So saying that "Bitcoin is a protocol" is a bit like saying "Gold is a metal" - i.e. true but not very relevant to its potential monetary function.
So by your definition Satoshi created Bitcoin to serve as a base monetary unit for all the other altcoins? Either I got it wrong either it doesn't have any logic. Most above points are interconnected. Bitcoin fails in most points.
Ok. Bitcoin is dead. Move along tard! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a BASE MONETARY UNIT - NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH.
Bitcoin isn't a base monetary unit because you want it to be. Bitcoin is a protocol because it's how it was designed. |
|
|
|
|
Your post makes no logic. You get the hardware for free or not? If you don't pay for power then it means that everything you produce is profit right? Then why not start them up?
|
|
|
|
Good work bro. Very proud of ya. Shame these university kids aren't fussed about differentiating between scams and failed business's although who could blame them, they needed data for their colourful graphs and charts. 'We have identified 1000 scams because it says so on bitcointalk but we won't include the biggest scam of all, MtGox.' Laugh my bum off.  You can't fool anyone. This was a scam from day 1. This wasn't a failed business. There is not a single proof that ken was trying to create a custom ASIC chip besides a worthless NDA signed with eASIC. All the rest were just beautiful words and switching strategies. This company started with a plan of creating a custom ASIC chip and ended up mining with third party miners. The $10k that you lost were worth it for all the drama that went around this. |
|
|
|
Well, you'll be amazed what satoshi really said in that quote and how it is distorted by gavin.
I am going to show the correct interpretation once he comes out of his basket.
Go and eat some shit meanwhile! |
|
|
|
|
Thanks to Vice we saw a bit of life in China, but the video is a bit confusing. In the intro they say that the mine generated 4050 BTC in November and the owner of the miner says that they generated ~100BTC per day which would equal to ~3kBTC per month. Either they run into a big loop of luck or something is wrong.
|
|
|
|
If we assume the fork is needed to maintain a healthy ecosystem; (and the math dose point in that direction) then how do we stop the blocks from filling up with spam and how do we maintain a network of independent miners if fees are going to drop below a single cent per transaction? And how on earth can we kill off the 1MB chain, because even if it takes the 1mb chain a year to recover it will still hold the true title of the "original Bitcoin" and that is 99% of why Bitcoin has rained as the supreme leader in a sea of alt-coins.
And I recommend the name of this thread be changed to "Bitcoin's 1GB to 20GB Fork" because its clear 20mb is the bare minimum requested by Gavin it was a compromise to get the ball rolling but he wants a lot more then 20MB.
Why should we stop the blocks from filling up with spam? I think that a good pruning method will be developed which will solve the bloatchain issue. This is just a technological challenge, it's nothing impossible. rename it from 'blockchain' to 'bloatchain'
lmao
Retard. This can be solved. We only need to put our minds to work instead of throwing with shit like you do. Oh wait you haven't developed/built anything in your life so you have no idea how to do it. |
|
|
|
I cannot believe people seriously oppose the increase!
"arguing to ignorance" the rest of the post was distorted trash based on false assumptions too Troll and useless post. Bringing nothing to discuss. Move alone. |
|
|
|
Hello Mrs. Andresen, i'm sorry, your son indicated no seriousness or willingness for a discussion on his point raised. His post made to me the impression of no serious post. I am deeply sorry for pointing it out and for refusing to discuss its content based on the sloppy impression it makes.
Welcome to my ignore list Mrs. Andresen
Ok. Now share us with your reason against 20MB blocks. And please ignore the bloatchain reason. Do you have another one? |
|
|
|
Are you Gavin? Mr. Andresen can't even quote Satoshi in an academic manner. How on earth can anyone take him serious? I'm expecting Mr. Andresen to correct his post and include the reference link before we'll be able to continue with the discussion on the actual topic/quote. Hey fucktard his post isn't a post in an academic system. The post is on a forum and he can put it any way he likes it, not the way you want it. I hope that MP give you good cock to worth all the shit that you are eating. |
|
|
|
You are running in circles. There won't be consensus with this community of greedy and selfish basdards everywhere... You whole post has no argument besides the bloatchain. Am I wrong? Do you have any other argument or you just like the shit that you throw? Yes you are wrong. My main argument was you bahave like an ape an that's why this is going nowhere. But of course that must have escaped your attention. Grats on earning your weetard title! Mr. Andresen i'm unable to find this original source of satoshi. You like to quote him without providing a link to the source, don't you?
I can pull satoshi quotes out of my ass too. If you can't link to the original post it's not a legit quote. Please provide a link to the original source you try to quote ASAP.
Did you not attend university? Did you not learn how to quote? Quotes without unambiguous reference to the original text are no quotes at all.
