There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.
Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
I don't think there's a good real world example to reflect what they're doing on bitcoin. A bank's space is obiviously owned by some entity whilst bitcoin isn't owned by somebody. They aren't targeting any individual user's property or ability to use the system, they're stresstesting an entire decentralised system owned by no one. And now they're doing it via a proxy of thousands of people. I'm not talking about a bank filing a lawsuit, but about clients filing a lawsuit. For example: If you put a tool online for "stress-testing" - read ddos-ing - an internet related service, authorities will go after the one who makes the tool available if they can prove that the intent of him was to disrupt the service. Now IF these giveaways will create a backlog, and if someone can prove that losses occured because of this, he would be able to file a suit. Why are anti-fragile libertarians ALWAYS the first ones to scream"Lawyer!!" at every opportunity? Just shut up and get some of that free money...  |
|
|
|
Why dont you tell your buddies at coinwallet to use those coinz for funding the launch of your stupid XT altcoin?
Maybe rent coupla servers to boost your fading xt nodes too?
You get angrier and more tightly wound with each successive post. You will soon start developing your very own gravity. |
|
|
|
So The People will rush to cash in those private keys thus creating their own tidal wave of transactions. Nicely played.
did btcdrek see that one? Dont think so. |
|
|
|
How big of a deal is it if we go red again on weekly MACD?
Big deal for the $23 million in longs awaiting anxiously.  23.782 million, but who's counting? Edit: 23.825 MM I'm thinking that, despite the blocksize debate, or perhaps in spite of it, long is probably the way to go... If we didn't get cheep coinz last week then it isn't going to happen. common sense should prevail |
|
|
|
Are you cypherdoc's brother by any chance? This sounds like some of the stupid shit he'd say to hopelessly defend his points.
It must be 4am where you are. You should get some sleep. You are starting to blub. |
|
|
|
Why?? Do you think that pointing you out as a fool should be a monopolized industry as well  "Speak of the devil...." Just sayin', dude. So far you have argued that the definition of cash is 'wrong' and that satoshi got bitcoin wrong day one. You think everyone is wrong, and you constantly support this by suggesting that we should all just 'educate' ourselves. But in reality, all you have is your version of what you believe to be true. Your 'truth' is that bitcoin is fundamentally broken, and the only way to fix it is by going off-chain. And to make that more profitable in the short term, you need a fee market to drive traffic to it - ergo SmallBlocks. Which is fine. But it is flawed. I contend that: 1. Bitcoin isn't broken. Its evolving - everything is on the table. There is no 'single' solution. 2. Its utility value far outweighs your ludicrous need to have it solely as a 'store of value' 3. Off-chain solutions provide an invaluable aid to scaling bitcoin, but they must compete on a level playing field with on-chain transactions. 4. Any solution that depends on artificially throttling capacity is flawed. |
|
|
|
Did Fatman sell his account to Lambchop or something? Why?? Do you think that pointing you out as a fool should be a monopolized industry as well |
|
|
|
Well done, this looks really good. I think you are going in the right direction with this.  |
|
|
|
who is this loser?
Nakamoto & some icy broad. Seriously, did you need to quote it?  |
|
|
|
If CoinWallet goes ahead with this, then I'm starting a "boycott CoinWallet" petition.
What cunts. We have a testnet for a reason. If there's one thing in life you don't do, it's screw with other people's money. They may not realize this, but there's many people's livelihoods that currently rely on the Bitcoin financial network being online, including my own. It's fairly certain that CoinWallet is simply a front for what this really is: an attack. If you go to CoinWallet.eu, the website looks functional, but is not in reality. A few credible bitcointalkers signed up to investigate whether they are a real service serving customers or not, and it appears not. credible bitcointalkers? Oxymoron much? Would they be the same morons advocating crypto terrorist tactics against XT? People in glass houses throwing stones.... Clever strategy.  |
|
|
|
9 up votes on such an idiotic comment that makes no sense. This is internet. Trolls are new rising stars in this decade. Bitcoin price is stuck at 225$, I think it goes down to 190-200$ again this week. If the market indeed see bitcoin prices will stuck or down. because the issue of Bitcoin XT is still quite influential Don't worry, the evil XT node IP's are under UDP flood ddos attack. Should quiet those wascally wabbits down so moon launch can commence. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10140981I suppose the next progression is an all out syn attack on Core 0.11 implementations. But how would one identify them, as Core operates in stealth mode that makes it virtually impossible to identify nodes? (oh silly me, its on here) That would be fun Combine that with an upcoming stress test, how would the network deal with it? |
|
|
|
Elements...yeah...we already knew that. Well at least he gives a use case. Still too vague overall.
btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.
Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs. have you ever written any related Bitcoin code? "I don't write code, I write checks" - Jay-Z.... or was it? Problem is, your checks are bouncing.  |
|
|
|
Do not reply to satoshi fan club if you value a sane argument lol
so, how does XT impact the ability of you or others to engage in a blacklist tit-for-tat? Any impact at all? Other than dealing with possible tor exit nodes? |
|
|
|
Did you even understand what Carlton wrote? You basically fell into the same logical trap he pointed out.
Philosophy 101 dropouts will be the death of me.... The game is called "Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting" Are you playing? |
|
|
|
And how do you stop other nodes from using the feature against you? Turning it off stops your node from deprioritising others, not others from deprioritising you. This is an elementary logical fallacy; you cannot control the behaviour of other nodes, only your own.
Logical fallacy my ass. If I want to blacklist you, I will create an ipset 'blacklist' of type hash:ip Then I ill add your address by ipset add blacklist n.n.n.n Thats how its done. You cont need Core or XT to do that. Any node can do that to you right now, running Core 0.11 or any other version. |
|
|
|
Let me break the news for you: no one is stupid enough to disclaim their business plans in full details.
Another one of your comedy Freudian slips. I think the issue IS that blockstream continue to disclaim their business plan.. btw Its normal for business to disclose their business plans. Usually as part of a funding process and launch. They are rarely trade secret, whereas their IP might be. |
|
|
|
darn, for a minute there, i thought you were going to explain the hypocrisy: --- ----- ---- ------ --- -- ---- ---- ----- -- --- In fairness, he hasn't even managed to get a majority in his own troll-poll. he is a divine tosser. |
|
|
|
In the outcome where the blocksize limit is lifted it doesn't matter who wants scarcity and whether or not they collaborate. As soon as the "artificial" scarcity cap is removed it enables the unlimited amount of resources competing for block creation to ignore the capacity of others and drive the creation of bigger and bigger blocks. No amount of pools or "majority" can discourage them from doing so. Their only deterrent is the orphan risk which becomes infinitely small as technology improves.
With the current limit of 1mb for the last 5 years, the vast majority of blocks averaged about 40% of this limit. Miners are incentivized to produce the tightest, efficient blocks dependent upon tx's. Its only in the last few months that tx'x are such that block sizes are tending to close on this limit. |
|
|
|
So in simple and quick words, Bitcoin XT has a feature which tracks IP address of the user
Ah, no it doesn't. Simple words are just wrong. Have a read through the thread again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
