|
RE: localbtc anybody can link me to the website with all the pretty charts of volume by country?
|
|
|
|
We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this" Your response implies that you thought I said the opposite. Is that intentional, or just a genuine mistake? You also wrote That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
which is what I was mainly addressing. Spare me the rest of your platitudes.... The second sentence was referring to much of the discussion on this thread. This was not clear and I apologise for the confusion this may have caused. (EDIT: so we agree then? the developers aren't arguing like the petulant children on this forum and will find common ground) I agree. If anything we should get a clearer idea of where this is going this weekend but all the while Bitcoin continues to be awesome and has no foreseeable obstruction in sight. .  |
|
|
|
We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this" Your response implies that you thought I said the opposite. Is that intentional, or just a genuine mistake? You also wrote That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
which is what I was mainly addressing. Spare me the rest of your platitudes.... |
|
|
|
We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this" I notice alot of people using this forum as a platform to berate it. I also notice that alot of people are using this forum as a platform to advertise alternative forums. Kind of an inconsistency between what these two groups are saying and what they're doing: Why do they keep coming back here if bitcointalk.org is held in such contempt? Meh, if only they would stick with their VERified Kingdom. There surely must be as much freedom as idiocy there. As ICEBREAkER aptly predicted let's just say they are having their their own freedom of speech problems  https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3uyyfx/i_didnt_think_this_day_would_come_but_ive_been/ |
|
|
|
We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this" |
|
|
|
So the OP is gone forever? The biggest and most knowledgable Bitcoin advocate from back in the day is gone forever from the "official" Bitcoin forum. wtf
He didn't end up being a scammer like cypherdoc or goat did he?
On Topic: Keeping the spam restriction is a great idea. Probably not forever.
He did actually Secondly, I'm not aware of any blatant scammery that Gerald was involved in. I may just not be paying close enough attention, so if you wish to expand on your statement that would be interesting. Was going to but was posting from my phone. I just was able to retrieve the info from my desktop. It kinda flew under the radar indeed. Here goes: Gerald Davis a.k.a. DeathAndTaxes of BitSimple (BitSimple.com) and Tangible Cryptography (tangiblecryptography.com) sought out and accepted $600,000 in fiat and bitcoin from investors in January 2014. These funds were acquired by selling stock in Tangible Cryptography and were to be invested in BitSimple.com.
BitSimple.com shut down bank transfer operations in May 2014. The investors were not informed until August 2014. Mr. Davis was asked to consider dissolving the company in August 2014 after he reported a theft of around $25,000 and no banking accounts. Gerald Davis did not respond and failed to communicate to shareholders from August 2014 to January 2015. During this time a six figure amount of US dollars was redirected to Mr. Davis and members of his family.
In February 2015 Gerald asked us to vote for a company dissolution and scheduled the fist company meeting. The shareholders refused to vote for dissolution because promised finical reports were not delivered.
Gerald Davis then asked for more time due to personal reasons and this was granted. However at this time Gerald Davis is no longer communicating or responding to investors. The BitSimple fiasco
Somewhere in early January 2014 (during a chat about immersion cooled high-density ASICs) DaT incidentally told me that he was collecting money for a seed funding of his BitSimple exchange service. I did not even thought about it twice but agreed to buy what is left and ended with 390k from a total of 1200k series A shares. With the total sum of $600k collected, my payment was a $195k equivalent in BTC. Iirc, all of the handful investors paid in BTC, which made this seed funding the first processed completely in the BTC domain. Shares were managed by the gust platform.
I was very well aware of the involved risk, but at the same time I felt it is not worse than putting my coins into pre-orders of mining equipment or into doubious bitcoin companies. After being defrauded and betrayed by so many, my hope was straight and simple: if there is one person to remain honest, it must be DaT - if he did not, it was time to leave this community.
