Methinks you are lashing out because Bitcoin Cash has not yet cratered, and this prospect is starting to worry you. But that's just armchair analysis by one not specifically trained in psychology.
Methinks that even though you got your coveted 8mb forked coin that you said would solve all problems, it's you that are still worried. Because your shitcoin clone didn't suddenly get universally embraced and take over Bitcoin's market. And Bitcoin's price is still rising as adoption continues to accelerate. And because you still keep posting about it here. Give it up dude. Haha. I'm posting about it here, because this is where we discuss bitcoin. Sitting on a 777, on the way to SFO. In my Blockchain tee shirt I got at CES 2015. 'Cause it's what was on the top of the clean drawer. In this moment, I am serene. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Where are all the BCH defenders lol if it wasn't for me and you this thread would be dead
I'm here too. But it has already all been said. no sense trying to restore sight to the willfully blind (or argue with a sow, for that matter). If I see an untruth go unchallenged, I'll step in. Otherwise, why be a nudge? |
|
|
|
lies [misattribution by Last of the V8s - ed]
lies? Exactly one of us in this discussion is modifying quotes to misrepresent what the other has said. And it ain't me. So perhaps you'd like to elucidate at least one specific statement of mine that you believe is a lie? For reference: So what? So I am just pointing out that use of this completely countermands the entire 'lots of non-mining, fully-validating nodes are useful to the network as a whole' narrative.
I didn't say anything about BCash - neither about Bitcoin Cash, which is what I assume you meant (BCash is an entirely different project based upon zk-snarks).
I have no complaint about Blockstream broadcasting their blockchain via satellite. More power to them. I'm sure some will find it useful.
And I have no unease regarding the trends in regards to the competition of Bitcoin Segwit vs Bitcoin Cash.
Methinks you are lashing out because Bitcoin Cash has not yet cratered, and this prospect is starting to worry you. But that's just armchair analysis by one not specifically trained in psychology. i don't like quoting your lies. the bolded part. while your uncommon use of 'countermand' muddies the waters somewhat, the whole of your statement is purposefully dishonest. idc about altcoins. No lies here. The Blockstream Satellite project is supposed to broadcast the One True Chain, correct? The Blockstream Satellite project sources this One True Chain from the relay network, correct? The relay network is a high speed backchannel whose primary purpose is to tie all miners together directly in a low latency network free of hops through non-mining nodes, correct? You really can't connect these dots? |
|
|
|
If you haven't got $100 million to spend on supporting this nascent decentralised network with a broadcast satellite network you should just piss off? amirite?
There is nothing decentralized about a single sanitized version of the chain. How would that be possible? in any meaningful way the chain is the chain.....right? (genuine question) a gentle reminder - if you could answer the question honestly this time, that would be great Yeah - see one or two posts above this one. Your turn. |
|
|
|
If you haven't got $100 million to spend on supporting this nascent decentralised network with a broadcast satellite network you should just piss off? amirite?
There is nothing decentralized about a single sanitized version of the chain. How would that be possible? in any meaningful way the chain is the chain.....right? (genuine question) Well, that chain is that chain, to be sure. But if the One True Chain is chosen by a centralized party (i.e. those that own the satellite bandwidth, based upon the backchannel relay network that they also own in control if not own outright in a legal sense), then that One True Chain isn't very decentralized, is it? Is it not a central tenet of core-ians that it is multitudinous non-mining fully-validating nodes cooperating on validation that determines the One True Chain? Or are you admitting that such non-mining fully-validating nodes add no value to the system as a whole? (genuine questions) |
|
|
|
lies [misattribution by Last of the V8s - ed]
lies? Exactly one of us in this discussion is modifying quotes to misrepresent what the other has said. And it ain't me. So perhaps you'd like to elucidate at least one specific statement of mine that you believe is a lie? For reference: So what? So I am just pointing out that use of this completely countermands the entire 'lots of non-mining, fully-validating nodes are useful to the network as a whole' narrative.
I didn't say anything about BCash - neither about Bitcoin Cash, which is what I assume you meant (BCash is an entirely different project based upon zk-snarks).
I have no complaint about Blockstream broadcasting their blockchain via satellite. More power to them. I'm sure some will find it useful.
And I have no unease regarding the trends in regards to the competition of Bitcoin Segwit vs Bitcoin Cash.
Methinks you are lashing out because Bitcoin Cash has not yet cratered, and this prospect is starting to worry you. But that's just armchair analysis by one not specifically trained in psychology. |
|
|
|
who's buying this BCH   |
|
|
|
Probably not. There are scads of industrial blockchain projects underway that have nothing whatsoever to do with monetary applications. |
|
|
|
There are even free phone apps where you can just ping the metal and the microphone picks it up and tells you if it's real .999 silver by the resonance.
