|
will investigate - thanks
|
|
|
|
Ukyo then spent a few days putting together the site for users to login and recover a % of their funds. Ukyo did indeed make a portal that that payed back 6.175% to everyone. ( http://weexclaims.weexchange.co/) False statement is false. Though he did pay out that amount. I know that because I received such payment from him. The rest is missing and probably unrecoverable. He did not pay back that amount to all. I know because I received no such payment from him. All my funds are missing and probably unrecoverable. |
|
|
|
Good possibility of a 10X move on the 30th, that wallet is sweet!
Well, _that_ went about as expected... |
|
|
|
...there is some real economy uᴉoɔʇᴉq killer app stuff going on.
I hate to be a negative nelly, but what, exactly, are you referring to here? Tired of hearing the same buzzwords
Absolutely. ...but these guys seem to actually make it happen.
Cool. I must have missed something. What is it? Precisely, I mean? This video made me a long-term believer in Syscoin; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtobhjssZJ8But I got to admit, there might be some competition in this niche. It's however a great opportunity, not a guaranteed homerun. I mean having one great platform that actually works is one thing, but how to get as many users as possible within a competetive market? Haha. Yeah. You gullible? It's a great video, no doubt, in the same way that the best Madison Avenue hucksterism can be great. Fulla buzzwords and platitudes. Now.... point to one innovation alluded to in the video that actually _exists_. Bueller? ... Bueller? I may be blind, but nobody has yet pointed out to me any central innovation that this be claiming. |
|
|
|
Ukyo then spent a few days putting together the site for users to login and recover a % of their funds. Ukyo did indeed make a portal that that payed back 6.175% to everyone. ( http://weexclaims.weexchange.co/) False statement is false. |
|
|
|
I note there is still no answer to the question of whether the exchanges will be stealing our 'old-SYS' coins at the point in time we are granted an equal number of Syscoin 2.0. Inadvertent omission? Not known? Inconvenient to answer truthfully?
If you want your old-Sys you transfer them out of the exchanges prior to the snapshot. If you don't care and just want to convert your old-Sys to Sys2 as 1:1 and want exchanges to convert for you, you can leave them on exchange and the wallet.dat will be replaced (old-Sys keys most likely lost forever). Well, it's an answer. Thanks. Though it seems a bit naiive. You really don't think the exchange operators will be pocketing the 'old-SYS' on the off chance it may have some future value? From the release: In order to ensure proper funding for the continued development of Syscoin 2.0, the team will be allocating 15 million Syscoin for future development. These funds will be allocated from the mining schedule immediately upon launch of the new platform.
Other than announcing the insiders will be getting 15M coins, this statement is content-free. What is the exact schedule of disbursement? Will 15M new coins (of the eventual 900M) just poof into existence at the time Syscoin 2.0 goes live? Will they be in address(es) controlled solely by insiders (i.e. 'the team')? Who are these insiders? The Dev funds will not be vested, we have plans to hire new developers immediately for new features after release. For this we need to pay them aswell as bounties that will be available to anyone who wants to work and earn Sys. I understand that development requires effort, and effort expects renumeration. But if "The Dev funds will not be vested" is an answer to my specific questions, then I am not understanding it. Let's try again: 1) What is the exact schedule of disbursement? 2) Will 15M new coins (of the eventual 900M) just poof into existence at the time Syscoin 2.0 goes live? 3) Will they be in address(es) controlled solely by insiders (i.e. 'the team')? 4) Who are these insiders? |
|
|
|
In the "bitcoin=internet" analogy, the core broadcast network (the blockchain) is equivalent to the Internet layer (IPv4)--the layer that routes most internet traffic.
Flawed analogy is flawed. The network is not the blockchain, and neither of them are a protocol, which makes neither of them analogous to IPv4. And that's just problems #1 & #2. |
|
|
|
...there is some real economy bitcoin killer app stuff going on.
I hate to be a negative nelly, but what, exactly, are you referring to here? Tired of hearing the same buzzwords
Absolutely. ...but these guys seem to actually make it happen.
Cool. I must have missed something. What is it? Precisely, I mean? |
|
|
|
Hmm. First, your new plan seems marginally better than your old plan. However, changing the fundamental characteristics of the distribution at all just seems shifty. From the release: In order to ensure proper funding for the continued development of Syscoin 2.0, the team will be allocating 15 million Syscoin for future development. These funds will be allocated from the mining schedule immediately upon launch of the new platform.
