just randomly assigned then?
It's using advanced AI to find all of your alt accounts and give you the correct badges.  Really? Nicely Done sir! So the many badges you have, the many alt accounts you have huh? Time to go hunting  Though, does this have meanings, like, what do Ethereum in my badge means? I assume it is random since litecoin is the only alt on my badge list I've ever discussed here. |
|
|
|
I don't know what you guys want, but it isn't Satoshi's Bitcoin.
Errm, we all read the whitepaper. What is your point in quoting it? You're right that nobody rules it. However, majority hashing power is by definition Bitcoin. If you reject that premise the whole thing falls apart.
What is your point? I don't get it. Yes, majority hashing power decides which valid chain to build upon. Is anyone challenging that? Yes, my initial reply in this chain was to this: So what? Segwit would already be active by then.
And the whole world would have witnessed that the protocol can be changed by the economic majority, without miner-consensus.
This brand of stupidity is rampant around here. You may have read the whitepaper, but clearly there are quite a few very loud voices who have not. That said, there are plenty of other threads for this discussion. We should leave this thread to the cult of Master Luc, even if he has abandoned them. |
|
|
|
12. Conclusion
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with
the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of
ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
I don't know what you guys want, but it isn't Satoshi's Bitcoin. There's a reason why 'Satoshi' dissapeared. I am Satoshi. You are Satoshi. We are all Satoshi. Thats the whole idea about bitcoin right? decentralisation. If there is/was one founder, and one founder only and he would reveal himself it would harm the decentralisation process. Nobody rules bitcoin. You're right that nobody rules it. However, majority hashing power is by definition Bitcoin. If you reject that premise the whole thing falls apart. |
|
|
|
12. Conclusion
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with
the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of
ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
I don't know what you guys want, but it isn't Satoshi's Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Miners are the arbiters of consensus because they extend the blockchain. They are the group who's interests are most closely aligned with the success of bitcoin. They are the only people with a commitment. Hodlers can dump whenever they lose faith. Miners have to fight to preserve their investment. If they do not do what is best for bitcoin, they lose BIG. Who do you want in charge, fickle hodlers who can jump ship to a different coin if they screw this one up, or miners who have huge amounts of capital invested in hardware that is useless without bitcoin? Every governance system in the world is minority rule. Pure democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner and nobody is dumb enough to use it as a governance model for anything of value. It would be even dumber to cast votes based on who has the most money.
|
|
|
|
So what? Segwit would already be active by then.
And the whole world would have witnessed that the protocol can be changed by the economic majority, without miner-consensus.
How is that a good thing? That's exactly what we have with government fiat. Have you seen the message in Bitcoin's genesis block? The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
Bitcoin was supposed to save us from the rule of the economic majority. Like it or not, miner-consensus is the definition of Bitcoin. Read the whitepaper (it's in my sig for your convenience). |
|
|
|
Good morning Bitcoinland.
Still going pretty much sideways with just the slightest upward creep... currently $1045USD (Bitcoinaverage).
We're working on our 5th consecutive green daily candle (Stamp) but it's ever so short.
At least the panicking has subsided for now but it might keep going sideways for a while longer until the altcoin fad runs its course and the money flows back into Bitcoin.
Yeah.. I had been watching the daily candles pretty closely too in order to get a sense of our recovery from the correction to $900, but still pretty early to call today's candle, since there are still 8 more hours before it closes. At this time, you are correct that the bitstamp candle is hovering around the turning point which is about $1043 and today's candle has to close above $1043 to be green. In that regard, we had 2 out of the previous 4 candles as nail biters and 2 out of the 4 as clearly and unambigously green. Even though we seem to be experiencing a decent amount of ongoing buying pressure at these prices, I would not be surprised either way about the direction of the closing of today's candle. price now is 1021.08 on Bitstamp with no sign of a recovery for today. Looks like today will be the first daily candle clearly negative. Wonder if this is a trend reversal or means more sideways  Careful about calling the candle too soon. Look we have nearly 5 hours yet, and there is quite a bit of ongoing volume, so I wouldn't write off the bulls too soon in this daily candle battle. And, being within 2-3% of the turning point of the candle can be achieved in a matter of 30 minutes, and sometimes less time is needed to accomplish such pumps (or dumps). |
|
|
|
Wall... what wall? I don't see any walls . |
|
|
|
Wall observed! Bitstamp. Being eaten as I type. Somewhere around 650 coins. Not too shabby.
