I love how BCH is old news already  What is BCH? Do you mean BCash? BCH is Birmingham Children's Hospital according to Google. They're having a Christmas fundraiser apparently.  Confirmed. Birmingham Childrens Hospital is old news |
|
|
|
It`s amazing how Dash skyrocket from 10 dollars in August to 500$ now. And to think, one who invested 1000$, now has 50 000 dollars. That's what I call a good business model, american dream. Lets just hope Ethereum will follow his example, they were price brothers during the last 3 month.
I never liked Eth and still don't. But good luck with your eth anyway. My Wife had 100 DASH years ago but because we had no jobs back then we had to sell it. Now I bought today 1 DASH LOL and wish we still had the 100 we originally had. Never mind. I saw one advert today on Youtube about DASH and I really liked it. I wonder though is it too late to get into DASH more or do you think that say in a year from now the price can actually double or triple as a long term hold?
I would say with any crypto only risk/bet/invest what you are willing to lose. That is the number one golden rule. But for me, its not too late (to invest in Dash). Dash has potential to become number 1 crypto. Because roadmap is sound, developers are paid from treasury, network is incentivised. It is widely accepted for payments and lower fees than almost any other. Confirmations are quick and with Instant send even quicker. etc |
|
|
|
|
bbc.reporter? what kind of username is that? I know of another user named european central bank. maybe i should have called myself 'Prime minister of the UK'. But is that legit, you are a bbc reporter? In that case as a mainstream reporter I have to consider that you are spreading the party line, which would most likely be FUD
I hadn't considered that the futures market would include scam coins. I don't really see that as a valid concern though. The more concerning thing is that they come to control the 'spot' price of bitcoin in similar way to the control of the spot price of precious metals through futures markets. In other words they manipulate the price of bitcoin without 'delivering' real bitcoin to investors who are only really interested in fiat profit. In other words they own the price and hence the market. In that event I would assume they have to manipulate up before they really have control (for reasons similar to Torque suggesting that the masses own the majority of the asset.)
|
|
|
|
Dash is waiting to pick up where bitcoin left off.
With an instamined, insecure anonymous transaction network that extracts rewards from miners to fill the pockets of early adopters? no thank you
Dash was fastmined in the beginning, no one tries to hide that. I would say that is small compared to ICOs and initial distribution of new coins. Dash has been available very cheap for a long time on free market in as much quantity as later adopters would have wanted. You didn't buy because you thought it was a scam. Your loss.
Dash extracts rewards from miners to fund the masternode network and treasury. Masternode network comprises incentivesed nodes, this forms a strong network. Treasury funds core developers, enhancements to the ecosystem, marketing and much more.
Dash has just upgraded to 2M blocks without controversy, its latest hard fork, like all the previous hard forks, passed without a rival blockchain being spawned. Dash has low fees and is integrated in more and more places.
You write it off you miss out. I'm not endorsing it, you are the one shilling it in a thread about S2x I did own Darkcoin back in the day, and it was a great project until the dev team took a totalitarian stance on it and basically told everyone what to do. It doesn't surprise me that there aren't any controversies, as it's a completely centralized development team with nobody else having a say in it, I doubt very much rebranding and many years of climbing the CMC ladder have stopped that, there are simply a lot better alternatives out there for anonymous transactions, notably Dash's only strength. With zkSnarks and CT Ring tech advancing, it's only a matter of time before people wake up to the newer models of anonymous transactions (isn't Dash still based on CoinJoin technology?), but that's only my take. To each their own and if you are happy with Dash then by all means stay with them, I'm not to fight you, just trying to enlighten people about your shills and what they are actually getting themselves into before they spend money on the product. I'm glad I sold when I did, even if I made a loss, it was worth not contributing to centralization at that time and I would do it again, even if Dash were number 1 Dash is relevant to this topic. Many people looked to S2X in hope bitcoin might increase blocksize and in doing so perhaps help bitcoin reduce fees and speed up confirmations. The failure of S2X means you have to look at Bitcoin cash or Dash for onchain scaling. S2X option is gone. Replying to your FUD about Dash does not make me a 'shill'. You imply I am paid or a plant or stooge or something. That is not the case and I don't appreciate the accusation. I happen to like Dash and seemingly know a lot more about it than you with your ignorant dismissal. When I invested in Dash it was because it was the only coin with a tier of incentivised nodes, not because it had privacy features, although the privacy features do work very well. For the record I also like bitcoin cash. Onchain scaling is not without its problems but the same goes for offchain scaling. The lightning network is not the solution I want. Imposing a banking layer on top of the blockchain sounds worse than blockchain growing at quicker rate. Dash has a clear roadmap looking to push scaling as far as it can on chain. |
|
|
|
Dash is waiting to pick up where bitcoin left off.