What happened thereafter is what OP is reporting. I was very disappointed to realize that Gerald managed to spend the collected funds mostly to pay his employed family-members - even if most of the time the exchange was not operational due to a missing bank account. Even if this might be legal, it is very unethical and puts him and his intentions in a very suspicious light. Still, I was willing to accept this as business failure when the company is dissolved and remaining assets were distributed to investors (which would give us back some 15%). But shortly after the investors agreed to do so, DaT stopped communicating and is not reachable any more for the past 6 months.
This is a sad ending for a bright shining star.
You too, Gerald? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=998257.msg12620721#msg12620721 |
|
|
|
So the OP is gone forever? The biggest and most knowledgable Bitcoin advocate from back in the day is gone forever from the "official" Bitcoin forum. wtf
He didn't end up being a scammer like cypherdoc or goat did he?
On Topic: Keeping the spam restriction is a great idea. Probably not forever.
He did actually |
|
|
|
Guess I was wrong guys, this pump continues. Sold at 377 when I saw it running out of steam, rebought at 377 when I saw manipulation maintenance buys coming in to extend the wedge, now it's 379 o_O. If manipulators were going to dump I don't think they would be trying to extend this wedge at all and already would have dumped, so to infinity dollars we go!
it's going to "crash" very soon... it make sense to support slightly lower prices as you unload slightly higher, scraping 1% as you unload, i do this often. bulls just wrecked themselves, when the selling is done the support from the scraping is done too. and what are you left with? a bunch of lagtards trying to grab profits as the top clearly forms, then panic ensues and i cover. Exactly, 13 1-week candles, and 12 of them green? It'll balance out soon.  we're just getting started |
|
|
|
I would have serious doubts that bitstamp even runs one single full node of their own ... probably outsourced.
you *seriously* beleive that a major bitcoin exchange does not operate thier own node? Something that can be achieved for <$100 with a standalone device and uses <64GB of storage? get real. you can buy a 1TB harddrive for $50 today and store BIP101-enabled blockchain onto it for years to come. then pay $50 more for a 4TB drive to handle a few more years of growth. or are you still using the same computer you owned in 1999 with its 1.6GHz singlecore, 512MB ram, and 60GB HDD (all cutting edge)? Running Bitcoin core is another thing than building a complete software stack for an exchange. There's a reason companies like Chain, BlockCypher, etc. exist. I wouldn't be surprised to know that Bitstamp uses one of these companies API to support their operations. Hell they run BitGo's multi-sig wallet code. All that jazz strapped onto Bitcoinica footprints. What could go wrong heh Mike Hearn has often hinted to this himself. There is important developer's cost into building a full fledged node software. Specialization in that regard is a real concern. |
|
|
|
One of the negative impacts of the 1 MB limit has been to encourage vertical intergration of ASIC production and mining in China. A higher limit would have encouraged the export oF ASIC hardware from China since China itself is an edge case for Internet bandwith and latency because of the great firewall of China.
Did I read that wrong  How does that follow again? It happens that China is the cheapest place to make Bitcoin ASICs but also has a lousy Internet connection to the rest of the world. If one increases the blocksize this puts miners in China at a disadvantage. It leads to decentralization because there is now a strong incentive to sell and export the ASIC hardware rather than for the manufacturer to just operate the ASIC hardware themselves creating vertical intergration. I'm sorry I don't see it. Seeing as China more or less controls 50% of the hashing power they could actually be at an advantage against more dispersed western miners. Such a move would likely see them ramp up ASIC production. |
|
|
|
I am using the 50% figure for bandwidth from the reference I provided. I do not know where the lower 25% figure comes from. With respect to the great firewall of China affecting Internet latency, this is no secret to anyone who has actually researched Bitcoin mining. As to my Internet connection I actually live in a smaller centre, in a larger centre in the same province I could get 1 Gbit/s download and upload http://urbanfibre.ca/ rather than the 50 Mbit/s I get for approximately the same price. Yes. It's this bit I can't quite process A higher limit would have encouraged the export oF ASIC hardware from China In regards to the internet connection discussion, reality check:  |
|
|
|
One of the negative impacts of the 1 MB limit has been to encourage vertical intergration of ASIC production and mining in China. A higher limit would have encouraged the export oF ASIC hardware from China since China itself is an edge case for Internet bandwith and latency because of the great firewall of China.