363 left |
|
|
|
-snip-
This is why I say I hope you people bought some physical, tangible items with your moon priced bitcoins, because everything about digital currency trading and price is so heinously fraudulent (as can be seen by 0.1 btc priced darkcoins), that it's all going to come collapsing down in a big way someday. It's obviously not a store of value when nobody is even putting anything of value on the line in a lot of cases in the first place...leveraging illiquid assets...
Enough of your nonsense metals propaganda. The market of metals is one of the corruptest and overpriced markets out there. Neither gold nor silver are worth anywhere near what they're priced at right now (don't make me go into diamonds and other crap). Did you even read the BIP before asking questions?  This does not really need miners, especially not 95% as the BIP9 activation does. It sets a flag day. When this day is reached, anyone running this BIP (Bitfury is already testing it) is producing Segwit blocks and this is compatible with all >0.13.1 nodes. What sort of timescale are you suggesting for this? It is already defined in the BIP. October 2017. Anyone who has a client supporting Segwit already does not have to do anything. It takes two to tango, doesn't it?
There is no tango here. To the degree people are choosing alts over BTC, Ver & Jihan can hardly be held accountable. Core has dropped the ball. Can they pick it up? That would require a schism (another one) in Core. UASF is almost as divisive as BU. And without leadership...
This is bullshit. Nobody in their right fucking mind would attempt to use one of these scam coins. The only reason that people go in those is to gather more Bitcoin. That said, both Ver & Jihan are directly responsible for this, with their power-grab attempt. Core has done nothing wrong. They provided a very good (Segwit isn't perfect) scaling solution that would provide ~2.1 MB worth of TXs with adoption. In addition to that, they'd implement Schnorr post Segwit which would give the network even more capacity without requiring a HF. -snip- argh..just pump to 2k already and I'd not be worrying about frigging 2.25k of btc in my attic in $$$ towards ebay  My understanding is that, some price decline post ETF denial was to be expected and healthy. However, this is starting to become too much. People are *scared*, and this is directly due to the threats from Jihan to fork BTC into BTC & BTU (altcoin). If there was never a BTU, and Segwit activated in late December or early Q1 2017, we could have probably been at $2000 already (at least for a moment). Anybody else remember when we tried to have rational discussions on these topics since over a year ago? Too bad certain moderators kept deleting our conversations. Without discussion, opinions polarized and now the situation has boiled over. If you are mad Lauda, look in the mirror. |
|
|
|
blah blah blah more fork FUD bullshit blah blah
Thanks for id'ing yourself, my ignore list just keeps getting longer Just keep pushing the ignore button. Soon everyone will agree with you. |
|
|
|
The numbers come from bitcoincharts.com. The script dooglus uses to pull the numbers and generate the table is here: vwap() {
days=1200
top=20
currency=USD
rows=$(wget -o/dev/null -O- "http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/chart.json?m=bitstampUSD&r=$days&i=Daily" |
sed 's/], \[/\n/g' |
head -n $((days-1)) |
tr -d '[],' |
awk '{print $1, $8}' |
sort -k2nr |
head -$top
)
newest=$(echo "$rows" | sort -n | tail -1 | awk '{print $1}')
printf "Update:\n[pre]\n"
n=1
month_ago=$(($(date +%s) - 60*60*24*32))
echo "$rows" |
while read t p
do
if ((t > month_ago)); then b1="[b]" ; b2="[/b]" ; else b1=""; b2=""; fi
if ((t == newest)) ; then c1="[color=#7F0000]"; c2="[/color]"; else c1=""; c2=""; fi
printf "%s%s%2d %s %7.2f $currency%s%s\n" "$b1" "$c1" $n "$(TZ= date -d @$t +%Y-%m-%d)" $p "$c2" "$b2"
((n++))
done
printf "[/pre]\n"
}
|
|
|
|
BTU becoming the future BTC is not at all gonna happen. Bitcoin Unlimited have become the talk and speculative subject from few days back. This caused a downfall to bitcoin price to much deep and now it is expected to start the recovery phase and start growing defeating BTU.
