Carlton Banks. u=64205 This member is clearly (in my mind) spamming, trolling, off topic and possibly threatening. This is my main evidence, although he has done very similar in other threads. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.0I have not pm any mod. Lauda is posting in above thread, (seemingly off topic and in support of Carlton Banks. example below) So I reasonably assume has seen the offending posts. Has anyone noticed how the 2MB2MB2MB shills never post anywhere except in threads that let them propagate their dev team coup propaganda? You'd think they'd be active all over Bitcoin, seeing as they're such genuine fellas, huh?  I've noticed that. They usually have no contributions in any way or form. OP of above thread said, "The thread will not be moderated so that I should not be accused as a shill. But I hope troll posts or low intellect posts (usually 1 liners) will be removed by forum moderators." When I saw this post, off topic one liner, Maybe if you just repeat yourself 1,000,000 times it will work? Only 999,995 more to go, Frankys. You can do it!
I added this to the end of my post, (which followed above post) to highlight to any watching mod. (ps, "But I hope troll posts or low intellect posts (usually 1 liners) will be removed by forum moderators." - ^ see above post ^)
(OP had earlier reposted to ask for calm btw) Calm down folks, I was asking for a civilized debate and then people start namecalling eachother and insults...
We need to debate this stuff with clear minds and calm manner, otherwise it will be only a circus. So be more calm guys!
After Carlton Banks responded back to me, I posted this, (quoting part of his response to me) and let's start debating this like civilized adults... I hope troll posts or low intellect posts (usually 1 liners) will be removed by forum moderators.
Die you fucking scumbags
OP, Mods... (franky I would be very pleased if you dont respond to the goading above. it belittles you. imo) Followed by Carlton Banks next reply, (in full) Totally appropriate response to insidious lying manipulative sociopaths that won't let it go. Again: die you piece of shit
I then waited. I thought mods may take action . OP posted friendly with Carlton Banks couple times. Lauda posted. I then asked more directly. (10 hours ago) Lauda, is this not off topic, ad hom, shitposting or what?
Does Carlton Banks have immunity to following forum rules?
To which Carlton Banks replied, (he quotes me) Thought you might have had some ball RealBitcoin and addressed this.
(i suppose you did in many ways by doing 2 posts both in support of Carlton Banks)
Lauda, is this not off topic, ad hom, shitposting or what?
Does Carlton Banks have immunity to following forum rules?
I'm legitimately incensed. You're breaking the rules motherfucker: the rules of basic human moral conduct. You can't expect to use lies and deception to manipulate an important human endeavour and not receive vicious push-back. Do you want me step it up a notch with you or something? I've got extra levels of opprobrium, if that's what you want. And for the love of god: It's not ad hominem when it's true. There are too many post to be too particular. Any way, the thread is open for viewing. OP asked for "debate" OP, Carlton Banks and Lauda are all small blockers. Carlton Banks has posted 24 times in the last 3 pages. Many many more times in total over 11 pages. (of 20 posts) (Franky1 is also posting a lot, but is generally far more on topic, far less offensive) Some rules being extensively and openly abused. 1. zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads. 2. off-topic posts. 3. trolling. 8. threats to inflict bodily harm, death threats. (not quite but..) |
|
|
|
and let's start debating this like civilized adults... I hope troll posts or low intellect posts (usually 1 liners) will be removed by forum moderators.
Die you fucking scumbags
OP, Mods... (franky I would be very pleased if you dont respond to the goading above. it belittles you. imo) v From below v, for posterity, Totally appropriate response to insidious lying manipulative sociopaths that won't let it go. Again: die you piece of shit
Thought you might have had some ball RealBitcoin and addressed this. (i suppose you did in many ways by doing 2 posts both in support of Carlton Banks) Lauda, is this not off topic, ad hom, shitposting or what? Does Carlton Banks have immunity to following forum rules? |
|
|
|
In my opinion it is only a matter of time. Buy it and forget it for 3 years. You will be rich.
very nice, let's find it out, actually i put some btc over there, and hope your opinion will be reality , when lot of people mocking this coin If mocking a project is a good reason for you to buy, I could make you a nice list with some other coins which were/are mocked you need to invest in. We could start with Paycoin. ;-) Apparently it's a proven trading technique called "proof of FUD", according to Torrgeek mod, i see weirdly passionate and obsessed trolls. maybe this is a contrarian buy signal, not sure.
That observation is spot on. These days, the more a coin gets trolled, the more you should buy into that coin. No one spends that amount of time and energy on anything if it is not going to bring them some profit. "Proof of FUD" is what I call it  Proven to lose you all your money. |
|
|
|
and let's start debating this like civilized adults... I hope troll posts or low intellect posts (usually 1 liners) will be removed by forum moderators.
Die you fucking scumbags
OP, Mods... (franky I would be very pleased if you dont respond to the goading above. it belittles you. imo) v From below v, for posterity, Totally appropriate response to insidious lying manipulative sociopaths that won't let it go. Again: die you piece of shit
|
|
|
|
Hello, I've been in bitcoin for 3+ years now and I would like to share my intellectual opinion about big blocks for bitcoin (2mb ,8mb ,etc) , the Bitcoin Hardfork, and about bitcoin in general and what are the concerns we need to watch out for.