With an instamined, insecure anonymous transaction network that extracts rewards from miners to fill the pockets of early adopters? no thank you Dash will continue onwards with or without your endorsement. Dash was fastmined in the beginning, no one tries to hide that. I would say that is small compared to ICOs and initial distribution of new coins. Dash has been available very cheap for a long time on free market in as much quantity as later adopters would have wanted. You didn't buy because you thought it was a scam. Your loss. Dash extracts rewards from miners to fund the masternode network and treasury. Masternode network comprises incentivesed nodes, this forms a strong network. Treasury funds core developers, enhancements to the ecosystem, marketing and much more. Dash has just upgraded to 2M blocks without controversy, its latest hard fork, like all the previous hard forks, passed without a rival blockchain being spawned. Dash has low fees and is integrated in more and more places. You write it off you miss out. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think proof of stake will work as an alternative. Perhaps the future belongs to byteball? No mining, no blocks. It seems an interesting tech
|
|
|
|
As someone who bought their first Bitcoin in 2012 for $20,
Indeed, I can't help but laugh at all the thousands of newcomers who just read r/bitcoin and suddenly think they are scaling experts. That Bitcoin should be able to run a node on every Raspberry Pi in Afghanistan. Yada yada yada. This is psychologically manipulated groupthink. Let's face it - many of the people getting into Bitcoin today are "newbies" who weren't very smart or educated in the first place. But they all like to act like they are, ESPECIALLY when it comes to their opinions on the Blocksize debate - an opinion that was only formed through reddit. Oh boy do they love repeating those opinions, and screaming down anyone who disagrees, like a bunch of drunken fratboys who think they are about to lose their virginity. Only a very small minority are capable of using logic or reason.
It's both amusing and kind of sickening to watch happen.
Anyway, now that the dust has settled and the "1mb forever" crowd has won, Legacy Bitcoin will likely never scale in any meaningful kind of way - Meaning Legacy BTC will never be anything more than a speculator's toy to get rich, a gateway to altcoins and FIAT and a settlement layer.
However, I still fully expect the combined speculator and institutional investor money to take Legacy Bitcoin to 50 - 100K and beyond. However, it will become impossible to move coin at some point on the main chain , with $100+ fees, making a very large percentage of BTC wallets unspendable. At that point, the vast majority of Crypto users and commerce will have already moved to either Bitcoin Cash, Monero or Ethereum. In the long long run, 5+ years, I fully expect either Bitcoin Cash, Monero or Ethereum to become the #1 coin with the highest market cap. It's inevitable now that Bitcoin will never scale - and let's be honest, Lightning Network will either never exist or will never deliver as promised --- which means BTC is going to be stuck where it is now from the scaling perspective, with only a few band-aids thrown on top, likely forever -- unless the miners finally grow a pair, say enough is enough and stand up to the bought out Corporate shills at Blockstream, but I'm not holding out hope for that outcome at all.
I've also been around a long time and agree with your sentiments. The behavior on reddit is terrible - I can only assume they are just young and stupid? I try my best not to assume malice or conspiracy... Maybe it's time we set up a real Rosewater Foundation where the elders can train a few of these future millionaires on the ways of being a virtuous person. Exhibit A: Although I never frequent reddit, I see shades of that here too. |
|
|
|
|
Dash is waiting to pick up where bitcoin left off.
|
|
|
|
edited out
 |
|
|
|
I can be wrong, correct me if I do.
To use LN you must create payment channels. If I want to buy something on Amazon, I should open a payment channel with Amazon. But, if tomorrow I want to buy something on Ebay, I must also open a channel with them? And if later I want to buy a coffee at Starbucks, should I open another channel?
No such need, as long as you share a channel with a node (that has a channel shared with a node (that has... ...)))) with Starbucks. Same for Amazon. It's a mesh network. The general opinion is that there will be enough channels open to reach any relevant agent. Ah you mean like Bitcoin? But then without the peer to peer? Sounds great. It's still peer to peer (no central authority), but not one-to-one. There will be multiple routes. Irregular mesh topology over Tor. You will open an account (payment channel) with a bank (lightning node hub) which routes your payments where they need to go. The lightning network will certainly evolve to be central hubs routing payments. These banks (lightning node hubs) will settle on the blockchain when you close your account (payment channel) but otherwise won't really need the blockchain much.
