Wasn't that F2P's own transaction to hoover up the coinwallet brainwallet dust? Its a pretty extreme boundary case, but surely the number of inputs ( and associated resources tied up) are the issue - not the size of the transaction per se. Thats why it got processed with no fees - normally these wouldn't be touched. edit: was brainwallet, not coinwallet |
|
|
|
So, the facebook generation or the twitteraty or similar starts using Litecoin, taking with them massive liquidity and a market cap 10 times (or more) that of Bitcoin. Why would you buy a car with Bitcoin instead of Litecoin? Why would you transfer 50 million USD from the US to China using Bitcoin rather than Litecoin?
 The poor generation somehow is going to lead the way for a coin to grow 10x the size of Bitcoin. There's strength in numbers. The common dross may be distasteful to you, but they do have volume.   So you are now saying that the number of transactions you do is directly proportional to your net worth? You are quite mad. |
|
|
|
So, the facebook generation or the twitteraty or similar starts using Litecoin, taking with them massive liquidity and a market cap 10 times (or more) that of Bitcoin. Why would you buy a car with Bitcoin instead of Litecoin? Why would you transfer 50 million USD from the US to China using Bitcoin rather than Litecoin?
The poor generation somehow is going to lead the way for a coin to grow 10x the size of Bitcoin. There's strength in numbers. The common dross may be distasteful to you, but they do have volume. |
|
|
|
Free market would have the same consequences in btc than in real life currency.
Real life currencies don't operate in a free market - they are heavily manipulated. And that has been the cause of most of its problems. If central banks had stuck to their original premise of being a safety net, instead of a 'guiding hand', things might have been better...  |
|
|
|
So I read that and it has lots of words but basically says nothing. It claims some type of Alex Jones' style "false left/right paradigm", then doesn't even describe a legit pathway forward or how each side is blocking that from occurring. IMO, Bitcoin will need to scale to at least 8-10MB blocks even with a Lightning Network because the masses have to retain access to the main chain for it to function. Its an irrelevant op-ed from someone who now finds himself in a no-mans-land of trying to defend a position (do nothing) that nobody is interested in. |
|
|
|
Its funny how ice and brg construe any connection with yahoo and google on Mike or Gavins part as "Gubmint", but seem happy to take the feds sheckles when it is paid via Blockstream... Are you indicating that they all have the same boss and this is just a show? I wasn't, but now that I think of it, you could be on to something there.... *grabs tinhat* brg has made many infantile ad hom attacks on Mike Hearn, citing his previous work for Google as evidence that he is in some way a US gov. agent. I just thought it funny - ironic even - that the very company he schills for 24/7 is heavily funded by these same firms. |
|
|
|
Pretty standard except that it point out flaws in code already used in production I can only imagine how disappointed you were when your employer told you you had to shill for a bunch of amateur charlatans  Yeah, so your gonna tell me your Yahoo Google Gubmint paymasters are more... what? Professional?  ps His comments refer more to format and lazy blocking than at any functional aspect of the code. But you knew that, right? |
|
|
|
We've all fallen short of the Glory of God.
