Not exactly the segments I would have chosen for the highlights reel. Though I'm chuckling that I'm pretty sure this video was edited by someone who thought they were cherry-picking parts that put him in a bad light. I actually agree with most of that. Favorite paraphrase: 'If you've been in Bitcoin since 2009, and you can't afford a machine capable enough to keep up with demand, then piss off'. His rant was just puffed-up bluster and sound bites. He's honestly a hopeless communicator. And sort of a dick.
Well, I can't argue too strenuously against that. At least not from these excerpts. The entire presentation was still somewhat scattered, but certainly had a more consistent narrative than conveyed by the attack reel. Worth viewing in entirety. |
|
|
|
To the contrary: It's the big blockers that will kill bitcoin, by giving up the network to corporations that can be easily located and manipulated by governments and global attackers.
People that think giving the power of nodes to corporations is a good idea are either retards or have agendas that align with said corporations.
You are not making any sense. You think that non-mining nodes have any power to determine the direction of bitcoin? You're dead-fucking-wrong, but let's go with that for argument. Those corporations you so fear can buy thousands of RaspPis for every one that you small-blockers are running. What are you going to do when your beloved-yet-irrelevant RaspPi 'nodes' are outnumbered 1000:1? |
|
|
|
the Jihancoin would be the actual Bitcoin and not an altcoin.
Of course, your emotionally-laden terminology is used merely as subterfuge. Nevertheless, if such captures the economic majority, then such is indeed entitled to the name of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
And the safer means would be running some kind of core implemented software, right?
I don't see how. I thought that the framework of this current line of discussion was between the kinds of segwit to run, rather than not running segwit at all, which seems to be the additional framework that you are adding, Jbreher. OK, let us posit that there is some differential in 'safety' for some different 'kinds' of segwit. I still have no idea what you're getting at. Maybe you can explain why you would think some core implemented segwit code might be 'safer' than some other segwit code. |
|
|
|
Well, I registered my email to get their invitation to be so kind to let me to try that WildSpark. No invitation followed. Just explain me, guys, aren't the devs just funny clowns? The only info they collected from me is my email, and well, may be, IP address. How, based on this data, can they make decision who to invite and who not to invite? Don't they like letters in my email address or figures in my IP? This shows their attitude and, I am afraid, competence. Damn, I'm laughing.  Hey Yugu, I'm sorry, there must have been a bug in the form when you signed up. Please allow me to manually complete your registration process by asking you these questions: 1) What computer are you using? 2) When did you start using cryptocurrency? 3) What is your favorite color? 4) Cats, dogs or balloons? 5) If you could be one video on YouTube, what would it be? 6) You wake up in a dark alley, holding nothing but a sponge. Three men approach, one laughing manically. What do you do? 7) The number 74. For or against? Your answers will determine your place in line for being accepted to the WildSpark Beta. Thanks in advance. All you crying about Dor's response here lack any sort of vision whatsoever. This was exactly the most useful response that could have been rendered to Yugu's snowflake whine. With this, Elokane wins the internet for today. |
|
|
|
And the safer means would be running some kind of core implemented software, right?
I don't see how. SegWit opens several new unique attack vectors not present in pre-segwit bitcoin. The SegWit Omnibus Changeset opens several more. |
|
|
|
Wow! What an underappreciated video. I'm surprised their isn't more discussion in this avenue. At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money. One way to look at this, even if you're a hardcore anarchist or libertarian, is to consider the blockchain nodes in a similar way as Wikileaks mirroring sites: the grew from 208 - 1885 in one week of 2010. However, the content did not change between 208 and 1885. Geographic distribution is as much or more important than overall total nodes. The only way to guarantee 100% that you are downloading a valid copy of the blockchain is through a full node client as you validate everything while you download. I wouldn't trust any other method because possibility of man in the middle attacks. Good luck with that. You know that most clients -- Core included -- do not validate all transactions upon download, right? |
|
|
|
The 'Core' branding throws me for a loop. In what way is this not deceptive advertising? Or is this an actual product of Core? For all their faults, I never pictured them as a suicide.  Doesn't facilitating BIP148 actually allow for the pushing of the seg wit portion of implementation, and nothing else? Or do you think that BIP148 would have a potential to change governance? Perhaps you missed the following: Or is this an actual product of Core?To my meager understanding*, the UASF is based upon Core. It is a fork of Core. Correct? Well, so were XT, Classic, BitCore, and BU, right? If any of these projects branded themselves in this manner, would you be so dispassionate? Why is this project any different? *the economics of UASF guarantee its failure, so I never had an interest to look into the implementation. |
|
|
|
The 'Core' branding throws me for a loop. In what way is this not deceptive advertising? Or is this an actual product of Core? For all their faults, I never pictured them as a suicide. |
|
|
|
jbrehrer and the big-blocker nutters don't get why moderation is important to keep trolls under the bridge so he's gonna rage-quit the reborn wall observer (he rage-quit with his first post so its questionable whether he ever really participated so it's not a true rage-quit in the usual sense)
This isn't the reborn WO thread. It is a shallow impostor. other than that I think you're up to speed.
