I only see hysteria amongst the pro side..  Its you and his royal clueless roadstress that spreads fud and do nothing but fagocitating the debate with 'future' fear of bitcoin not scaling.. Proof of fud spread? I'm only advocating for a neutral bitcoin network without any constrains for anyone to use. Nothing else. It is you that are actually scared and does not support bitcoin the way it is. Please tell me how do you support bitcoin. Please go ahead and fork that shit up.
Global consensus?! You wish..
Ok. |
|
|
|
Big dumping happening right now...
Can't believe they haven't made a clearer announcement....
Is there a reason for anyone to buy or hold these shares? |
|
|
|
Sometimes he's busy -- whether that means busy working, busy holidaying, whatever. FC is known for it. A delay in transferring shares is quite common (I'm amazed he does share transfers at all -- he should have switched to e.g. colored coins by now). This does not make him a scammer FFS.
Really? You seem like the only optimistic one at this point. |
|
|
|
*cough* shameless self-promotion *cough*
I'm fine with it. At least he can deliver. |
|
|
|
Sure. Here you go. ^^
"We just need to allow stuff to happen."
Why do "we" *need* this?
Why do *you* think you speak for others?
What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it?
So from "Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?" and "Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?" you switched to "Why do "we" *need* this?". Ok..that makes a lot of sense... Now to answer to your issue: Why do "we" *need* this? Because if we have a closed network that only allows the highest bidder to use it, then it will remain a closed network. Satoshi didn't started Bitcoin to be a closed network. If *you* want a closed network based on the highest bids then yes go ahead and "The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service". Why do *you* think you speak for others? I speak for myself and from the looks of it there are a lot of people that think the same. Since this is a consensus network then all the users need to agree to the best terms that allow the network to flourish. When I say "we" I'm referring to all the network users if we want a consensus network to still be alive in 10 years. What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it? I said it in the past, but you obviously don't pay attention to posts. Bitcoin is Internet of money. Internet flourished after there were a lot of services running on top of it. Look at the Internet 20 years ago and look at the Internet today. What has changed? Well at first people didn't know what to do with the Internet, but today they have figured it out and there are TONS of services/projects running on top of it (Facebook, Google, Websites, E-mail etc) and people that do all kinds of stuff (porn, chat, various types of websites, darkmarkets etc). You and I can do whatever the hell we want on Internet and nobody is making you auction your space on the Internet. Why shouldn't be the same with Bitcoin? 20 years ago downloading the equivalent of a HD movie in a couple of minutes was just a fantasy, but look where we are today! I think that the same can be done with Bitcoin. What today seems an impossible technological challenge, maybe tomorrow will be reality. |
|
|
|
Is Bitcoin 'hemorrhaging market share'? I hadn't heard. Whatever the case, losing a lot of the users is a fairly desirable thing to me. Users who want to use a very powerful technology such as Bitcoin to buy their morning coffee are a distinct liability to the system and are in the process of killing it right now (hence this thread.) Really? So that's why you are anti raising the block limit. Because you want to use Bitcoin for yourself and you piss on people who want to buy coffee using your powerful technology. It seems like this powerful technology is your new God and peasants aren't even allowed to say its name. Who are you to decide who should use Bitcoin and who shouldn't? (I know you will not answer to this) I said it in the other thread and I will say it again here: Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders. |
|
|
|
So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen!
Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way!
Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them.
Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain? The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service. Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others? Do you lack reading reading comprehension? I have highlighted one important part from my quote. Let me repeat it because you obviously didn't see it: Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest biddersI never stated that I want to start projects and that you need me. I said that there are a lot of people that would like to start various services and projects. Please highlight the part where I said that I want to start anything. |
|
|
|
Honestly, I was thinking to use the Bitcoin network for a project, and concluded after some thinking that the numbers of transactions I needed would be to high for me to believe in the network to take my transactions (kind of contracts)
So I would have to rely on my network.
Bitcoin is for reference, not to be used to store to much data on blockchain, the smalest it will stay, the more resilient it will stay
What are today transaction per second for gold market ? maybe we should target this.
And continue to work on side chains or other merged solution, including using proofs from bitcoin network, without writing into it
So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen! Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way! Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them. |
|
|
|
I'm sure that having a huge network flow is a very big risk for the network, I'm sure that less nodes, with big infrastructures is more risky.
I'm sure that 20mb x 1.4 x year is huge and that it's impossible that the risks have been studied carrefully and tought acceptable.
I'm sure that some countries can't afford so much bandwith
I'm sure that it will be harder to maintain, easier to cause networks splits...
