Rejoice! Third Classic Block (399024) mined  |
|
|
|
|
^^Or the Chinese government, you know, just banning BTC & nationalizing the mines... That's what, like, 75% of hashpower, right?
|
|
|
|
...
I'd rather have my dad use a trezor than coinbase.
The thought of my dad using a Trezor or Coinbase -- either one -- unsettles me a bit. On par with imagining him scoring crack. At 2a.m. In the projects... |
|
|
|
... onramp services like circle and coinbase are well suited to fill this role as they have better support, and handle the complex security for the clients, and the clients have to buy the bitcoins from them anyways so may as well setup a temporary wallet with them too.
TL;DR: P2P cash needs banks middlemen. Now more than ever  "Thus the Bitcoin dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.” --Brainyquote.com |
|
|
|
we can all use paypal as a "temporary off-chain solution", ok?
I understand that some may resent Brian for his recent trolling on twitter and thoughtless remarks, but I won't hold it against him. The reality is these off the chain solutions provide a temporary and valuable service to our community and new users are better at onramping onto them before they learn about the complexities of our ecosystem. We don't want millions of new users simply downloading electrum and flooding our ecosystem with questions and mistakes and losing their passwords, forgetting to backup their wallets, ect... This would not only be a PR disaster but also create a negative impression of bitcoin that will make them think twice about using it for a long while. In light of recent publicity, I don't think we need to worry about "millions of new users simply downloading electrum and flooding our ecosystem with questions and mistakes and losing their passwords, forgetting to backup their wallets, ect..." all that much. We're relatively safe. |
|
|
|
We should try to curb adoption early. Too many users not running full core nodes weakens the system. Like parasites!  FTFY |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is ours! Indeed. Bitcoin is defined by the code we choose to run. As a btc user, I never had the opportunity to chose which code I was going to use. Using "plug and play" spv or core wallets and trading on centralized exchanges does not make you a "bitcoin user" technically speaking. So for you someone using electrum and saving his private keys is not a btc user? What is a btc user then? He appears to think of a Bitcoin user as a miner, someone who runs a full node, or at least runs some flavor of a core wallet. Do only "kids" run SPV wallets although you can do advanced things like multisig with them, and Satoshi invented the SPV wallet concept for Bitcoin users to use? I think it's important to be aware of the fact that hdbuck is a fucking idiot. An angry, bitter idiot, to be precise. or is good at never breaking character [Fatman says= go figure, when did you buy his account?]
Thx, that clarification is appreciated. AHAHAH xD Ok thanks guys, I didn't really understand in what I was not a btc user but everything is much more clear right now ^^ Yes listen to the trolls and forkers here, they surely know what they are talking about. Bitcoin's point is to remove the middleman, hence spv, or exchanges are not a technically sound practice within the bitcoin sphere. Just like using facebook and giving up all your information to Google et al. does not make you a sane internet user. So technically, bitcoin has, at most * less than 5,000 Correction: about 6,000 users, due to recent explosive growth of Classic!*: because that's how many full nodes there are, and some (*gasp*) run more than one node    |
|
|
|
This situation is analogous to banking customers (the bitcoin userbase) depending solely on central banks (miners) to uphold the integrity of the system. It doesn't work in the real world and it won't work in bitcoin. Non-mining users and miners have competing incentives. Miners are only concerned with profit -- historical attacks (withholding, double-spend, tx censoring) support that. The only checks on miners' incentives to attack other miners or users are 1) other miners (who might control enough computing power to prevent computing power based attacks) and 2) non-mining nodes (who might control enough nodes to prevent Sybil attacks). Past that, miners are presumed not to be honest (they have clear incentives to be dishonest), and will steal everything they can. Non-mining nodes are therefore essential to keeping miners honest, by making it too expensive or difficult to mount certain attacks against the userbase...
