It is of my opinion that they should have done this differently
No one asked you. |
|
|
|
Can we have the link to these jtoomin quotes so we can tell when he wrote them, it's difficult to tell with you whether you're getting things wrong due to incompetence or conceit (it can only be one or the other).
See above. |
|
|
|
What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.
Fork off you worthless disingenuous troll Notice XT developer jtoomin's response below, lol. Veritas Sapere, how aware were you of how poorly your accusation corresponded with the facts, before you made your accusation? BIP 9 is for version flags support, which is designed to allow for multiple forks to be deployed in parallel without running into interference issues like what we have with BIP101 and BIP65. When Core decided to implement BIP65, they chose to do it without version bits support and to just use v4 for the blocks. Rather than use the old version bits, Core decided to not use any version bits, or something like that. Yes, it was a deliberate choice. More shameless misconstruction of facts. Purposefully omitting to include the part where toomim clearly indicates he is unaware of the details and "technicalities" that went into Core's decision  Listen to your master now would ya?  |
|
|
|
What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.
 Fork off you worthless disingenuous troll |
|
|
|
|
Blockstream employees are only but a minority of Core developers
|
|
|
|
btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.
Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.
Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).
I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.
It won't. In fact it's dead already. |
|
|
|
If 21 bitcoin computer have more features & services, $399 might be worth it.
But, this computer don't have much features, so buy cheaper computer and add few programs will be more worth than buy this computer.
No idea why would people buy this bitcoin computer, expect they really don't want to set their own bitcoin computer.
Convenience, early API access. People pay for Netflix although they could very well set up an XBMC box or other torrent download set up. Don't underestimate the value of convenience  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 |
|
|
|
^Hmm. Something to think about. International terrorists really could benefit from a more privacy-conscious way to move massive amounts of money while saving on transaction fees! Finally, a Bitcoin use case scenario that doesn't sound totally contrived!  They don't have this problem, they can use their privileged HSBC account for that. Bankers take care of their exclusive clients Bankers=Rothschilds=Illuminati=Saurians=NSA TL;DR: The Jews did it, in the drawing room, with thermite. Why do you keep switching accounts? Did they ban the Lambchop one? I mean we're all friends here, there's no reasons to hide behind sockpuppets |
|
|
|
^Hmm. Something to think about. International terrorists really could benefit from a more privacy-conscious way to move massive amounts of money while saving on transaction fees! Finally, a Bitcoin use case scenario that doesn't sound totally contrived! They don't have this problem, they can use their privileged HSBC account for that. Bankers take care of their exclusive clients |
|
|
|
There's not a single hint of evidence in these "news" anyway. That's just pure manufactured FUD. Seriously, stop wasting your time with these websites.
Right. Gubermint lies spread by their jackbooted Jewish lackeys of the mainstream media  MSM? Cryptocoinnews newsBTC Network World  |
|
|
|
It's all about convenience & the API guys.
This is a dev kit. It is not addressed to regular consumers
What are you talking about? It is the dumbest fucking product ever. 21 says: 'it is intended to give you a steady stream of bitcoins'. WTF?? A $3 block erupter does the same thing. Calling it a 'dev kit' does nothing to improve its utility. That damn thing does nothing and it is fuck-all expensive. How can it be that the company that raised the most money has only produced this piece of shit after over 1 year? If this is what bitcoiners think about business, we are all fucked. What kind of genius invested $100M+ in 21? you need to take a breather and get laid. seriously. |
|
|
|
|
There's not a single hint of evidence in these "news" anyway. That's just pure manufactured FUD. Seriously, stop wasting your time with these websites.
|
|
|
|
other source? sputnik is usually crap. it's hard to believe they got 3million dollars of donations they must of been playing with bitcoins for years. maybe they were selling their drugs on SR or something... if the whole network agrees we can take their funds.. i think that would be cool to see. I think some hardcore bitcoiners would go ape shit and maybe fork off. hey that would be a good way to get rid of all the trolls 3 million usd isnt that much for big organization, imagine for 1000 follower they just need to raise 3000 usd each ppl within 1 year or 10 usd per day per each ppl for 1 year. then imagine how many donation needed for 1 million follower.  How hard would it be to black-bag the entire developer community and force them to fork those coins out of existence? that is not something that can be done |
|
|
|
other source? sputnik is usually crap. it's hard to believe they got 3million dollars of donations they must of been playing with bitcoins for years. maybe they were selling their drugs on SR or something... if the whole network agrees we can take their funds.. i think that would be cool to see. I think some hardcore bitcoiners would go ape shit and maybe fork off. hey that would be a good way to get rid of all the trolls yep, a cool surefire way to drive Bitcoin to 0$ censorship resistance but only for good guys right ? |
|
|
|
|
It's all about convenience & the API guys.
This is a dev kit. It is not addressed to regular consumers
|
|
|
|
Fucking lambie, the most disruptive technology ever! lmao! So Gmaxwell blaims trolls for Core's inability to get their act together? How does that work? If their sensitive minds break down with 4-billion-usd-market-cap-trolling (...catching air, I need to lose weight), how will they hold up at 40b? Disclaimer: I am not paid for this service. This is freebie trolling. Get their act together? We just had a milestone development today https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3t0kff/core_switched_to_libsecp256k1_for_verification/ |
|
|
|
Rofl, Hollande never said "illuminatis" but "les illuminés" which any french would understand as "raving lunatics" or "godly nutcases" in this context. Bad translators are a great source of trolling materials.
I don't speak French, so I looked up "les illuminés" on Wikipedia. It says they are a socialist essay collection by the French author Gerard de Nerval. I couldn't find any reference to them meaning "raving lunatics" or "godly nutcases" through Google, but perhaps Google's spider robot doesn't index French slang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Illumin%C3%A9sLes Illuminés is a collection of narratives or essays by the French poet and author Gerard de Nerval. Subtitled Recits et Portraits. It was published in 1852.
The book consists of six narratives relating the adventures and mishaps of historical figures whose lives reflected different aspects of Nerval’s own experiences. The concerns of socialism in the eighteenth century and the French Revolution underline most of the narratives. The book is also subtitled: Les precurseurs du socialisme. I do and can confirm it basically means nutcases. |
|
|
|
|
because it has relations with Blockstream therefore it must be evil.
|
|
|
|
The only thing that interests me now about the blocksize debate is how the network forks and what form that takes. Major companies in the space like Coinbase and Bitpay are now publicly taking a stand against the Core developer position which is extraordinary on the face of it. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out and whether you and your colleagues who actively promote the limitation of bitcoin with such gusto are happy with the outcome.
Will you still use bitcoin if an industry supported reference client (with a scaling blocksize inbuilt) rapidly garners support and sidelines Core and it's developers?
By my own very speculative estimates the "industry" you speak of controls less than 1% of the money supply, a few independent full nodes and 0% of the hashing power. Thus, it remains to be seen whether or not this governance coup would ever garner support, much less rapidly. It is an unfortunate situation where some of you have been brainwashed into believing that Bitcoin cannot make it without the "industry" of what's essentially banking parasites and their VC backers. Typical North American egocentric herd behaviour.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