Other than announcing the insiders will be getting 15M coins, this statement is content-free. What is the exact schedule of disbursement? Will 15M new coins (of the eventual 900M) just poof into existence at the time Syscoin 2.0 goes live? Will they be in address(es) controlled solely by insiders (i.e. 'the team')? Who are these insiders? I note there is still no answer to the question of whether the exchanges will be stealing our 'old-SYS' coins at the point in time we are granted an equal number of Syscoin 2.0. Inadvertent omission? Not known? Inconvenient to answer truthfully? |
|
|
|
is this bull or bear shit?
ps: ah no "senior technologist in the research division of one of the largest computing components manufacturers on the planet" shit. you chief scientist much?
Nope. If I was chief scientist, I would not have indicated otherwise. Believe, you do. Believe, you do not. Unaffected, the truth remains. Unaffected, Bitcoin user is. In real life, I am a dog.  eta disclaimer: one of the above claims is false. Shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out which one. |
|
|
|
All we need to do is keep block sizes growing ahead of the adoption curve. So you'd be happy with 1.5 mb for now maybe? Maybe. i don't expect that limit to last more than a few months however. It has taken 6 years to "nearly" fill the first 1mb!
Yeah, but we more than doubled average block size in the last year. The '6 years' is a poor metric when things are doubling annually. Have you read my thread?
Your opinion on that subject would be welcome.
Dunno. Link? |
|
|
|
so cypher-d. IS a confirmend scammer? (serious question)
Plenty of grey area for either conclusion. |
|
|
|
jbreher, you make the best argument for the hardfork camp, so I'm wondering how you see Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and decentralization. I'm guessing you trade (as a bear?), so obviously profit is one motivation, but do you perceive a problem with the existing centralized financial system which b/c/d addresses? Or do you think of Bitcoin as a superior Visa/Paypal whose most important property is short-term scalability?
Thanks for asking. Despite my avatar, I am a bull. Albeit a scared bull, as I feel the maxblocksize limit is serving to stifle adoption. However, a non-negligible portion of my net worth is tied up in Bitcoin. eta: I am not an active trader. I used to be, but learned the hard way that such requires split-second vigilance, lest one be left bereft of bitcoin and holding a big pile of stinky fiat when the price moons overnight.I also believe that Bitcoin needs to be The One True Blockchain To Rule Them All. If the community is allowed to create coins willy-nilly, and have those coins capture anything other than minuscule investment, then what is perhaps the most important aspect of cryptocurrencies -- the ability to have a non-inflationary currency -- is a mere lie. This lie in and of itself would likely keep the masses away. That said, I have started to look to alts, making a few hopefully thoughtful bets on a few. Very small amounts, though -- a mere hedge against an improbable but possible bitcoin value collapse. I do have a problem with centralization. I do not however think the current level of non-mining node centralization is an issue. I also believe that the costs of operating a non-mining node are not a contributing factor to this ongoing non-mining node centralization. I further think that larger blocksizes will contribute very little to this centralization, and will be more than offset my new entrants in a larger economy -- that is if Bitcoin is allowed to grow. I further believe that we can indeed scale to Visa levels. We don't need to do 11,000 tps tomorrow, or next year, or probably even in a decade to do this. All we need to do is keep block sizes growing ahead of the adoption curve. To me, that means 2MB now, 4 MB maybe this time next year, and approximate annual doublings. The precise need is unknowable however, which is but one reason why I think Bitcoin Unlimited's approach is the right one. My day gig is as a senior technologist in the research division of one of the largest computing components manufacturers on the planet. While the picture a decade out is fuzzy, I know what advances we can expect in the next few years. And I can state unequivocally that those decrying the end of Moore's Hypothesis have not a clue about that of which they are speaking. Not sure what you mean by 'b/c/d addresses'? |
|
|
|
Therefore, if segwit does not achieve 95% or whatever is the level needed, then the old system will continue to carry out.
