-snip-
You are most definitely a shill; the pattern is very obvious. What 'pattern', exactly, are you referring to? An opinion which does not comport to your preconceived notions, which in turn have been inculcated bereft of critical thought? You have absolutely no basis for your slander. Further, your proofless slanderous attacks only reduce your credibility even further. Even your (former) acolytes have to be WTF-ing by now. You, Lauda, are an insignificant gnat. Meanwhile, you still are acting as a definitive shill for gunbot. Shameful, really. Unless of course you can point to me actually saying that.
And what number, do you *cough*, agree is *acceptable* as a entry cost for a node (and not the non-listening ones)? Nice deflection. In other words, you did indeed lie - as proofed by your inability to support you libelous claim. That shown, I'll even give you an answer. As much money as it takes to not choke off usage.Ahh.. look at all those BU noobs like Jbreher...
The raw low intellect from those shills are unbelievable.
You have no fucking idea. Even when evidence of your absurdity is but a click or three away. Cocksure in your ignorance - a perfect representation of your ilk. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Tl;dr: The shill, jbreher, tries to defend the interests of his employer by wanting to centralize Bitcoin.  lie... the only thing I do for my employer with respect to Bitcoin is act as Principal Representative to ANSI/INCITS's US national peer to ISO's committee on Blockchain Standardization.
and lie again... The $20k ... is the same number that shills like jbreher ... agree with.
Unless of course you can point to me actually saying that. On top of being a proven shill for gunbot even. You just don't know when to stop digging, do you? |
|
|
|
I am wondering if you and I could drink beer over these kinds of differing perspectives? I am kind of inclined to think that each of us would be frustrated in such a conversation, so we would not really be able to get through our first beer, right?
Aww gee, I was just assuming that we'd move on to other topics by the second round. |
|
|
|
Why are you unable to answer my questions/statements? The interests of your employer are being exposed, aren't they? Paid shilling by jbreher at its finest.
What the hell are you bawling about? The only questions from you I can find in your last several posts is two rhetorical questions. To wit: Interests of your employer?
and (escalating, are we?)
As to the first, the only thing I do for my employer with respect to Bitcoin is act as Principal Representative to ANSI/INCITS's US national peer to ISO's committee on Blockchain Standardization. As to the second - yes, no, whatevs - doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'.
You are not participating in any possible way. Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests.
Interests of your employer? Got it. Your main interest (or that of your employer) is the centralization of Bitcoin and a transition from a peer-to-peer, to a proxy-to-proxy network. OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill.
Which is absolutely wrong. I am not supposed to advance the interest of anyone with the current signature that I am wearing. As to whether or not I am unwanted....
Per definition, cancer. The quoted parts have nothing to do with what I wrote. A clear distinction can be seen in your previous statements on non-mining nodes and the recent ones. I wonder why that is.  Again - quoting fully to avoid any impropriety, and to commemorate your obtuseness, ignorance, and malfeasance: Again, if you are *unpaid* (not that anyone would believe this after following these threads around) and you are not actively participating in this community in any possible way, and you are likely unwanted, why are you here?
Now you are being a special kind of stupid. My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'. Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests. ' My interests', defined herein for the purposes of this thread, consist essentially of the increased utility of Bitcoin, leading to the increased usage of Bitcoin, leading to wider adoption of Bitcoin, leading to the appreciation of my non-insignificant Bitcoin holdings. As I have held consistently. OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill. As to whether or not I am unwanted.... I guess that sucks to be you. Strangely enough, until CW and other scammers claimed that the peer-to-peer model was worthless (proxy-to-proxy datacenters seem to be desirable), neither Jonald nor you were diminishing the value of user nodes.
Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080(some emphasis not in original) OK, I guess it is true that I was not "diminishing the value of user nodes". But that is just because you are evidently incapable of Englishing. I believe the word you were looking for was 'denigrating'. Which indeed is shown by the above quoted material. In case you _still_ can't grasp elementary grammar, it is impossible to 'diminish' an entity without directly interacting with that very entity. Because, English. |
|
|
|
Again, if you are *unpaid* (not that anyone would believe this after following these threads around) and you are not actively participating in this community in any possible way, and you are likely unwanted, why are you here?
Now you are being a special kind of stupid. My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'. Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests. 'My interests', defined herein for the purposes of this thread, consist essentially of the increased utility of Bitcoin, leading to the increased usage of Bitcoin, leading to wider adoption of Bitcoin, leading to the appreciation of my non-insignificant Bitcoin holdings. As I have held consistently. OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill. As to whether or not I am unwanted.... I guess that sucks to be you. Strangely enough, until CW and other scammers claimed that the peer-to-peer model was worthless (proxy-to-proxy datacenters seem to be desirable), neither Jonald nor you were diminishing the value of user nodes.
Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080 |
|
|
|
No. You are the one accusing me of being a paid shill. The burden of proof is upon you. Because, logic.
This is not even what we are talking about. Factually speaking, you're a shill. It does not need proving, especially not when you're diverting. You are receiving payment for an advertisement in your sig. This is, by definition, shillery.
