I'm still waiting for you to support this claim with a link to AA stating such.

Thanks

(Not that it _really_ matters, when there are 'experts' on both sides of this debate, but it would be nice if you were actually able to back up this claim that you have been repeating)

Very costly? You must be quite impoverished. Sorry for your state. Quite surprised by this, actually, given your status as a long-term bitcoiner.


That is categorically, unmitigatedly false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds

Last year's figures show not a single country that has an average internet bandwidth limit as low as you claim. Not one. Even the absolute lowest listed average bandwidth is 50% greater than your claimed figure. There may be some unlisted country that has an average rate as low as you claim, but they will of necessity be inconsequential to decentralization anyway.

Further, 1MB/s is well in excess of the rate needed to operate a meaningfully-connected full node. As is 200KB/s (your 1/5 figure).


Seems the world's internet infrastructure already got a whole lot more robust while you weren't paying attention.


Have been. Several on one physical machine, actually. No, I don't understand your point of view.


In your statement that you do run a full node, you implicitly admit that this has not happened to you. Why are you fearmongering?


If your commitment to your games is greater than your commitment to Bitcoin, then Bitcoin does not need your help.


Nope. Don't understand your point of view at all. Maybe if you restate your concerns in some manner that makes sense?


Calling on government to fix some issue peripheral to Bitcoin seems like a very odd thing to do. Would it not make more sense to figure out some way to create a higher bandwidth connection for all within your geographic community? That is, if bandwidth is an actual barrier to your running a full node - a case which you have not yet made convincingly.

Now, there are valid reasons to resist the adoption of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (i.e., Core 0.13.1 et. seq.). However, bandwidth concerns may be the weakest argument you could possibly make. We have sufficient bandwidth to maintain decentralization - be it bigger blocks though The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, or bigger blocks through a simple bump of maxblocksize.

Nope - it ended with the absolute bottom of the crash being about twice the pre-pump price.

So what -- exactly -- was Greg awarded as a lovely parting gift?

No, you cannot. You (possibly) can find the key on that site for any address in the Bitcoin network. But any is not every. The distinction is not subtle.

Once you understand the difference, you will recognize how futile your search is.

You should be aware that your shillerry comes with a price. See my sig for just one reason why.

I personally think Andreas has been, and will continue to be, a great asset to the Bitcoin community. That said, his greatest strength is not as a thinker, but as an explainer. As such, I'd be more than happy to listen to AA explain why it is important to adopt The SegWit Omnibus Changeset before adopting a direct simple blocksize increase. Earlier talks by him that I have seen have been absolutely and explicitly ambivalent on this matter. Care to link to what you think his strongest such statement is?

Yes, really. Whether it is called 'attack' or called 'consensus' is a meaningless discernment. In reality, the net effect is what it is.


Such as?

I gotta agree with JJG here (!). Unless you can explain to me how pumping the pump then causing a dump leads to anything other than a net higher value. I mean, just look at end of 2013. Sure the crash was ugly, but when we hit bottom, we were at about twice the pre-pump level.

If TPTB were actively trying to kill Bitcoin, I would expect them to make and popularize some sort of legalistic 'paper Bitcoin' in the same manner that they are successfully using to kill the gold price.

'zackly. I would expect the whales to keep the bulk of their holdings off such external points of failure.



(sorry - I initially wrote that in natural language, then noticed some natural alliteration. So I rewrote it to maximize the alliteration. Of course, I was already into the sauce, as they say.)

Anything over 50% (sustained) is the actual activation criteria. While it would require a whole lot of crow-eating, we might soon see Core pulling back on the 95% acceptance threshold.

In true Greggian fashion (i.e., probably as an anticipatory tactical fallback measure merely so he can later point to it and say '...I've been telling you all along...'), u/nullc made a statement to this effect in a day or two after 0.13.1 release.

Sounds as if you think whales keep the bulk of their coins parked on an exchange? With the propensity of pecuniary pilferers plundering principal, would that not be a particularly problematic proclivity?

Well, two over-hyped exaggerations for the price of one, maybe.

1) Was not a billion. Less than half a billion.
    1a) ...and the half billion is calculated using the fake inflated WillyBot price, so really... much lower.
2) The Karpeles claim that the MtGox implosion was the result of malleability was an obvious lie.

Let's keep it real out there, gentlemen.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.0

Nevermind the title - the thread explicitly deviates almost immediately to 'any that have not moved in X time'.

dear god. Not this again.


...one might search for one of the dozens of previous discussions on this exact same topic. Or I could save you the trouble by stating the short conclusion reached time after time after time: No.

Thanks. Hits my grammar nazi trigger every time. The only reason I've not pointed it out as of yet is that I get the impression JJG thinks that I dislike him, and I don't want to reinforce that impression.

Just like franky1's refusal to capitalize anything. Of course, he/she is aware of the issue, and is willfully refusing to conform. I get the sense that JJG's 'passed' is inadvertent.

If it was any more pervasive, I'd have to think about adding it to my sidesig.

It appears you need to study more on the topic of partial reserve banking. While there are boundaries and conditions, banks do indeed create money out of nothing. It happens (almost) every time they make a loan.

Jeebus, you're off track.

Fact: India has *not* outlawed gold. Bullshit is bullshit.

I got my EE degree decades ago. I've been conversant with the work of Nyquist and Shannon for quite some time, thank you very much.

Yes, it is possible that gold may be outlawed in India tomorrow. But it is not today. And the Nyquist sampling theorem makes quite clear that one cannot extrapolate a future sample from the current. If you are using it at all, then you are misapplying the theory to which you claim to ascribe.

You are trying to tell me that my sampling frequency is not high enough to avoid aliasing? You've not even described what signal it is that you are sampling. What is the amplitude in your function supposed to denote? Is it periodic in the time domain? If not, you cannot convolve to the frequency domain.

Fact: India has *not* outlawed gold. Bullshit is bullshit.

Prognostication about what may or may not come to pass is one thing. But posting bullshit as fact is merely posting bullshit as fact.

Heaven....
Heaven is a place
A place where nothing ....
Nothing ever happens.
- David Byrne