Now there have been many shills, from both sides, so to just clear that out, so I want rational arguments pro/contra big blocks and hardforking bitcoin. I am personally anti-hardfork and therefore anti-big blocks, and I will demonstrate here why it is the best choice in my opinion. So stop shilling, and let's start debating this like civilized adults. I`ll present here my arguments and then you guys can respond to it. The thread will not be moderated so that I should not be accused as a shill. But I hope troll posts or low intellect posts (usually 1 liners) will be removed by forum moderators. Aso remember these are only my opinions from the knowledge I have so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, I`m open to criticism!
Great, op sounds fair and open minded, is open to criticism and wants to hear your opposing opinions. Let's start debating this like civilised adults.  But.. I just dont understand why people want to do a hardfork, when the risks associated with it are just too big.
They are either dishonest or dont understand what they are talking about:
...if you debate against op's opinion you are a stupid and/or lying? (ps, "But I hope troll posts or low intellect posts (usually 1 liners) will be removed by forum moderators." - ^ see above post ^) |
|
|
|
I see bitcoin as a replacement for gold, the market cap of gold today is just under 8 trillion so if bitcoin would replace all of it (that will probably never happen)
and we assume all of the 21 million BTC has been mined we would come to a price of 380 952,380952381 USD per BTC.
If you forget the 38.0952381 Cent, That is about $380 000 right? |
|
|
|
I doubt they are any more accurate than 21, I may be wrong.
I was showing that the correct recommended fee is not as correct as implied.
Although 90% accuracy is claimed by 21 on that correct fee/timescale, I was able to call it almost certainly wrong.
And I was correct.
Your right, fee estimate is not perfect at 21, I guess they just use past data and not take into consideration number of unconfirmed transactions in mempool at particular fee, otherwise the recommended fee would go up if almost 4000 unconfirmed transactions used such recommended fee already. But the fee estimate algorithm become better over time, I dont doubt about that. If I really need transaction to be confirmed in the next block, I pay much higher than recommended fee. If not, I pay lower obviously. What I dont see obvious is what is so special about 1 MB, its not even defined as 2^20 bytes - weird. 21 say, "The predictions are based on blockchain data of the last 3 hours, as well as the current pool of unconfirmed transactions (mempool). First, a likely future mempool and miner behavior is predicted using Monte Carlo simulation. From the simulations, it can be seen how fast transactions with different fees are likely to be included in the upcoming blocks." So they are trying. But the only way to be more "accurate", as you say is to pay more. The only way 21 can ultimately be more accurate is to recommend higher fees. Interesting though, according to http://www.bitcoinqueue.com/details/ the last block (418410) contained far more 50 sat/byte fees than 60 sat/byte fees. (i have issues with the accuracy of bitcoinqueue, but it did seem to tally roughly there with 21. there were 100's of 60 sat/byte fees waiting btw) So paying the correct recommended fee maybe too low or too high! (i am avoiding talking of blocksize here, although it leads to this fees problem. You may like my thread, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410211.0) |
|
|
|
I don't think so everyone has much time while sending transactions that he keeps calculating the satoshis per 60/bytes. I suggest you to put at least 0.0002 per 1kb . I have never sent any transaction with fee lower then 0.0002 . So just set your wallet min fees @0.0002 . And if you are thinking how much the size will increase with the number of outputs try to put 0.0002 for 2 outputs and 0.0004 for 4 outputs and keep increasing the fees with the number of outputs . It's better to put higher fees then waiting hours for the transaction to confirm .
If you send a transaction with such low fees you will be left waiting. 0.0002 per 1kb is one third of the present correct recommended fee, which I have shown to be incorrect, due to being too small. You will be waiting hours. (the longer you wait the less accurate the 21 recommended fee becomes) I don't think so well i mostly sends transactions with 0.0002/1kb , I gamble on luckyb.it and the transaction get confirmed very soon (whenever a block is found ) , However due to current situation 0.0004 is OK for 1kb right ? and 0.0002 under 500. There is also luck in play but, "The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 60 satoshis/byte," - 21 1kb x 60 sat = 0.0006. So no, 0.0004 is not technically ok. It is a lower than recommended fee, at this moment. |
|
|
|
I don't think so everyone has much time while sending transactions that he keeps calculating the satoshis per 60/bytes. I suggest you to put at least 0.0002 per 1kb . I have never sent any transaction with fee lower then 0.0002 . So just set your wallet min fees @0.0002 . And if you are thinking how much the size will increase with the number of outputs try to put 0.0002 for 2 outputs and 0.0004 for 4 outputs and keep increasing the fees with the number of outputs . It's better to put higher fees then waiting hours for the transaction to confirm .
If you send a transaction with such low fees you will be left waiting. 0.0002 per 1kb is one third of the present correct recommended fee, which I have shown to be incorrect, due to being too small. You will be waiting hours. (the longer you wait the less accurate the 21 recommended fee becomes) |
|
|
|
There are many sites you can use to calculate the correct transaction fee. Just make sure to include the correct fee or confirmations may be slow.