Confirmed. |
|
|
|
Update:
BitStamp USD/BTC BTCChina CNY/BTC Kraken EUR/BTC Kraken CAD/BTC CoinCheck JPY/BTC
----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
20 2017-06-28 2534.19 | 20 2017-06-05 18431.55 | 20 2017-06-25 2252.05 | 20 2017-06-28 3338.95 | 20 2017-05-23 292633.59
Back in the Top 20. Free lunch. Not bad. Incidentally, this may at times feel like a thankless task. I certainly appreciate the effort, dooglus. |
|
|
|
too many traffic on old thread ... and without the OP, self-moderation don't work at all (ETH invasion, SCAM invasion).
Self-Moderated actually mean that i have a "DELETE" button on every message in this subject.
And i can lock this thread, too ... to clean the development of ALTS/SCAM discussion.
After all ... why not ?
Yeeeahhh..... unhhh... NO. Unilateral has no place in a permissionless environment. You choose.
kthxby |
|
|
|
Mods be like:  But the forum ain't burned down yet - they can still reverse their bungle. |
|
|
|
But I thought $5,000 was a sure thing? Where are all the $20,000 BTC advocates?
still is; still here strategy unchanged was a winner through this anyway |
|
|
|
Here have an excerpt from tomorrows newspaper: 27.06.2017  Fake news. Picture is photoshopped. How do I know? That's my cousin from Boulder - Falling Bear. He's too scared of heights to even get in a plane, let alone go skydiving. In his defense, he only got this way after The Incident. |
|
|
|
It is indeed possible to generate blocks that are valid to both those proposals. As well as XT, Classic, 8MB, ... |
|
|
|
Do I need an argument? The guy has no credibility.
Yes, you need an argument. <because> his points stand on their own. ... blah blah blah ...So ..., how come nobody wants to talk about this aspect of SegWit? 1. I don't need a point. 2. I don't need an argument. 3. Others have already commented on it. 4. Feel free to talk more about CSW and whatever he says, waste of time if you ask me. He cried wolf too many times already.
It isn't about CSW. It's about an inherent weakness in SegWit. "Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People" - E RooseveltAnd I didn't even let my low opinion of the Roosevelts impede me from recognizing the truth in her statement. See how that works? Your insistence in making an aspect of SegWit into something all about CSW belies an irrational character flaw. |
|
|
|
Do I need an argument? The guy has no credibility.
Yes, you need an argument. Regardless of your opinion on CSW, his points stand on their own. And it's not like this is some new oddball claim he is discussing. It is an aspect of SegWit that we have known since inception, bot for some reason never gets discussed. Without SegWit, the most devastating thing a miner 51% attack could accomplish is to roll back some transactions. In all their expenditure, they are unable to claim others' coins for themselves. However, once SegWit activates, the attack surface of a 51% attack takes on a new aspect. If a miner (or a cartel thereof) accumulates 51% of the hashrate, they are able to steal the funds of others. All it requires is mining new non-Segwit blocks that contain transactions which spend the 'anyone can spend' transactions in previous SegWit blocks. Further, every additional block for all eternity contains additional incentive for the chain to be so attacked, as it will contain monotonically-increasing value locked in transactions that are SegWit under the new rules, but subject to theft via anyone-can-spend chain rollbacks. So CSW aside, how come nobody wants to talk about this aspect of SegWit? |
|
|
|
Everything has a master key
If that is your position, then yes, simply disagreeing will more than suffice. For you do not understand basic mathematics This has nothing to do with mathematics. It is more about making an offer which you can't refuse. And no, I don't mean every Bitcoin holder out there When discussing a master key for Bitcoin, it has everything to do with mathematics. If you want to discuss some other weakness you perceive in the overarching bitcoin sphere, then speak plainly about it. If you can't even label the weakness you think exists, it is likely you don't really understand what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Denial of what exactly?
of reality. Because you dont acknowledge you trust others when you validate the blockchain. For example with freshly installed linux operating system of your choice you most likely trust others who evalated every line of the code, and nothing interfere when your Bitcoin software validate the blockchain. The same with hardware, and so on. Individual can not check everything, so he has no other choice than trust others the things he is not checking really behave as he is expecting. Yes. And now we know that atoms are not the last division of matter. So what? Do you have an actual point related to the amount of trust I need to place in the integrity of THE BITCOIN BLOCKCHAIN? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