Unless, of course, some other client amasses its activation threshold (e.g. Classic @ 75%). |
|
|
|
there available now, no? the code has been written and is working on some nodes ( BU nodes right? )
I'm here to talk about Bitcoin, you're clearly here to talk about some other currency that doesn't exist. You should use BU yourself ... BU is an alternative Bitcoin client, not a client for an alt currency. It is running right now on the Bitcoin network, processing Bitcoin transactions. |
|
|
|
adam, do u have 1G to the desktop ?? in other words, what cat cable are you using ?? are you using cat5 or cat6 cabling throughout your home network ?? do you have 1G ports on your internet modem and your router and switches and pc ??
the tcp window only means how big of a tcp block you are transmitting. in my case for jumbo frames, i am moving a 9014 tcp block rather than a 1500 tcp block
Yeah - about that - What makes it funny is that the frame size you're talking about is completely unrelated to the TCP window size. Jumbo frames are an Ethernet concept. You're talking about the Ethernet MTU - a lower layer altogether. Has absolutely nothing to do with the TCP window size (which is also not the same as the TCP segment size).
BTW, I ain't Adam, but: Yes, mix of 5e and 6, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.
And ookla tells me I get 850 Mbps down and 950 Mbps up.
Not that that has anything to do with current Bitcoin limits. |
|
|
|
So for clearity sake, I have some Syscoins on Bittrex. I don't have to do anything and I will get SYS 2 coins?  Yes, that's the plan  . Of course, the question as to what will happen to the 'old-SYS' coins on the exchanges remains unanswered.... |
|
|
|
It can be confusing for non techies.
The only reason it is confusing is that there are many statements being presented as matters of fact, that are actually merely forward-looking speculation. If your statements adhered to factual matters, there would likely be very little confusion. |
|
|
|
I think there may be much imprecision in your statements. Maybe I am just misunderstanding you. Let's see if we can delve down to the truth of the matter. It is a new blockchain and only thing traded will benew coin called sys.
How can you say that the only thing traded will be the 'new-SYS'? Even if every last exchange granted their account holders 'new-SYS', and 'eradicated' the 'old-SYS', what of 'old-SYS' in private wallets? What is the mechanism by which those holders of 'old-SYS' will be prevented from trading it? Old sys blockchain will still go aslong as miners supportbut it wont be traded anywhere asaik.
Exchanges are not required in order to trade. Such can be done privately. If it exists, it will be traded. By someone somewhere. And if the 'old-SYS' ends up retaining miners, activity, and value, why would exchanges not resume trading it? eta: It seems there are significant _assumptions_ being passed off as _fact_. Exchanges dont do anything except copy their wallet.dat to new daemon directory.
AFAIK, the funds in (bitcoin-style) wallet.dats are in the form of fundamental units (e.g. in that case of Bitcoin, denominated in Sathoshis). If such a wallet.dat is simply copied to a new daemon's folder, would it not be incorrect by a factor of 299.4:1? no they wouldnt be off we pay to non zero utxo addresses using snapshot amount from block 1. 'Paying to non zero utxo addresses' sounds considerably different than 'copying their wallet.dat to new daemon directory'. Are you claiming that these are the same? I think you may be new or something
Yup - that's me - the Legendary new guy. because other well known projects did the same thing via snapshots using the same exchanges we are on.
Again, that sounds different that copying the wallet.dat. old sys wont go anywhere you will get
both. Up to you to sell old sys if there is a
buyer.
In that case, it appears that you admit that: 1) "only thing traded will benew coin called sys" is not factual, but rather at best an (unlikely) assumption 2) "it wont be traded anywhere" is not factual, but rather at best an (unlikely) assumption Correct? |
|
|
|
they say: "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us."
Link please? Yeah... that's what I thought. This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us" is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters (anti-core folks) that a link is not necessary. Are you really saying that you do not believe my representation? That is exactly what I am saying. I do not believe your representation. I have seen exactly zero instances of people trying to tank the price of Bitcoin as a strategy to get Core to capitulate. So yes, a link is indeed necessary. Otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass. ... what should be non controverted topics. Sure. I'd love to be able to stick to discussing only things that are meaningful. However, you are spreading bullshit, claiming it to be noncontroversial fact. Accordingly, I am calling you on it. Either provide links showing that this claim that " This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us" is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters" is "non-contoversial", or publicly rescind your fucking lie. If you want to write about something more important, I am more than willing to attempt to accommodate you in such, but this is a stupid ass line of discussion. I am neither going to provide further evidence nor rescind any aspect of my earlier fairly innocuous assertion. inability to walk balk lie duly noted. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