Did I read that wrong How does that follow again? |
|
|
|
...
As per Satoshi's "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System": P2P is a 'prerequisite' for the system to 'enable' electronic cash.
It does not work the other way around.
But these spammers dont even care about decentralization, so boring.
The decentralization argument is bogus since it ignores Nielsen's law, Moore's law etc. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ 1MB in 2008 when Bitcoin was first announced is actually equivalent to 17 MB today. (50% compounded per year for 7 years). "the decentralization argument is bogus since it ignores bogus laws observations" derppp |
|
|
|
About mining pools and the presumption that they help with decentralization of the network, maybe it's time to re-consider these assumptions  |
|
|
|
Cool, let's make the blocksize huge guaranteeing that the nodes are run by datacenters so goverments can control Bitcoin. Really cool way to ruin the project.
Don't worry, the loud nobodies on reddit in no way, shape or form constitute any kind of economically relevant entity with regards to Bitcoin. Most of these zealots don't control an iota of hashing power or any significant amount of BTC. Chinese are responsible for at least 50% of the ecosystem and they couldn't care less about the hijacking attempts of a couple of US corporations |
|
|
|
I think that some of these more fundamental questions like the blocksize for instance are more concerned with politics and economics then computer science, which is in part why I do not consider the Core developers fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin a good thing. You might have spend a lifetime studying computer science but there are other people that have spent a lifetime studying economics and politics that do disagree with you. The humanities are more concerned with the study of human culture, as oposed to more objective scientific facts which is what computer science is more involved with.
I do not consider you to be an expert on economics and politics, I most certainly do acknowlige you to be one of the best experts in the fields of computer science within Bitcoin. However sometimes it can be the case that engineers can awnser some questions very differently compared to schollars in different fields of thought. The engineers are not always correct, especially in fields that are not within their own area of expertise
So basically you're saying you choose to ignore scientific evidence and prefer to rely on confirmation bias by cherrypicking pseudo-scientific (politics, economics) arguments that fits your "ideology". You're a goddamned lunatic. |
|
|
|
I accused Core of hypocrisy because they said they would not implement any contentious changes. This is part of the reason they gave for not presently increasing the blocksize. However now they are releasing RBF which certainly is a contentious change. Without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus, this is hypocritical.
The beacon of hypocrisy resides in the person championing freedom of choice & liberty of Bitcoin implementations yet expressing ignorant contempt & outrage any time Core merges code he doesn't agree with. While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.
It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.
This. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Yes I acussed Core of hypocracy because they said they would not implement any contentious changes. This is part of the reason why they are presently not increasing the blocksize according to them. However now they are releasing RBF which certainly is a contentious issue. Without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus, this is hypocritical.
Opt-in RBF is a twist on Satoshi's original implementation of unconfirmed transaction replacement. It is not imposed on any individual user and therefore is as much a contentious issue as multi-signature is, which is to say not at all. Different variations of it have been discussed over the years and the current implementation has been reviewed, vetted & ACKED by a majority of the participants to the Bitcoin open-source repo. Every single miner is free to opt out from this behaviour hence the outright stupidity of suggesting it requires miner consensus. Go and do your homeworks will ya? It reduces the functionality of zero confirmation transactions. If I am a merchant should I reject RBF? Since if I did do this could cause other problems as well. Since it is the person that sends the transactions that chooses to opt in not the receiver. You claiming that this is not a contentious issue is obviously not true considering the noise that is presently being made on reddit even with all of the censorship. Most people on reddit haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Most of the noise is done by XTards such as yourself trying to make an issue out of everything that comes out of Core's shop nowadays because you are so butthurt your little fork remains marginal no matter how hard you shout while consensus clearly sits with Core. What an oblivious little whiner you are... the partisan act really is getting tired. It's time you fall into irrelevance and quit the stage, or, you know, just fork off. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
