|
There is a reason why Bitcoin is a transparent audit ledger: Get rid of darks and crime - just dont use it for shitty things
|
|
|
|
|
nothing to do with Bitcoin Protocol
DYOR
There is a fix on new version electrumSV ( a wallet that USES the BSV protocol - same old stable version)
|
|
|
|
Any protocol consensus change is not allowed and keeping the Satoshi Bitcoin brand.
there is no such thing as "the Satoshi Bitcoin brand". in fact one of the reasons why Satoshi went away was exactly to prevent this kind of idiotic concepts in a decentralized system. there is only Bitcoin protocol and this protocol needs to evolve and change over time. whether it is bug fixes, improvements or major changes. they are all equally needed for bitcoin to move with the technology. not to mention that the initial protocol Satoshi created had flaws that were fixed through all the very same changes you say should not be allowed. Nope - Satoshi got it right - he was bigger than any 'core' dev wannabe Biggest new flaws in btc: segwit, LN, RBF, obfuscation helpers >> illegal - that's not Bitcoin |
|
|
|
.. wrong USE of a protocol (cant help - shit happens) - not wrong protocol - ( that contains segwit, RBF, hodl, ponzl shill ... - and is not Bitcoin - hard defined and works for 10+ years )  |
|
|
|
|
There is no bug in BSV - there are more in other protocols - bsv code gets audited btw
the issues are apps / 2nd layer tech
and trolls
sigh
|
|
|
|
Things are momentarily improved in terms of fees as the price has somewhat stabilized, at least relative to how its been for the last couple weeks, so not as many people are trying to get get their coins rapidly on or off exchanges. For a long time I've thought that the fundamental/intrinsic value of bitcoin decreases as fees increase, as higher fees equal less likelihood that it is viable as a means of currency.
I think this time around second layer solutions are in place to onboard regufees turned off from the price of fees -- its just a matter of them adopting to it (Liquid by Blockstream is actually easier to use than LN -- its just missing any sort of awareness).
Nice... how to force the masses into 2nd classes wtf! |
|
|
|
Bugs happen - nothing special But: PPL stealing - this goes into courts - lets see what happens |
|
|
|
WRONG! BIP-148, also known as the User Activated Soft Fork, actually showed that the miners do not vote. The community who run full nodes do. The miners simply followed, and gave the full nodes the type of blocks that full nodes demanded.
i hate it when people sugar coat BIP148 like this. a true UASF is when there is a clause in the process about reaching >95% consensus. but when that is omitted and also the risks of splitting the bitcoin network into two chains due to lack of support and disrupting the billion dollar currency for even a short time is swept under the rug, it becomes more of a malicious attack instead of something positive! during 2017 i don't remember the number of nodes signalling for BIP148 surpass 5k out of the 100k existing nodes by that time and the hashrate behind BIP148 was about 1-2%. in my view there is absolutely no difference between BIP148 and MAHF (aka bcash) in that regard. any change in bitcoin protocol must happen only after reaching more than 95% support from the entire network* or not happen at all. * the entire network is both miners and nodes. you can't exclude either one of these two. Mostly right. I d say it even more strict Any protocol consensus change is not allowed and keeping the Satoshi Bitcoin brand. Bug fixes / capacity refactoring ( max block size was a temp fix to counter cheap spam attacks) So all those changes introduce any sort of attack vectors- where legal ones are coming to be the biggest... |
|
|
|
[ Unless the protocol itself is changed where it's possible to move coin without private key.
How can non-mining nodes change the Protocol? UASF, UAHF, use client which follow different protocol, etc. Non-mining full-nodes cannot change the protocol. This can only be done by miners. WRONG! BIP-148, also known as the User Activated Soft Fork, actually showed that the miners do not vote. The community who run full nodes do. The miners simply followed, and gave the full nodes the type of blocks that full nodes demanded. If those funny nodes never find a block, and miners stay on their path - byebye little nodes nah 2x promise only did the job |
|
|
|
Do not increase the 1MB block, because it will save users money - this is a BIG LIE from the Core developer.
[Citation needed] 4.The fact that the node will be held by someone else, there is nothing wrong. 99% of users work this way now. Because a non-mining node can't harm the user in any way. After all, the user has the private keys. This is in any case better than working through Coinbase.
Unless the protocol itself is changed where it's possible to move coin without private key. Do you forget side-chain, off-chain and tokenization?
"Do not increase the block, because this leads to centralization. " and "Go to another sidechain, or tokens on another blockchain, where there will be millions of transactions, which means there will be large blocks, but this will not be centralization." Facepalm  What i meant is combining all of them (increase block size, side-chain, off-chain and tokenization) and let user choose what they want. Right - combine all of them, why dictating just one (not) from above? ( cough block size) Free markets WILL find the right way |
|
|
|
We can't blame Facebook for this ban...
after all, it's their platform so it's up to them to make any rules. I have not been active on Facebook for a long time and only use Facebook for bounty reports. I am much happy with Twitter which gives freedom to its users, although currently, the issue of vulnerability is still Twitter's homework.
Twitter give freedom to its users? Seriously? They may be better compared to facebook, but otherwise they are certainly not giving people freedom. + They ve some agenda, earn money with your (!) content - but piss on you and cause drama > attract more 'user' |
|
|
|
|
Satoshi was right
Things are set in stone for Bitcoin
All the rest (coins) can do whatever they want, but don t call that Bitcoin
|
|
|
|
paypal wallet is the most popular in the world and i think they should have to give the permission to buy and sell bitcoin
because i have heard a news that we can withdraw bitcoin in paypal account but the users should use it legally so that the paypal team will also support them.
"Legally" where? Who's laws apply? Who decides? What happens when China or Russia or someone in the EU or the US pressures PayPal to lock someone's account? A centralized company to a decentralized currency is a recipe for disaster for anyone who decides they want to do something that the powers that be don't like: want to spend $10 gambling? Locked. What to receive $10 from your friend who won it gambling? Locked. What to support a web site that isn't in the pocket of a giant media company? Oops, locked. Look at how Twitter, Facebook etc are censoring different views. Just wait until they can lock your wallet if you dare to disagree. Until PayPal allows people to withdraw bitcoin, it is not a lot of use. There was no news or announcement that Paypal would allow cryptocoin withdrawals. Also, Paypal would never allow cryptocoin withdrawals. They would be open to the liability that criminals and terrorist organizations would be moving funds through them. They already do KYC / AML duties, but what happens on (soft) forkery ? Coin-protocols go full dark, make AML harder / impossible ? Will they list zcash, monero,... btw ? |
|
|
|
Same as Revolut et al. Kinda 2nd closed layer  |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a public open ledger, you could use it as immutable pseudo-transparent logging source (dont put in any plainCID) - so that helps
at scale
low fees
|
|
|
|
Wtf  |
|
|
|
Too much scammers on fakebook? Tshitter not better here Go use twetch or powping |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