Unless I'm mistaken
Right, not much need for on-chain stuff except opening/closing channels. Or possibly topping them up, I am still not clear on what will happen with "refill" operations as the protocol evolves. The hubs will be "central" only in the sense of "hyperconnected, with lots of money at stake in multiple channels". They won't be able to censor transactions or tamper with the protocol - or even figure out where the coins ultimately go. Hubs can be routed around if desired or necessary. Someone else will get the fees - if any. Not that shabby, is it? Very tough question for me, how shabby? On the face of it sounds quite cool. But deep down I remain very suspicious of lightning network which stems from my distrust of banks. It feels like a banking layer being plonked down on top of bitcoin with the aim of bypassing hard money constraints that having transactions logged on a blockchain imposses. I have immense dislike of banking system which is what led me to bitcoin in the first place. "Be your own bank" At least having bitcoin as a settlement layer is a constraint of some form. It could be that the system if it does go that way will be a bit like an updated gold standard system whereas gold used to be the settlement layer now it will be bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Wow.. the return of iCEBREAKER! We are truly honoured.
Where've you been for months? How was Monaco, or was it St Tropez?
Aww shucks old bean, I'm touched in a manner most poignant by your notice of my extended absence.  I've been on an altcoin sabbatical. Missing the Darkcoin boat made me realize my focus had been too concentrated on Bitcoin, to the neglect of other disruptive innovations in cryptospace. So I went back to school, learning about cloud mining Monero and Cryptonite, and giving the other ostensibly anon coins (DRK/CLOAK/XC/BC/VERT) a thorough looking over. How is Cointerra doing financially? We are both investors; you through private placement and myself through IceDrill. Is it likely a Cointerra creditor will file for Chapter 7? Maybe IceDrill will wind up owning both firms' IP and inventory! Crikey all this butt hurt because he missed the boat?  |
|
|
|
|
In terms of byteball airdrops and effect on price I would expect that skipping the airdrop for a particular month, equating to less supply that month, should tend to boost the price, just by normal supply versus demand dynamic, although that didn't seem noticeable in the last skipped air drop month.
I can imagine that 'slow' dripping of byteball into the market by these airdrops though, is prolonging uncertainty and aggravated by the fact that Tony has ultimate control over when to airdrop and when not to and to change the rules at his whim. This airdropping is the equivalent of central banks tinkering with money supply and no different here really.
Part of me, in a very gung ho way, would like to just dump all the byteball onto the market in one huge load to byteball holders according to the amount of bytes they hold (not bitcoin holders), without pre-announcing it. This unexpected windfall would cause huge waves. But at the same time, in one quick shot remove all the prolonged uncertainties about distribution. Like ripping a plaster off quick is better than peeling off slowly.
Thats what I'd like, then we can get on with using byteball.
|
|
|
|
I can be wrong, correct me if I do.
To use LN you must create payment channels. If I want to buy something on Amazon, I should open a payment channel with Amazon. But, if tomorrow I want to buy something on Ebay, I must also open a channel with them? And if later I want to buy a coffee at Starbucks, should I open another channel?
No such need, as long as you share a channel with a node (that has a channel shared with a node (that has... ...)))) with Starbucks. Same for Amazon. It's a mesh network. The general opinion is that there will be enough channels open to reach any relevant agent. Ah you mean like Bitcoin? But then without the peer to peer? Sounds great. You will open an account (payment channel) with a bank (lightning node hub) which routes your payments where they need to go. The lightning network will certainly evolve to be central hubs routing payments. These banks (lightning node hubs) will settle on the blockchain when you close your account (payment channel) but otherwise won't really need the blockchain much. Unless I'm mistaken |
|
|
|
[edited out]
I surmise that your rambling diatribe could be condensed to the following argument. Bitcoin cash doesn't count because 'nutjobs' made it. There was no contention with segwit because bitcoin cash doesn' count. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I don't really agree with it. Actually, whatever I said speaks for itself, and your inability or deliberate failure to understand what I wrote is reflected in your inaccurate summary of it.
If you want to know what a hard fork without contention is look at Dash which has had several hard forks during its development but not yet resulted in a rival blockchain being spawned during it.
Oh yeah, let's look at Dash or some other blockchain to answer BIG questions about bitcoin..  Do you even understand the absurdity of your own suggestion? There are certain dynamics in bitcoin that causes the direction forwards to be different from other alts including and probably not limited to: the size of its market cap, its actual decentralized nature, its many networking effects, and the visciousness of attacks upon it.
