users = miners have lots of investment at stake, not your 1 bitcoin you might hodl. And no, they not just Dump big scale, that would tank the price and lower their value at stake. |
|
|
|
|
All so called 'active user' (UASF) here are either just small Hodlers or Trolls.
why?
Satoshis first job as a real USER was: launch a miner ( full client )
All following code / task splits were only to optimize things and share tasks ( miner, node, wallet, hodl ), but the biggest users invested most in mining also because of incentives.
So to claim to be a full Bitcoin user, you should :
Run a full node, mine and hodl. Be a maximal supporter of the network and scale the shit!
Just runnign a Rasp PI and own less than say e.g. 1 Bitcoin is nice and a good start, but does not qualify enough to say : full user.
Finally, these full users should also do full risk checks about any code, hardware and all the rest and decide what to set into production -> their risk!
BTW, beeing a miner safes your ownings best!
|
|
|
|
Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run? Rasp PI Banks should not be the only people running nodes. Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?
Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours: It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).
Please read the thread before posting. "bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"
Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now. 40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack. In my view, there's a fine balance. The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available. The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation. Read before posting. Where is written 'only banks' ? OK, fair point. However, poorly interpreting (or being hyperbolic about) your wording is not the same as actually lying and acting like Lauda said the exact opposite of what they did. Once you could point me to, pls explain why you want people do the txs rather off-chain than onchain? Since this will be the result of your order, correct?
Offchain first. It doesn't mean people should do all of their transactions offchain, it just means that for microtransactions offchain transactions are necessary, and that it's important to be as efficient as possible before raising the block size. It was never actually practical to walk into a coffee shop and do a zero-confirmation transaction. You can either do that zero-confirmation and have the merchant risk not getting their money, or you can stand there saying "hang on, just a few minutes", until your transaction gets confirmed. That's the scenario that needs offchain transactions. And if you got that, than tell us, how far is that away, from moving people into alts directly?
Not at all comparable to altcoins, nor is raising the block size through a hard fork IMO. Last, what do you think is more expensive, spamming 1MB blocks or 2MB blocks up to the limit?
It's the same cost to spam the same amount of space. Neither SegWit nor block size increases would actually mitigate spam very well. If they wanted to fill the whole block I recognise that it would be more expensive, but it's still not very expensive to do that. The point is that a higher block size means there's more space in which it's possible for someone to spam and put strain on node users. Ok. No of your points is addressing the risk of SW and compares it with simple BS increase. All efforts you do is more off chain ( first...). This will change code, design AND Nash equilibrium ( discussed in the ck's SW2x thread). Are you still just fear the HF ? Or now rather fear the other 3 more realistic risks I outlined? My point is clear. Do only such changes if you really understand all impacts. SW changes just too much and bitcoin network is too complex. So do little BS increases and see. HF is well known to cryptoland. |
|
|
|
Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run? Rasp PI Banks should not be the only people running nodes. Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?
Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours: It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).
Please read the thread before posting. "bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"
Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now. 40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack. In my view, there's a fine balance. The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available. The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation. Read before posting. Where is written 'only banks' ? Once you could point me to, pls explain why you want people do the txs rather off-chain than onchain? Since this will be the result of your order, correct? And if you got that, than tell us, how far is that away, from moving people into alts directly? Last, what do you think is more expensive, spamming 1MB blocks or 2MB blocks up to the limit? |
|
|
|
Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.
Fees may have plummeted from their highs, but they are still considerably higher than they were 6 months ago namely 5x higher. Anyway, I always thought that it was the 'big block' side that was doing the spamming. It seemed to be the consensus on these forums and made logical sense, look there are too many transactions and fees are high we need bigger blocks. But the timing of it stopping could now equally point to it being the 'small block' side doing it to force their solution of segwit through, now that it's highly likely that it's going through either with UASF or Segit2x no need to continue. The 2mb part is still to come, if it's just a lull and resumes again post segwit, it will point back to the big blockers, because there will be zero reasons then for the small block side to do it. At least the question will be answered. there has been some speculation about who is spamming and why, but i personally think it was the miners all along! they had the incentive: increasing fees and making more profit, also showing we need scaling solution they also had the money to do it: the extra fees helped a lot! up to 3.5 BTC fees per block is 10 times more than what you use for spamming. .... and it is soooo eays and cheap with 1MB ....... |
|
|
|
https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked. Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months. Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so. FFS. Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs. Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs. When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic. Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released. NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE. This is not a good excuse. When you use buggy Microsoft software, you dont have thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands or more invested in it. It might be easy for you to say that because you might only have a small investment in BTC, but make that investment large enough and you find yourself on the conservative side of things with development. That's irrelevant as usual people miss the point. All software have bugs. There are bugs that are minor, sometimes "terrible bugs" that can be costly. It is the "terrible bugs" that bitcoin need to avoid. So long testing is being done, bugs fixed, more testing... i'm ok with it. No need to panic. Minor bugs are a fact of life when running softwares. Good that you picking up that one. Yes there are always bugs in every code line. Most of the 'terrible' or 'show stoppers' you can find in UAT testing phases. But in bitcoin there is no bounty for attackers in testnets, so in production you can be sure, any code line added is getting to increase the risk! But I'm also very concerned about design 'bugs' like we have in SW -> e.g. moving the witnesses out of the blocks. This is next critical level nobody can tell you it works in production. It can be more terrible than your code bugs. Finally we have economics working in Bitcoin > a Nash equilibrium to save Look at SW- It is full of new code, other design, we hear it might change the Nash equilibrium - > RISK , RISK, RISK A simple block increase is a no-brainer! Cut the down side! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