The quote is real you fucktard: http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.htmlI'm done replying to you. If anyone else wants a discussion about this I will gladly join the discussion, but this is not the place for retardness as shown above. |
|
|
|
Not finding a solution is out of the question. Period.
Just don't create more problems. The whole human evolution is based on trial and error and you want to negate and stop that? It will not happen your way. You are running in circles. There won't be consensus with this community of greedy and selfish basdards everywhere... You whole post has no argument besides the bloatchain. Am I wrong? Do you have any other argument or you just like the shit that you throw? |
|
|
|
In my view in business and in ecosystems there are no people, there are only ideas.
That's exactly what imaginary worlds are, only ideas. Sure, but the history of D&T is not needed when discussing this subject. MP's intro is useless and is only there in order to add to the wow factor. His only argument against the fork is the big storage space needed which is not an issue. I was expecting more from MP and I consider that this particular post is bad PR for him. We will develop a way of not needing that amount of storage for regular coffee buyers.
"Let's increase the size of blocks now and create problems, for which we may or may not find a solution, later. But that's ok, later is not now, right?" . Period. |
|
|
|
MP is a sensationalist and he likes drama and attention. In my view in business and in ecosystems there are no people, there are only ideas. Starting his article mentioning the person behind the idea is simply bad intended from the start. Right after that he starts praising MPEx which again has absolutely nothing related to the main idea and to the main subject of a bigger block size. After filling half of the article with useless nonsense about MPEx he reverts to a journalistic move in order to divert the attention from the subject which is to reveal something sensational and he chose to reveal that regular users will need 914TB of storage in order to pay for their coffee. I have already answered to this stupid and non-existing issue. We will develop a way of not needing that amount of storage for regular coffee buyers. Afterwards he starts pushing his view of the blockchain. For a decentralized thing people trying to limit things their way isn't so good. Gavin is only trying to not limit things and to have large open doors for everyone. Keeping a 1MB block limit is a bad intended and limiting move.In the end of the shit article MP closes with: If Bitcoin can't pay for its own security, it is best to find this out sooner rather than later. Bitcoin security will be insured by the services running on top of it and allowing services to run on top of Bitcoin by increasing the block size limit will definitely insure security no matter what. |
|
|
|
before it actually becomes a problem this is FUD. you no better than her: And this is useless post. |
|
|
|
Initial examples of sidechains will probably be out in a few months. Long before the 1MB becomes a problem (if it ever really would.) A properly implemented two-way-peg makes a sidecoin an excellent proxy for a bitcoin and offers a true potential to both scale and to keep Bitcoin lite and defensible.
...
As it is, all you bloatchain guys are doing is herding a bunch of drooling sheep with simplistic fundamentalism, faith-based decentralization, nebulous claims about scaling, scare tactics and such-like. That's how I see it.
So you support having a properly implemented two-way-peg, but you don't support the research and development of a proper pruning method? Where is the logic behind that? Do you really think that the developers are incapable of finding a solution to the bloatchain problem before it actually becomes a problemWhy do I always get the impression that the anti-fork people wear horse glasses? Why do they think that all the potential issues that might arise will not find a solution in a decent amount of time? You forget that this is the first developing consensus network and that changes need to happen and challenges must be faced. This will make the network grow and learn from mistakes in the same time. By closing ourselves in an bubble we also deny our evolution. If the minority end up using the 1MB chain, it will become just another altcoin. To my knowledge Gavin doesn't actively engage in destroying altcoins that I'm aware of, unless others know different.
Of course if the minority choose the 20MB, that will become the altcoin.
Sure, but the good part is that if the 20MB fork becomes better then you will still have coins on the new hip-chain and everyone that will switch from the 1MB to the 20MB chain will be an early adopter. So it's a win win for everyone  |
|
|
|
Having fun friend,
Except that this isn't the "Fun" board. It's the Hardware board so...... |
|
|
|
I agree, just watching how the miner behaves when I specify a working max Wattage, my units are clearly not getting the best GH/W possible. Like I said, they clock themselves down for no apparent reason... Also, an error rate of 2% is acceptable, these things allow virtually no errors, which I believe is the reason for the aggressive declocking =(
I bet I could hand tune clocks / voltages statically better than their autotuning does...
But is it worth it? How much would you gain? If it's less than 5% then it's not such a big gain... |
|
|
|
I have found and examined the "SP20 Jackson Quick Start Guide". At the tail end of that 9 page document there is a reference to "SP20 Jackson User Guide" for further details. I have been unable to find the "SP20 User Guide" anywhere. Does this document exist, and if so where? Is the "SP3x User Guide" useful at all for the SP20? Sorry if this is an silly question, but I couldn't find anything relevant here.
You can ask here any question that you might have. |
|
|
|
If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list.
I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability:
<removed quote>
If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault.
I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale.
Thank you. Keep doing what you are doing! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