By the way categorizing me as a stupid ass big blocker isn't strictly accurate. I am concerned with high fees and such like resulting from small blocks however I am still well invested in bitcoin (the 1M block variety) and haven't ruled out its success going down the settlement layer path.
Who fucking cares if you own a few bitcoins here or there or if you are hedged in various directions that includes holding some bitcoins? your ongoing nutty and seemingly emotional FUD spreading speaks for itself.. o..k.. sure, maybe you are one of those nut jobs who actually believes the shit that he is spreading, but that does not make what you say any better, especially since it appears quite apparent that you are either lacking information or failing and refusing to adequately study various matters (facts and/or logic) before you spout them out. Good grief! You still going. OK you say I misrepresented your rambling diatribe but conveniently edited it out of this comment. How then is one to judge without searching back pages in the forum to see it? Maybe we just take your word for it that it made sense and was coherent. My own comment left in and broken into small segments now has no context, also convenient. Its almost an admission you know what you wrote was a load of bollocks and that I correctly surmised it. However I prefer instead to just thank you for editing it out, it was bad enough the first time. What else have you got? Bitcoin has certain dynamics that make it different. Oh really. Thanks for enlightening me, how silly of me to not know that. I only mentioned my position in response to your accusations of my being a 'stupid ass big blocker' to illustrate your being wrong on that count. Who the fuck care? Probably noone. Who the fuck cares about the way in which you sell when the price is going up in 200 dollar blocks but might adjust the amount if the price reaches a new level. My guess, noone. Yet you manage to ramble on paragraphs at a time in painful irrelevant detail. Almost embarrassing really. And all this because I called bitcoin, bitcoin segwit! |
|
|
|
This was an unexpected BOOM Insert rocket flying to the moon picture or is it lambos now? |
|
|
|
The x2 chain, in a darwinist/capitalist context, is more likely to survive than the x1 chain.
The highlighted aspect says to me - fear of being poor. That's why they won't disrupt how Bitcoin is operating and that informs all behaviour in this space. or..., that is why they will provide the network with better features that make it more competitive in relation to its environment. Every biologically immutable being is doomed to disappear with respect to those who do. Homo sapiens vs Homo erectus. If that's the case, why did VHS survive and Betamax die? Standard Betamax tapes lasted 60 minutes — not long enough to record a movie. Conversely, the 3-hour VHS tapes were perfect for recording television programmes and movies
|
|
|
|
I would argue that it was clear cut that bitcoin cash is the closest living fork to Satoshi's original intent. However it failed (or didn't even try) to win the brand and therefore lost the ecosystem along with it. The core developers and community has decided Satoshi's vision is no longer appropriate for bitcoin. This kind of makes me sad maybe out of a sense of nostalgia remembering the original promise of bitcoin before the scaling shit fight took over. But then again something had to yield bitcoin was hitting some hard limits. I'm sorry but.... if you can't see that having a 8MB block size immediately created 98% BCH mining centralization (thus killing Satoshi's original vision of a decentralized mining ecosystem), then you are beyond help. Lowering transaction fees will be solved in a different way.  I would argue that large mining pools are centralised on bitcoin just as in bitcoin cash. |
|
|
|
Yes, but what if all those billions of users could just login to FB 2.0 using their legacy FB credentials? Wouldn't that be tempting? Wouldn't you do it, just to try the new system?
And how much value would this have to you if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks? It's not about value, but about disruption and loss of credibility. A common, non-technical user wanting to sign up would have to choose between 400 different FB pages to register, and he would then be able to login only to the one single version he registered, whereas his friends who were long-time FB users would have access to all of them! They would post messages that can potentially be seen by the new user, but his replies won't reach them... It's just an ugly mess for the newbie and the interested but non-technical investor, who will be scared away. The name "Bitcoin" should map to one codebase, one blockchain, one coin. I believe that all those forks are not intended to help Bitcoin, but to cause havoc and disruption for motives characterized by ego and greed. It's a cancer and it's unfortunate that it exists. It is also a natural effect of bitcoin being Open Source software which is huge part of the reason it is so trusted in the first place. But I agree it can be used as a way to spread FUD and attack the limited coins ideal. |
|
|
|
Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value or being immediate "competition" are just not getting it.
Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.
That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire financial ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not to mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.