The latter is not even a word, and the foremost has nothing to do with my opinion on the hostile takeover attempt BU/ABC (or whatever scam name you try to use next time). Therefore, your statement is not logically coherent. Of course, your statements usually aren't. Yes. I have reading comprehension. You, OTOH, have a lack of reading comprehension.
Enjoying that Ver and Jihad money, are you? Quoted in entirety in order to memorialize your obtuseness, irrationality, and denial of logic. |
|
|
|
Which is again another assertion for which you have provided no evidence.
You want me to debunk you, yet you've provided no evidence whatsoever? No. You are the one accusing me of being a paid shill. The burden of proof is upon you. Because, logic. What really makes it funny is that your gunbot sig makes you definitively a paid shill.
The creator of it is a very good friend of mine. He has nicely contributed to the ecosystem, unlike cancerous idiots like yourself and jonald. You are receiving payment for an advertisement in your sig. This is, by definition, shillery. You have reading comprehension.
Yes. I have reading comprehension. You, OTOH, have a lack of reading comprehension. |
|
|
|
yet even you seem to be playing into the misleading factors such as seeming to blame bitcoin's current design for transaction times and fees..
Misleading factors!? Transaction times and fees are directly attributable to Bitcoin's current design.  SegWit should help by making blocks "lighter" and that should give us some breathing room for a bit. Making blocks bigger is just a dumb brute force way of approaching the problem,
Yet SegWit's approach to making blocks lighter is by making blocks bigger. Then 'lying' about what size they actually are. |
|
|
|
... the hashpower heavy miners who think they know better or are smarter than Core.
Perhaps they are smarter than Core. At least in any dimension that has real-world impact. For they did not abdicate their (hash)power over the protocol, whereas pretty much the rest of us did. Pretty smart, in retrospect. |
|
|
|
First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.
Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality. Well, then you should have no problem disproving at least one portion of what I typed with evidence of facts and reasoning therefrom. Instead, all you've got so far is platitudes. You have provided absolutely no kind of evidence, unless I've missed it and/or you've stealthy inserted it into some post. "Reasoning" is not evidence, considering you're a paid shill. Which is again another assertion for which you have provided no evidence. What really makes it funny is that your gunbot sig makes you definitively a paid shill. Yes, that is evidence. Evidence that some percentage of Steam gamers will likely not be Bitcoiners in 2015. That is a brain-dead criterium. If you want to be a first-order member of the network that protects the most significant financial technology since the 1400's, buck up for a real machine. If not, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin security is a net negative. |
|
|
|
First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.
Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality. Well, then you should have no problem disproving at least one portion of what I typed with evidence of facts and reasoning therefrom. Instead, all you've got so far is platitudes. |
|
|
|
And that's not the real issue. The real issue is that - if you're not willing to part with less than a half-bitcoin in order to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative. Fuck right off.
Who are you, to force me to pay half a Bitcoin, to achieve financial sovereignty? Look, peabrain - I'm not forcing you to do anything. First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative. Leave this forum and Bitcoin,
Fuck right off. |
|
|
|
Which is absolute nonsense. I have no idea why you are trying to push your, clearly uneducated, opinion on the matter? Do you really expect me to run a node, on the same machine that I'd play games on? Do you want the entry for nodes to be >$1000 worth of hardware? If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.
Which is absolute nonsense. The machine I run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet upon, cost me $300. Several years ago. And that's not the real issue. The real issue is that - if you're not willing to part with less than a half-bitcoin in order to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative. Fuck right off. |
|
|
|
..study built upon faulty premise.
what premise is that? That Steam gamers and their machines are equivalent to Bitcoin node operators and their machines. aka ... I coulda had a V8, but all I got is this lousy rice burner - but at least it's got a fart pipe |
|
|
|
Mini PC such as Raspberry Pi 3B will struggle since they have small RAM.
It's no problem if most of people who run full nodes can afford better computer to run full nodes.
RaspPi users can fuck right off. If you want to be an integral part of the most significant advance in financial technology since the 1400's, use a real machine. Don't cripple the network just because your cheap ass doesn't want to meet the required expenditure. That is a compelling study and I'm definitely concerned about centralisation.
That is an ancient study built upon faulty premise. |
|
|
|
If BIP148 fails, many of us will be splitting off to a new (Bitcoin-balance-continuation) altcoin with another PoW algorithm. You're welcome to join us, if it comes to that. Y'all ready for this? Never interrupt your enemy when he is in the process of making a mistake. |
|
|
|
It's almost as though they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
It's exactly as though they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. |
|
|
|
however, if gmaxwell tells us that it "rejects its own blocks" because they are smaller than 1 MB, one would think that it DOES implement a lower block size limit).
Well, yes. But gmaxwell has a way of speaking whereby he says one thing, while building the impression in the reader's mind that he is saying something different altogether. |
|
|
|
Or are you saying that exchanges and users simply won't use segwit transactions?
^^^ pretty much this. Note that segwit transactions, for all their 'benefits', also implement a different security model than Bitcoin transactions. A weaker one. I'll not be accepting segwit transactions. At least not if I can help it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