Sure, miners' interests != hodlers interests (though this rabbit hole goes too deep for comfort -- all nodes (wallets) mined in satoshi's model. Contrary to Pierre's claims, the white paper makes no mention of non-mining, non-wallet nodes. My point is not that miners' interests inevitably coincide with those of the hodlers, but that non-mining nodes (which are not being used as a wallet) add nothing to Bitcoin security. Your wallet (as in the only wallet that's truly trustless, one running a full node) checks for *you* that the miners are following your ruleset. |
|
|
|
So switching "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" for "garlands of garlic on our front door" proves your case....how? I provided numerous arguments that suggest this is an absurd analogy with no basis in reality.
You don't understand what an analogy is. Start learning here. Here's the most common definition of "analogy": a·nal·o·gy
noun: a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Did you or did you not make a comparison between "nodes", "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" and "garlands of garlic on our front door?" I didn't make those comparisons; you did: 1. You claim that the hundreds of padlocks thrown about on our lawn help secure our house. 1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security
Yes i did. For those failing to see parallels apparent to a household cat, I'll explain: Garlic garlands, padlocks strewn about the lawn, and non-mining nodes are analogous, that is to say have a thing in common: They're all FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO SECURITY. The similarities don't end here. If one is challenged by some frustratingly dense douche to prove garlic's lack of efficacy in keeping out The Father of Lies, one is unable to do so, as one would be unable to prove nonexistence of unicorns and Easter Bunnies. Because proving the negative is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible. Go figure. Since I mounted considerable evidence that nodes are essential to network security, it is incumbent upon you to explain how nodes are comparable to either of those things.
No. You typed shitloads of words, which rarely corresponds to "mount[ing] considerable evidence." This subtle distinction eludes you too, I'm sure. Edit: ... And here you admit to gaming the very system you claim to support ...
I'm running nodes to keep the network decentralized.
... Oy vey, a core sybil attack! Halp! Gaming the system, how? You've never read the bitcoin whitepaper have you? Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote It's not one-user-one-vote. My nodes are simply enforcing the consensus rules that the rest of the network is, i.e. honest nodes. How is that gaming the system? In that case, you disagree with the majority of Core supporters, who feel that one node = one "economic agent" (whateverthefuck that means) & thus nodes become a voice of the "economic majority" (whateverthefuck that means). As far as reading the white paper, I did. Number of times non-mining-non-wallet nodes mentioned: 0 (zero). |
|
|
|
People are no longer cashing out on Eth and Bitcoin still going up aggressively... general sentiment bullish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EjpEqZt_AA&feature=youtu.beGetting rid of physical cash ongoing ... to prepare for negative interest rates and more control of your assets. Bills killed - 500 bill 1000 bill5000 bill 10,000 bill Next target to kill - 100 dollar bill ... all while the dollar keeps dropping in spending power due to inflation. If anything larger bills should be introduced. eanie users unaffected *Bills killed - 500 bill 1000 bill5000 bill 10,000 bill First world problems... "gud buy, crool wurld, without $10,000 bill, life itself is meaningless." |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is ours! Indeed. Bitcoin is defined by the code we choose to run. As a btc user, I never had the opportunity to chose which code I was going to use. Using "plug and play" spv or core wallets and trading on centralized exchanges does not make you a "bitcoin user" technically speaking. So for you someone using electrum and saving his private keys is not a btc user? What is a btc user then? He appears to think of a Bitcoin user as a miner, someone who runs a full node, or at least runs some flavor of a core wallet. Do only "kids" run SPV wallets although you can do advanced things like multisig with them, and Satoshi invented the SPV wallet concept for Bitcoin users to use? I think it's important to be aware of the fact that hdbuck is a fucking idiot. An angry, bitter idiot, to be precise. or is good at never breaking character |
|
|
|
Proving the negative is notoriously hard (often impossible), and yet that's exactly what you're asking of me. No, friend, game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." Mathematical models are the very essence of being open to proof, see here. So, on one hand, you don’t need to provide any proof that non-mining nodes (or nodes) are irrelevant to Bitcoin’s security. On the other hand, you suggest that mathematical models make such proof possible. Then, instead of providing any evidence of your argument, you link to an encyclopedia article about “Mathematical proof.” Really compelling. No. That's retarded. Stop being retarded. 1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security, because stops Evol from getting in. 2. When I object & ask you to explain how, you retort with "so prove to me that garlic is not essential for for our security." 3. I point out that such proof, as is the case for most "prove the negative," would be difficult, if not altogether impossible, and that the burden of proof remains with you. So switching "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" for "garlands of garlic on our front door" proves your case....how? I provided numerous arguments that suggest this is an absurd analogy with no basis in reality. You don't understand what an analogy is. Start learning here. I'm attempting to make you understand by trying different analogies. Clearly, it's not working. Because for understanding to take place, the subject must be *capable* of understanding, Which you are not. Or are faking stupidity. Either way, it's starting to try my patience. Your slimy tactic is to add more and more text, most of it copy-pasted, and hoping that your opponent gets bored/frustrated & goes away. Like, for instance, a frickin' duplicate of this thread, where you wage your war of [feigned?] stupidity & attrition  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13915026#msg13915026And here you admit to gaming the very system you claim to support ...
