Once his comment is corrected to actually represent a real quote of Satoshi i'd have some points of discussion. Not before that.
If you won't dicuss any further until the quote is fixed, then why do you keep posting? same question could i ask you since you in particular produce nothing than spamposts for days now. I've never stated that I will stop posting. Consistency is important. |
|
|
|
Once his comment is corrected to actually represent a real quote of Satoshi i'd have some points of discussion. Not before that.
If you won't dicuss any further until the quote is fixed, then why do you keep posting? |
|
|
|
He even inserted a very cute smiley into his "quote" which Satoshi did not make.
That's a bug in the forum. When you place an 8 next to a closing parenthesis, then you get a smiley with glasses. See:  So, he quoted him verbatim, but it's the forum's fault that a smiley appears, not Gavin's. You need to get mad at the right people. |
|
|
|
|
Some months ago, when somebody asked about the new software, it was said that a beta would be done somewhen around February 2015.
So, it's February now. Are we expecting something for the end of this month, or will it still take more time?
I'm just curious.
|
|
|
|
It doesn't become an altcoin if it doesn't work like a "currency" (i.e. allow for easy transfer of funds for example).
Are funds not currency? Do you think that "houses are currency"? Yet they are a "store of funds" and they can be "transferred". OK. How is this related with my cup of coffee I'm trying to buy? |
|
|
|
You said yourself that you wouldn't be bothered with having to exchange things just to buy a cup of coffee.
Yes. I would rather use Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It doesn't become an altcoin if it doesn't work like a "currency" (i.e. allow for easy transfer of funds for example).
Are funds not currency? |
|
|
|
So, a purely informational blockchain? That's nice, but it doesn't seem to fit with everything we've been discussing so far.
It would if people didn't keep trying to "put words into my mouth" and insist I am trying to flog an altcoin. We're talking about “not bloating Bitcoin's blockchain”. You propose to have alternate independent blockchains to alleviate it. But Bitcoin is about money. Their tokens are meant to be currency. So, what exactly is your informational blockchain going to do if not handle money? If it does handle money, then it needs its own tokens (because Bitcoin tokens only exist within Bitcoin). And such it becomes an altcoin. |
|
|
|
OK, not a sidechain. An independent blockchain.
How is an independent blockchain not an altcoin?
If it doesn't even have a "coin" then exactly how can it be an altcoin? So, a purely informational blockchain? That's nice, but it doesn't seem to fit with everything we've been discussing so far. |
|
|
|
How can you have consensus if different software did things differently?
Exactly why I pointed out the problem with your post. But you're comparing it to NASA. Do you think the different NASA servers also not reach consensus? (internally, that is) |
|
|
|
How is your sidechains proposal not an altcoin?
Because it is neither a "sidechain" nor an "altcoin". Is that easy enough for you? (it seems that you are expecting me to announce a new "coin") OK, not a sidechain. An independent blockchain. How is an independent blockchain not an altcoin? |
|
|
|
Talk is cheap, do it, and publish your altcoins and let ppl make their choice. Otherwise, this thread is another spam.
I have *no intention of making a coin at all* (so your challenge is rather pointless). How is your sidechains proposal not an altcoin? |
|
|
|
No there are not (when it comes to the actual consensus)
How can you have consensus if different software did things differently? |
|
|
|
And NASA redundant servers run software different from one another?
They often have completely different programs to do the same thing just in case one implementation is found to be wrong. Cool. So, you know there are different implementations for Bitcoin too, right? |
|
|
|
They are *all running the safe software* so if there is a bug in that software it doesn't matter if there are 1M+ nodes. Why can you not get this? And NASA redundant servers run software different from one another? |
|
|
|
As soon as possible being the point - it wasn't fixed instantly - if Bitcoin was holding the entire world's economy and that happened then the repercussions would be *enormous*.
Of course. It's not magic. Also, that's the reason Bitcoin is still beta software: so that errors can happen without fucking up with the world. That's why there's not Bitcoin 1.0 yet. |
|
|
|
There is a reason why NASA have redundant systems - why do they bother if they could just create one perfect one?
Are 1690 nodes not enough redundancy for you? |
|
|
|
Seriously - we were extremely lucky that the fork didn't cause a lot more trouble.
That didn't came out of luck, but out of people who want Bitcoin to succeed and so fixed it as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
It only needs one serious "zero day" bug to be found to cause a fork (and we already have had one).
OK, so you know for a fact that bugs can be fixed easily without needing an alternate chain. Also any stuff about "buying coffee" for Bitcoins at the moment is just plain "silly" (the entire network could only handle 7 TPS - I think you'll find a lot more coffees than 7 per second are sold throughout the world - so if we all started trying to buy our coffees with Bitcoin we'd only succeed in killing Bitcoin).
Well, yes. That's the point of people suggesting a larger block size, so that more people can buy coffee (and other trivial stuff) simultaneously. What's the point of this argument? |
|
|
|
What? Fee replacement only allows you to replace the fee, how can that bring a totally new transaction into play? Also, when I said you can accept unconfirmed transactions most of the time, I said “most” because you can predict that a transaction won't be confirmed and reject those.
Yes - sorry - I forgot that fee replacement is supposed to check that the UTXOs don't change. But even Gavin firmly advises no-one to accept zero confirmation payments with anything of more than trivial value. But we're talking about things of trivial value, aren't we? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