That sounds fantastic. What apps do this? |
|
|
|
If you haven't got $100 million to spend on supporting this nascent decentralised network with a broadcast satellite network you should just piss off? amirite?
There is nothing decentralized about a single sanitized version of the chain. |
|
|
|
The satellite allows those people to also be able to get the Blockstream's approved version of the blockchain (well part of it, only new blocks right now)
FTFA So what? I don't exactly see Ver/Wu/Wright et al building out any satellite capabilities for BCash. Compete or get left in the dust. So what? So I am just pointing out that use of this completely countermands the entire ' lots of non-mining, fully-validating nodes are useful to the network as a whole' narrative. I didn't say anything about BCash - neither about Bitcoin Cash, which is what I assume you meant (BCash is an entirely different project based upon zk-snarks). I have no complaint about Blockstream broadcasting their blockchain via satellite. More power to them. I'm sure some will find it useful. And I have no unease regarding the trends in regards to the competition of Bitcoin Segwit vs Bitcoin Cash. |
|
|
|
The satellite allows those people to also be able to get the Blockstream's approved version of the blockchain (well part of it, only new blocks right now)
FTFA |
|
|
|
YOu have 4200 fucking btc???
Those BTC must be fucking. How else could they have multiplied to such a number? |
|
|
|
45cm Ku Band Satellite Dish (antenna)
PLL LNB (linear polarization) w/ < = 200kHz LO stability
LNB Power Supply
LNB Mounting Bracket
Software Defined Radio interface
Cables, Connectors, and Mounting Hardware
1. Minimum 45cm Satellite Dish (bigger is better)
has to be down only, there is no uplink gear in that BOM thanks so we have to trust the chain they beam down? my node can't reject rule-breaking blocks? jbreher would love this non-starter Yeah - I already found more info, and edited my post above ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg20898842#msg20898842) To rehash my edit: more info is indeed available. Looks like a one-way* broadcast of Blockstream's version of the definitive chain as per the mining backbone. Seems like a useful addition. Should also drive hime how fallacious the idea is that non-mining, fully-validating nodes add any value to the network. Any node using this will be on Blockstream's filtered version of the truth, or not participate at all. *Looking for evidence of two-way comms. Without an uplink, the idea that this will allow participation by the masses lacking internet access is a hollow lie. |
|
|
|
Awfully sketchy on any details. One way or two? How many satellites in orbit? What percentage of the population do they cover? Uptime for each region? Of course, we've had bitcoin transmission over packet radio for years. I thought Blockstream didn't like Garzik's ideas? edit: more info is indeed available. Looks like a one-way* broadcast of Blockstream's version of the definitive chain as per the mining backbone. Seems like a useful addition. Should also drive hime how fallacious the idea is that non-mining, fully-validating nodes add any value to the network. Any node using this will be on Blockstream's filtered version of the truth, or not participate at all. *Looking for evidence of two-way comms. Without an uplink, the idea that this will allow participation by the masses lacking internet access is a hollow lie. |
|
|
|
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.
This problem has been pointed out to core devs almost since SegWit was A Thing. They acknowledge that it is technically possible, but they ridicule any notion that it is a practical risk. I believe they are gravely mistaken. The risk is unacceptable. While perhaps small initially, the risk grows unboundedly with the cumulative UTXO ever used in segwit transactions. |
|
|
|
Asset protection accountant is probably a good first step.
Good luck finding an 'asset protection accountant' that groks bitcoin ... even if such unicorns existed that'd be keeping pretty mum on the whole subject methinks. Isn't Rassah a CFP? |
|
|
|
I'm quite sure I have read at least some of these before. As such, they really aren't new. Not all of them anyway. I'm guessing Gregory is just pissed and trying to stifle the revelation that Satoshi directly contradicts several of Blockstream/Core's fundamental sacred cow axioms from his very first reply to Mike. The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling.
By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can.
The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.
Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. |
|
|
|
yeah but the small group behind XT, Classic, BU, this BCH hardfork and future segwit2x hardfork are a lot of the same small group who do not know how to work in the existing open system.. so they whine and they engage in sabotage methods.
We are not whining. We are not sabotaging. We are simply doing. |
|
|
|
That also sends a signal to the market that the "upgrade" is unanimously consensutated, even if it is done in a forcible way.
So is it logic that you don't understand, or is it English that you don't understand? Read again. Part 1) Sends the market the signal that the "upgrade" is unanimously consensuated. <- A signal, an "appearance". Not necessarily the "reality". Part 2) even if it is done in a forcible way <- The reality. As the 100% is forced in second stage after a 80% consensus first stage. That's basically what hapened with BIP91..., except BIP91 was already over 90%. You really don't realize that 'unanimous consent' and 'forcible' are diametrically opposed?
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
- G. Gubby Orwell |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