I'm also sure than when blocks will be full, a quick fork with consensus (that we can plan right now) will be implemented quicly.
So, I will stick my coins offline for some time, and be sure to not follow the fork, just to be sure.
(for sure there will be technical tricks, and do you think this fork will go smouth executed right now ?)
So as I said. You are sure of some stuff and you think that there will be no technical solutions for all the above. Reality is different. As for the "a huge network flow is a very big risk for the network"...Well I'm speechless! What are your expectations from the Bitcoin network other than a huge network flow? You are one of those people that only see Bitcoin as a currency and are only interested in the exchange rate? |
|
|
|
After reading more, I feel concerned for network security if the blocks grow so much. It's clear it would be easily detected by opperators, and they would have incentive to cut it if they support a big bandwith usage growth from to much customers.
Bitcoin can't scale much, that's it.
Let's scale it a little bit when we will have a more clear consencus and everybody would be ok to increase block size at 2 or 5 mb.
Our votes don't matter, but if I could, I would have edited my yes for a no
At that time, I tought it was 20mb, but 20 doubled every two years is too much risky
So you are sure that there will be no technical trick to solve this issue. You are 100% sure about this. Of course you also know the lottery numbers and what the exchange rate will be in a couple of years. |
|
|
|
Yes of course, but bitcoin is not only a currency. It is an alternative "way" for send a large quantity of money and pay lower fee, and after a currency (like € , $ , etc....) .
People want to have it their way. For them Bitcoin is only a currency and nothing else which is wrong wrong wrong! |
|
|
|
To me, and I come from a completely different paradigm, which is the obvious arising of a universal poker coin which cannot be said to be unrelated. The ideal poker markets that are eventually created by having a near instant and near costless means of exchange creates a cradle for a solution basically that is "quixcoin" (I "think" Szabo mentioned it recently and is Sergio L's coin). I am far from technical, but to me this is the birth of the actual implementation of "mental poker". But I instantly get confronted with the question or assertion about why one would not just use bitcoin. This is of course in relation to many skilled type games, and the markets that support them. Thats a mutibillion dollar industry that could snap over the bitcoin nearly over night which is contingent on bitcoin having some form or amount of limitations (transition from fiat to bitcoin, but ultimately to separate value from the game with separate "coins" protocols, or networks, however we view it all) . This is an incredibly interesting conversation. I am almost sad I will not be able to share the contents and meaning with many people I know irl. Someone accuses someone of being a thief, but I think rather we must all think like thieves in order to create the ultra secure platform.
Do you know anything else besides "ideal money" and "poker"? |
|
|
|
i havent tried the boot method yet this time. although it didnt seem to help the last time this one failed after a brief power cut.
as to replacing management board/emmc? i am confident if its relatively simple.
Give it a try |
|
|
|
yes, i know. Gavincoin proposal is an attack on bitcoin. I just wanted to figure out which public channels to watch so i can be among the first ones to sell in case the community is forked and bitcoin hijacked.
I guess i'll just sell now and wait until the dust settles. Won't go anywhere before the halving anyways.
I think i might buy Mpcoin later if it comes to the MCA
Why do you think Gavincoin is an attack on bitcoin while MPcoin isn't? |
|
|
|
another power cut - another non-responsive SP30
Did you try the boot method? Maybe the mng board got corrupted somehow and it just needs a uSD card as boot medium. Happened to one of my miners in Advania. |
|
|
|
A detailed financial statement is needed. It really shouldn't take this long to produce.
But nobody wants to see the books... |
|
|
|
Just in case you were curious about mining bitcoin on other planets..
Don't worry! There will be a SWIFT-a-like sidechain that will regulate interplanetary transfers  |
|
|
|
Guys i am trying to understand the whole thing, but please ELI5 how will be my coins, stored in paper wallets affected??? I will have to sell them and buy new coins on the new fork or i will be able to use my coins on both blockchains....? I don't get it  If this is the case, that we will have to sell our coins and buy new ones, i don't want that.... Nope. You don't have to do anything. If there is a fork you would need to upgrade your client if/when you decide to spend coins. That is about it. Seeing how Gavin and the other developers moved forward with P2SH it won't happen until there is a super majority of support. So coins will be usable in both forks if you use the proper client right? |
|
|
|
Results speak loudly. A month from now, we should be seeing some.
What exactly are you expecting to happen in one month? is it over?  It was over since last summer gen3 chips. |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know how is the physical Reset button working? Does it needs a long press? A short press? Does it resets to factory defaults or it's something else?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