I doubt they are any more accurate than 21, I may be wrong. I was showing that the correct recommended fee is not as correct as implied. Although 90% accuracy is claimed by 21 on that correct fee/timescale, I was able to call it almost certainly wrong. And I was correct. Did you have a particular site in mind, I'll check for you. |
|
|
|
Be careful with https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ recommended fee. At this time the recommended fee is 60 sat/byte, with a 0 block wait. They advertise a 90% accuracy on that figure. There are 3800 transactions at 60 sat/byte fee waiting in the mempool. And hundreds of higher fee transactions. I can say with 90% accuracy they are wrong. If you pay 60 sat/byte at this time, you will not get into the next block. Block just found, 2250 transactions at 60 sat/byte now in the mempool. At this time the recommended fee is 60 sat/byte, with a 0 block wait. They advertise a 90% accuracy on that figure. I can say with 90% accuracy they are wrong. If you pay 60 sat/byte at this time, you will not get into the next block. |
|
|
|
Be careful with https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ recommended fee. At this time the recommended fee is 60 sat/byte, with a 0 block wait. They advertise a 90% accuracy on that figure. There are 3800 transactions at 60 sat/byte fee waiting in the mempool. And hundreds of higher fee transactions. I can say with 90% accuracy they are wrong. If you pay 60 sat/byte at this time, you will not get into the next block. |
|
|
|
|
Signed Luke jnr - Core dev.
or,
Signed Luke jnr - Sole trader.
How can a distinction possibly be made here?
Luke jnr sole trader should not have been negotiating.
|
|
|
|
- snip -
It's a quote, Friendo. How can quoting a core developer be called "FUD"?
- snip -
I read the quote. I don't see the part where he says, "We Didn't Promise You Dick!" Perhaps if you were less interested in FUD, you'd have used a Subject line more like: " Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: I intend to uphold [my promise] as best I can" That is at least something I can actually find in the quote. Fair point. Or maybe this, " Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: Things that we tried to make clear... Miners have no leverage to make demands." |
|
|
|
I just dont understand why people want to do a hardfork, when the risks associated with it are just too big. They are either dishonest or dont understand what they are talking about: Therefore if the bitcoin protocol gets changed only by a small amount, some people will abuse that opportunity, and gradually add more changes, until bitcoin goes off it's original mission, and becomes centralized.
If there is consensus, the risk is small. Call me dishonest or ignorant if you like. I thought you were calling for calm? There isn't a consensus (for now). And also there are other risks as well, like the all nodes uppgrading to similar client, which exposes the network to 0 day exploits. Also the network propagation time is also problematic. And many other. It's a collection of multiple issues that comes up when you talk about hardfork. "Also the network propagation time is also problematic" is not a hf problem. "And many other", please tell me a few. |
|
|
|
I just dont understand why people want to do a hardfork, when the risks associated with it are just too big. They are either dishonest or dont understand what they are talking about: Therefore if the bitcoin protocol gets changed only by a small amount, some people will abuse that opportunity, and gradually add more changes, until bitcoin goes off it's original mission, and becomes centralized.
If there is consensus, the risk is small. Call me dishonest or ignorant if you like. I thought you were calling for calm? |
|
|
|
Lukejnr in reply, (snipped) https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4q3ztw/a_call_for_core_developers_to_clarify_their/d4q6ryh?context=3"Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)" "There was no hardfork promised (not even all the Core dev team has authority to do that), only code that could be recommended for one. (This also was made VERY clear.)" "The hardfork proposal promised was not a "2 MB hardfork", but a hardfork that would include as one minor change, the ability to include up to 2 MB of current witness-included-in-txid (anyone-can-malleate) transactions." "Miners have no leverage to make demands. If they attempt to hardfork without community consensus, they harm only themselves, while Bitcoin moves on without them. (At least for my part, my goal of the agreement was to end division and argumentation, which did not happen, admittedly not because of the fault of many of the agreement participants.)" "The July 2016 estimate was not part of the agreement, and certainly not a deadline. It was (at the time) a reasonable expectation based on the agreement terms." "Speaking only for myself, I made the promise with sincerity, and intend to uphold it best I can (despite the almost immediate violation by one of the parties)." Looks like the miners have been conned. Just like the rest of us. I'm ready to hardfork HaoBTC. I think you will have little objection. |
|
|
|
I will risk 0.5, maybe i can get a refund of my 30 btc purchase.
A couple of reasons come to mind for this post 1) You are terminally stupid 2) You are the scammer behind this obvious fake refund site Which is it? First impression was 1) But hero member... maybe it is 2) |
|
|
|
I think everyone knows who the shill is in this thread.
I do. Has anyone noticed how the 2MB2MB2MB shills never post anywhere except in threads that let them propagate their dev team coup propaganda? You'd think they'd be active all over Bitcoin, seeing as they're such genuine fellas, huh? I've noticed that. They usually have no contributions in any way or form. And backed up by a completely ridiculous statement from staff in support. RealBitcoin, how can anyone debate with this? This thread was linked on Blockchain.info yesterday. This circus was on full display. (maybe that is why someone made 15 ad hom bs posts) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