Its a good point the winning side of the fork is the one which gets the bitcoin brand and the whole rest of the shebang along with it. This seems to be decided in large part by large exchanges declaring which one they will support and which one will get the btc ticker symbol. But it also had to be convincing that the choice was the correct one. The rest of the sheep follow into the fold without any dissent just happy to still have 'bitcoin'. I would argue that it was clear cut that bitcoin cash is the closest living fork to Satoshi's original intent. However it failed (or didn't even try) to win the brand and therefore lost the ecosystem along with it. The core developers and community has decided Satoshi's vision is no longer appropriate for bitcoin. This kind of makes me sad maybe out of a sense of nostalgia remembering the original promise of bitcoin before the scaling shit fight took over. But then again something had to yield bitcoin was hitting some hard limits. My own way of navigating these forks is to retain any 'bitcoin' flavours that seem like have real promise and dump those that don't. For me bitcoin cash has real promise and offers the tantilising prospect of Satoshi's vision being given a chance in the free market. Bitcoin gold I will dump. B2X I don't know yet, I will wait with popcorn ready to see how it unfolds. |
|
|
|
You can fuck off with your "bitcoin segwit" bullshit, and your attempt to suggest that there is some other bitcoin, currently.
I'm a bit suprised by the venom in your response Jay. No offense was intended. Only to make a point that the segwit branch is just as much a fork as so called 'altcash' or 'bcash' (see what I did there). If there was such a consensus as you describe then bitcoin cash would not exist. Yet it does. In your face. As I already stated, I simply disagree with your attempt to describe some kind of rhetorical equality. There are attacks on the true and real bitcoin and anyhow, I already said what I had meant to say, so I doubt that there is anything further that is necessary from my end, because whatever you said does not help your case, including your supposed "in your face" retort that has NOT actually retorted anything of any substantial or material significance. You simply disagree but in a rude and aggressive manner. But thats OK I'm not particularly bothered about your vulgar language, I sometimes use expletives myself. If you are not bothered by it, then why you wasting time bringing up such nonsense?
My in your face retort punctuated the fact that you have no rebuttal to my assertion that the mere existence of bitcoin cash proves you wrong when you state there was full consensus to implement segwit.
Your in my face retort is some kind of assertion that you believe that you have a show stopping argument or a slam dunk and you do not. The mere existence of bitcoin cash does not prove any kind of meaningful or substantive point, except that a small group of renegade nutjobs decided that they were going to spend resources on a hardfork attack on bitcoin. Second, I never stated that there was "full" consensus, and you are just making up new terms in order to create some kind of strawman argument. There is no fucking thing as "full consensus" nor is such a thing required. What happened is consensus happened around segwit, and that is all that matters. Therefore, segwit reached consensus and was locked in in early August 2017, and was activated in late August. If you want to remove segwit, then you need consensus in the other direction, which if you thought about it is not very fucking likely to happen.. because it already happened in the lock-in, activation and implementation direction, why the fuck would the community suddenly decide that they no longer want it? Makes no sense, instead, stupid ass fuck job big blockers, like yourself, are trying to argue stupid points about segwit not having "full" consensus, and there is no such requirement.. and really do you ever think that there is going to be "full" consensus about anything? There are always going to be a few stragglers who are objecting and complaining, but they are out of line with the vast majority (which in the segwit situation took 95% mining power to achieve such and at this point is water under the bridge). I suppose I could have said fuck you or something like that though, might have been easier. But still you have no rebuttal.
Yeah, you could have said fuck you, but there would be no substance in such an emotional response. So it does not help if you merely become emotional without adding any substantive meaning to your arguments (which would be adding factual claims or logical claims), and you need to have something to back up your fuck you, so stop taking matters so personally and learn how to recognize that these various ongoing BIG blocker forks and anti-segwit campaigning are attacks upon bitcoin and they are not equals to bitcoin (and they are generally inferior and supported by very small segments of the community attempting to rally broader space support or to get newbies into supporting them), and they are not in line with the overall bitcoin community (except to the extent that they may want to attack and infiltrate bitcoin and to the extent that they try to make astroturf attempt to look as if they are part of the bitcoin community), and that is why it seems to be a lot more fitting to be saying fuck you to those kinds of ongoing attacks, rather than if someone were truly wanting to improve bitcoin without engaging in such ongoing sabotaging attempts. I surmise that your rambling diatribe could be condensed to the following argument. Bitcoin cash doesn't count because 'nutjobs' made it. There was no contention with segwit because bitcoin cash doesn' count. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I don't really agree with it. If you want to know what a hard fork without contention is look at Dash which has had several hard forks during its development but not yet resulted in a rival blockchain being spawned during it. By the way categorizing me as a stupid ass big blocker isn't strictly accurate. I am concerned with high fees and such like resulting from small blocks however I am still well invested in bitcoin (the 1M block variety) and haven't ruled out its success going down the settlement layer path. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
