maybe theymos figures Bcash is such weak sauce that allowing it to get tarred and feathered in the main forums will teach everyone a lesson about the november hard fork.

i'm guessing they're waiting for other exchanges to do it first. there's going to be a shitload of incoming Bcash deposits once trading opens on the major exchanges.

there's money to be made, but it's always good to see exchanges being cautious: the Bcash network isn't stable yet. block time is very long right now, and confirmations may not be reliable. that's why they can credit users (internally splitting the coins), but not accept deposits.

is anyone offering odds on the exchange relaunching? are people selling accounts? i guess a decent sample of account sales, judging by the percentage slashed off the value, would tell us the odds.

from everything i can gather, it seems that they likely hold/held fiat money in various shell companies several degrees removed from the exchange itself. i believe BTC-e never held bank accounts in its name. they had people transfer fiat through various intermediaries (involving Mayzus Financial) but i would think that the money is a bit harder to track than that. and hopefully out of reach of the US feds.

i hope they still have control of the cold wallets, but how do you know? any movement we see on the blockchain could be the btc-e admins OR the feds. either way, this is a shit sandwich for all involved. i had a little dough there, waiting to buy back, i consider it lost. sucks.

i'm not even sure if they are faking volume -- it is incredibly low already. a huge drop from their previous volume (as expected). but maybe it is pumped, even then. i do know some people trading there -- against my complaints -- so not everyone has left.

in time, i think these guys will be shut down (or voluntarily enter liquidation).

they paid out like $800k. that's meaningless, they held onto millions of dollars (as opposed to repaying customers) to keep in operations. that's where the 1% came from. look at their volume -- you think fees paid for that? the whole Bnktothefuture think is sketchy as hell. i would stay the hell away from this place...

it's a good read. unfortunately it's probably over the head of most of the sig spamming plebs in this forum. glad to see some people are gearing up for battle. i fucking winced when i saw Gavin talking hella shit in the 0.13.0 release thread on Reddit.

literally as soon as Segwit is included in a major release, he says bitcoin is failing to scale, becoming Myspace, blah blah blah. fucking traitor. tired of these clowns.

let the real devs do their work. Core is delivering bitcoin to the world on a platter.

11KpmvGoNNiSeJgdFZrZsLCrMhLQqpwWb

it's all relative. if/when bitcoin sees that price range, the sentiment and distribution of investors will have changed. at that point, it may seem that $5k is too low to sell. only time and market psychology can tell.

i am quite sure in some (probably most) cases, it's that they are too stupid. this is how things work. most people are stupid and buy into [stocks, technology, etc] long after its largest gains have already been made. even so, we don't need most people to use bitcoin for it to succeed.

nothing in this blog addresses the security concerns presented here. no mention of gains in mounting double spend attack vs cost to produce invalid blocks based on spv vulnerability. the 20 second window mentioned cannot be enforced at the node level, so anyone following non-validating miners is at risk of being on a bad chain. and not just for 20 seconds.

that blog is totally useless

i agree. all of the technical experts in the field gravitated to core, openly discuss proposals, have thorough peer review and code debugging. none of that is true of classic.

but i will point out: while i am staunchly on the side of decentralization and unbreakable consensus -- i am actually a socialist politically (to be specific, a market anarchist) so i don't think that it's necessarily political affiliation as much as a base misunderstanding by many (or most) users about how bitcoin works. people have been pushing this "free, instant transactions!" line for years, but it's always been bullshit. transactions have costs and there is no incentive to remain p2p if all costs are externalized to nodes. you either keep the network p2p by paying for it, or you don't, and you lose it.

the biggest problem is that people (predictably) gravitate to talking points without evidence, which is why they gravitate to Gavin -- the "we don't need to plan for worst cases, technology gets better so don't question anything, your criticisms are wrong but i don't need to provide evidence" master.

i'm pretty sure that anybody who knows anything doesn't believe a word of this crap. but in the end, crypto is the wild west. whatcha gonna do, eh?

it's not that i don't like it. it's that you haven't shown how it's applicable. what evidence do you have that there is such a "traffic jam" or if there is, that it is an actual problem?


i was referring to the actual growth in transaction volume (therefore block size) over time. i'd have thought this would be obvious. seems relevant to your suggestion that capacity is insufficient. there is a tendency to point to short term batches of 9xx kb blocks, then to ignore the 400-600 kb blocks that come after the backlog has cleared.

the network actually isn't under the constant load that some suggest, and during the times that it temporarily is, paying an extra tiny fraction of an mBTC in fees alleviates the issue.

anyway, this has nothing to do with evidence of your suggestion that there is an urgent problem here. since the transactions backlogs are always cleared and fees are miniscule, what's the problem again?

you said, "You mean roads are often widened *before* there's a traffic jam 24/7/365?" suggesting that this might actually happen.


what do your musings about traffic jams have to do with bitcoin transactions? how does "a bunch of unconfirmed transactions that are eventually cleared from the mempool and included in blocks" = a traffic jam? if it does, what's the problem?


nope, just think you should justify the comparison. youre suggesting that there is some urgent problem with bitcoin, but you can't seem to provide any evidence of it aside from irrelevant comparisons to traffic jams

what proof do you have that there will be "a traffic jam 24/7/365?" because there's a bunch of unconfirmed transactions that are eventually cleared from the mempool and included in blocks?

the horror!

average is simply a metric to filter out noise. by your logic, increasing the block size was urgent years ago when the first nearly-full block was mined. yet, we've continued to have a robust system that keeps chugging along, and fees are still cheap as fuck.

what proof do you have that there is actually an urgent problem?

i'm not sure what the definition of "shopping" has to do with the statement that bitcoin was intended to cut third parties out value transactions.

clearly not enough for what? what is the basis for comparison? is there another decentralized p2p system that eliminates third party trust, because that would be a more adequate comparison than a shopping mall.

i'm perfectly content to keep using Visa to go shopping.


the merchant (the gas station) gets screwed out of their money. the point of irreversible payments is to prevent this.


i've charged back against a merchant that did not provide the contracted services and refused to issue a refund. he'd rather i was unable to do that.


okay. i'll match your opinion with the opinion that the Classic camp has only brought "inane drivel & blatant lies."

literally...... that's just, like, your opinion, man. i don't think Core has said anything of the sort. maybe you can point to some such arguments from Core devs.


because weak blocks/IBLT's are estimated by Core to reduce bandwidth needs for nodes by 90%. that is 90% of the whole damn problem that we're talking about = safer to raise the limit.

i don't see any evidence that anything but a small minority is making noise about this.


you could say Classic devs are at the root of the contention. it just means disagreement. the easy answer is that no consensus on change = no change. that's how the protocol works.


why? blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. your opinion that "bitcoin is hitting the wall" isn't really founded in fact. the burden lies on you to explain how that is so.


nah, not more legitimate just saying that the burden of proof for why we need to make a change, falls on the person claiming we need to make that change.


yeah i dont think anyone gives a shit about what we say here. but here we are