Indeed.  |
|
|
|
Yes... it's confirmed to be happening in BJA's head. Honest injun.  Okay, I'll bite. What part of the analogy dont you like, or feel is less than accurate? Frequently, libertarians, such as BJA, become very prejudgemental about group action and the motives of persons in authority, such as representatives or government authorities. Therefore, these libertarians paint a picture, not as artfully done as Animal Farm, regarding bad motives of government officials. Sure there may be some truth to those kinds of bad motives playing out and developing in some situations, but bad motives and biases and self-dealings are not a given - except, I do understand that many countries, including the USA, need to figure out ways to lessen the influence of money in politics (and yes, there is a bit of an inexactness in suggesting the blockchain is governmental in the same way that politics is governmental. I am not taking any side for or against bigger blocks - well actually, it does seem that at some point in the near future, we are going to need to have bigger blocks... and even a plan going forward regarding bigger blocks without constant back and forth. To me, it seems that I am just a bit more comfortable and tollerant with allowing the back and forth process to play itself out without getting so worked up about it and accusing bad motives of others, rather than painting every scenario as doom and gloom or continuing to assert that the sky is falling, when that surely is not the case. What you need is a sense of humour. A sense of humour allows you to see things from both perspectives, because thats what jokes essentially are - regular stories which at some point suddenly change direction. Without it you will continue to see things from a fundamentalist perspective, and that it certainly no fun. A sense of humour would allow you to see the intelligence of his post, but still retain your own belief. |
|
|
|
Pretty standard code review there brg. I dont know the code intimately, but I reckon there is no more than a few hours to remedy it. You must be getting pretty desperate if you are skulking around in that forum. Maybe that was the smell Gavin was getting?  |
|
|
|
The author is Jonathan Toomim. Why are you confused?  You first linked a statement supposedly from representative of BTCC that was reported by Toomim. I pointed out to you that these statements had been made absent of clear consideration of the SW proposal. See the twitter link I posted? Now you reply with a completely different post from Toomim that is completely irrelevant so really I'm not sure why you think I'm the one who's confused. Synopsis: They dont really like SW. Nobody really likes SW. Its a pie in the sky notion at the moment, when what we really need is a working solution. You can pick at the time sequence of events all you like, but that is the gist. The market that you gypsies so vehemently hate is starting to speak and you don't really like what you are hearing. Edit: Maybe they should release 50% of SegWit first. They can call it Half-Wit. |
|
|
|
Yes... it's confirmed to be happening in BJA's head. Honest injun. Okay, I'll bite. What part of the analogy dont you like, or feel is less than accurate? |
|
|
|
Its funny how ice and brg construe any connection with yahoo and google on Mike or Gavins part as "Gubmint", but seem happy to take the feds sheckles when it is paid via Blockstream... |
|
|
|
Why are you still entertaining the notion that a network wide hardfork can be deployed faster than SW can?
because he clearly understands this better than you do. Block size limit can be changed in a heartbeat. Satoshi describes the whole process here. Most existing bitcoin elements will work with it without change. However, seqwit requires complete and complex changes to: - bitcoin transactions,
- blocks,
- addresses,
- scripts,
- full nodes,
- miners,
- wallets,
- explorers,
- exchanges,
- libraries,
- APIs
Not a single piece of the bitcoin ecosystem will work with segwit without an upgrade. No one proposes to rush through SegWit. It seems you are largely ignorant of what its deployment entail other than the couple posts you've read on reddit or Jeff's FUD.
Except you. Have you short term memory issues, or have you hit your limit on simultaneous threads? Earlier you are banging on about how segwit is here, ready for deployment. As regards what it involves to deploy - see above. SegWit is opt-in and if service providers are pro-active it can be ready to roll out when the code is implemented into Core. At least that's what the dev of the 2nd most popular iOS app plans to do.
Wrong. segwit is no longer optional. you may ignore it, but that puts you back to spv mode. Spare us your concern trolling unless you can provide a detailed account of the "massive upgrade" you talk about.
Spare us your Trolling, full stop. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile BankAmericoin, Applecoin, FBcoin and others are going to roll out their products and the first mover advantage will be squandered.
You seem to be missing the point of why we are here. BTC is not first mover in the ...centralized payment systems or centralized currencies space. The systems you mention, if they are ever created, will compete with visa, paypal, etc: Centralized stuff. Good point. Remember that bitcoin is actual value - all the others are just intermediaries for fiat. Paypal and Apple and the others never touch a red cent - they are just notification layers. What? Bitcoin is not a startup?! I'm sure that was profound in french. |
|
|
|
Totally up to them.. 02:44 gmaxwell thats lovely, they're climing v3 but not enforcing it. spv mining is relevent... how? |
|
|
|
[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.
If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc. Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice. That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them. I think you will find that it is. If it was then BIP100 would've been implemented months ago. Were they given the choice? No. So how the f*ck could they have implemented it? |
|
|
|
[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.
If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc. Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice. That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them. I think you will find that it is. edit: Kinda hope some of the miners see your statement - that they are not participating in an ecosystem, but merely the redundant host for a parasite. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile BankAmericoin, Applecoin, FBcoin and others are going to roll out their products and the first mover advantage will be squandered.
You seem to be missing the point of why we are here. BTC is not first mover in the ...centralized payment systems or centralized currencies space. The systems you mention, if they are ever created, will compete with visa, paypal, etc: Centralized stuff. Good point. Remember that bitcoin is actual value - all the others are just intermediaries for fiat. Paypal and Apple and the others never touch a red cent - they are just notification layers. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not about community, it is about money.
+1 Romanian Gypsy turds usually roll around in threesomes, where's icebreaker? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