If you think the chit-chat on this forum controls price, you're nuts. |
|
|
|
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. If I have to rely on another person to provide me with the block chain data, that is clearly the need for a trusted third party. If you run an SPV node that connects broadly to the network, only have to rely on the network being honest, not a particular node operator. SPV nodes are even described in the whitepaper (one click away in my sig). |
|
|
|
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
|
|
|
|
do you see what roger is doing
CIA-AGENT
Do you fucking know who finances Blockstream you stupid? And who finances BTU? It was started by volunteers and has received some community donations. You mean Roger Ver and Jihan Wu? I think they may have made some donations recently, but they weren't even aware of BU until well after the EC idea was developed and implemented. BU was born in this thread: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16It happened back when bitcoinxt censorship was in full force here. It drove many of us to look for a place to discuss things openly. Many here might recognize that thread as a continuation of a very popular one here that fell victim to the censorship. Thankfully, that censorship has eased a bit recently. You are seeing the results of the censorship all over the place. Opinions have polarized and now we have severely fractured community with a lot of healing to do. Edit: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-64#post-2371 is the post where theZerg (the guy who actually took the initiative to fork core) committed to starting the project. There is a lot of discussion before and after that post that will help explain the BU philosophy if anyone is interested. |
|
|
|
do you see what roger is doing
CIA-AGENT
Do you fucking know who finances Blockstream you stupid? And who finances BTU? It was started by volunteers and has received some community donations. |
|
|
|
BU does not want a contentious fork. It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests. Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks. They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot. There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork. If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is. If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it. Thanks for your forum link. I don't parrot unfounded attacks on BTU. Check my post history and you will find the criticisms I levy against BTU are indisputable even by the paid shills. I read the first page of your post history and just saw a bunch of misunderstanding and anger. There's no misunderstanding just being vocal and speaking up against the BTU shills, that's where my anger lies. As far as posts go you need to look further back for my thoughts on BTU, I make a lot of posts ) Edit: Just posted my thoughts on BTU supporters, check that out if you want. I've got better things to do than to go scrounging through your posts. That last post was a bunch of ad hominem BS. You are attacking a made up straw man "BU supporter" that doesn't actually exist and then slinging some insults. |
|
|
|
BU does not want a contentious fork. It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests. Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks. They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot. There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork. If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is. If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it. Thanks for your forum link. I don't parrot unfounded attacks on BTU. Check my post history and you will find the criticisms I levy against BTU are indisputable even by the paid shills. I read the first page of your post history and just saw a bunch of misunderstanding and anger. |
|
|
|
In the hopes we can start an actual dialog and quit throwing insults at each other: C'mon! Stop talking BS and fork it! If you don't, just STFU! I guess you missed the part about BU doesn't want a contentious fork. I would be very happy if we could all STFU about BU, but people keep saying that BU wants to fork without consensus, which is an utter lie. BU doesn't want to fork without consensus? Great, everything is ok then.... except that's not what many BU supporters are saying. Also... when we talk about consensus? Are we talking about 95% consensus or which percentage? <- This is the most fundamental point. Which BU supporters? Can you provide any links? I've only seen this claim from people who are running around screaming about BU being evil, which makes since if they actually believe that BU actually wants to fracture bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