I'm running nodes to keep the network decentralized.
... Oy vey, a core sybil attack! Halp! |
|
|
|
I'm more worried about 51% attacks today. The halvening could mean doom. Isn't it?
I don't really get why a bunch of clapped out miners covered in dead spiders, dust and snot could compete with a mountain of gleaming new machinery, but if it gets you through the day then I fully support you. But these aren't a bunch of miners "covered in dead spiders," these are production gear that will be highly profitable right up to the moment of the halvening. These are majority of current hashpower, which isn't coming from the latest/greatest. The reward halving is an abrupt, traumatic event: If it costs your mining farm ~13 BTC, all said and done, to mine a block now, you're making st00pit money -- a hair less than 50% pure profit. Come the halvening, suddenly you're making ...well, you're LOSING money Therein lies the rub. |
|
|
|
So if a rapist tried to rape 99 times before successfully raping someone, the victim's at fault & the rapist ain't a rapist?
Bit missed comparison. No one's defending the hacker, but hospital is also responsible for handling its patients data so it's their duty to ensure sufficient level of security is in place. The comparison's fine. If it suggests the hospital doesn't share the blame, feel free to show me where. Oh, BTW, know how your daughter just got raped? Well, that's because dumb bimbo dresses like a slut, so it's her fault. I mean, how hard is it to dress like a lady? She should really thank the guys who gang-banged her for teaching her a lesson about dressing like a slut earlier rather than later. Not defending the rapists tho, just telling you how it is. You're just self-contradicting yourself, but probably not too bright to notice, huh? >self-contradicting yourself >not too bright to notice  Say it in people-talk, Friend. |
|
|
|
So if a rapist tried to rape 99 times before successfully raping someone, the victim's at fault & the rapist ain't a rapist?
Bit missed comparison. No one's defending the hacker, but hospital is also responsible for handling its patients data so it's their duty to ensure sufficient level of security is in place. The comparison's fine. If it suggests the hospital doesn't share the blame, feel free to show me where. Oh, BTW, know how your daughter just got raped? Well, that's because dumb bimbo dresses like a slut, so it's her fault. I mean, how hard is it to dress like a lady? She should really thank the guys who gang-banged her for teaching her a lesson about dressing like a slut earlier rather than later. Not defending the rapists tho, just telling you how it is. |
|
|
|
...
"640 k ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981 never
LOL
FTFY. Because even funnier when everyone repeats shit he never said. |
|
|
|
...
But that could be the best opportunity for governments to take control of btc ^^
Come on. "The governments" could offer to buy out the Chinese miners, how much more than a rounding error do you suppose that'd take? *taking into account how stable and profitable the mining industry is... |
|
|
|
... I think every one should play our rule to make sure it that bitcoin never be used for money laundering. ...  >against money laundering >promotes a mixer |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
