Not to specifically call any person out but, have you guys read Satoshi's whitepaper recently?
It's been a few months. I don't consult the writings of Karl Benz when I talk about automobiles either! Shame on me. Well, I wasn't talking about you but it's nice to know you're self-conscious. lol I enjoy our banter, so I was compelled to respond! |
|
|
|
If we can't move forward because of fear of the unknown then no one would ever walked on the moon.
It seems like the "large blockians" are afraid of starting their own coin from scratch (or even just forking today) and letting it compete with the current state of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Do you think the internet is centralized because you need to rely on business grade ISP?
Yes. In fact, until we have a worldwide wireless mesh network in place, Bitcoin is vulnerable to this centralization. This is overly paranoid. This would be a good thing if we ever get there but it is not a reason to not move forward. If we can't move forward because of fear of the unknown then no one would ever walked on the moon. Even if it is overly paranoid, let's not move in the opposite direction. Thanks. |
|
|
|
It's already not the case. Now what? Is bitcoin broken?
We should be working on improving that before having year long arguments about taking the training wheels off. |
|
|
|
Not to specifically call any person out but, have you guys read Satoshi's whitepaper recently?
It's been a few months. I don't consult the writings of Karl Benz when I talk about automobiles either! Shame on me. |
|
|
|
Do you think the internet is centralized because you need to rely on business grade ISP?
Yes. In fact, until we have a worldwide wireless mesh network in place, Bitcoin is vulnerable to this centralization. |
|
|
|
Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.
Every end user does not need to run a node. Surely Bitcoin enthusiasts who are willing to spend money on dedicated hardware and top tier home internet should be able to run a full node though, right? Or is it OK if it requires business level infrastructure and resources to be a fully validating peer on the network? Fuck that. Don't be twisting words you as well. It has nothing to do with "enthusiasm" but financial responsibility and sovereignty. If you are to use Bitcoin as truly a local, peer-to-peer user, there is absolutely no exception but to run a fully validating full node. You might have your reasons to do so, yes you may choose not to do so. Indeed you don't "need" to run one...unless you care about monetary sovereignty which is where Bitcoin's true value resides. But by all means go ahead use spv wallets, web "portals" (as in: and...it's gone), and other various Hearnias just make sure it don't come at no cost to me. I don't need to pay from my own freedom to be free from trusted authority for these "users" inability to stuck sucking from the tit and always ask for a "supporting" hand to move forward. I think you are misunderstanding what I've said. Let me try to explain. Every user does not need to run a full node, yet every user who wants to run a full node should be capable of doing so. Kind of like... every driver does not need to wear a seat belt, but every driver should be capable of wearing one if they want. |
|
|
|
The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.
A Bitcoin enthusiast with dedicated hardware and top tier home internet can't run a full node today without taking measures to cut down on the bandwidth. Increasing the amount of data that must be shared is obviously going to make it even more difficult to possibly downright impossible. I would say that is a huge step away from decentralization. ...And this is under the best possible conditions. What happens if/when some authority decides its time to try and prevent the flow of Bitcoin data (at an ISP level). So, I'm a bit confused when you say that the value of Bitcoin is as a decentralized, P2P cash system, but it's OK if we move away from decentralization and have fewer peers. Wut? Having fewer peers =! being centralized. What's the point of keeping bitcoin crippled for a niche market? There are plenty of altcoin for this exact purpose. Bitcoin's destiny is world domination, for anything else there is an altcoin and everyone is happy. I didn't say having fewer peers equals centralized. I said that reducing the number of peers is moving away from decentralization. How far can we move before it becomes easier to harm the network? Shouldn't we be looking for ways to move towards greater decentralization instead of less decentralization? What you call crippled, I call nimble. |
|
|
|
|
Is the network more or less robust if home based users are capable of effectively running a full node?
Is it important that the network remain robust?
Would it be easier to attack Bitcoin if home based users are no longer capable of running a full node?
|
|
|
|
Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.
Every end user does not need to run a node. Surely Bitcoin enthusiasts who are willing to spend money on dedicated hardware and top tier home internet should be able to run a full node though, right? Or is it OK if it requires business level infrastructure and resources to be a fully validating peer on the network? |
|
|
|
More than anything i like people that says the truth even in the faces of strong oppositions.
If i may ask, why did you do it? and what do you intend to achieve? I want to tell you that bitcoin is too weak for you lifetime savings So, what is strong enough for my lifetime savings? |
|
|
|
The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.
A Bitcoin enthusiast with dedicated hardware and top tier home internet can't run a full node today without taking measures to cut down on the bandwidth. Increasing the amount of data that must be shared is obviously going to make it even more difficult to possibly downright impossible. I would say that is a huge step away from decentralization. ...And this is under the best possible conditions. What happens if/when some authority decides its time to try and prevent the flow of Bitcoin data (at an ISP level). So, I'm a bit confused when you say that the value of Bitcoin is as a decentralized, P2P cash system, but it's OK if we move away from decentralization and have fewer peers. Wut? |
|
|
|
It's always about you, isn't it Holliday? lol
No. I already know how Bitcoin works. I don't need to use this place as a resource. People who might actually be interested in learning about Bitcoin have to wade through a lot of shit to get any decent info. In the last year or so there have been so few posters making decent threads I've started screwing with people in off topic just to have something to keep me active.
I don't ignore trolls anymore. I used to go around putting everyone on ignore that seemed to just be screwing people, never participated in serious debates or presented any real suggestions for any topic. That made me ignore trolls like iCEBREAKER and scammers like TerryTibbs. I couldn't have been more wrong about TerryTibbs and I enjoy reading iCEBREAKERS contributions now. Be careful about ignoring too many people. You might miss out on something good.
I'm simply talking about this specific troll.  (Although I do ignore sig ads automatically just because the chances of getting anything valuable from them is so slim that it's worth possibly missing out.) |
|
|
|
First, who uses the word "hath". Seriously?
This dude has been trolling the forums for ages now. This is like the 40th incarnation of him that I've had to ignore because he uses a new account for every thread. Don't be too hard on him. From what I see lately, if we get rid of all the trolls and sig campaigners we won't have much of a forum left. lol I don't care if he trolls all day long! I just wish he would do it on the same account so I don't have to ignore him again, and again, and again, and again, and again... |
|
|
|
First, who uses the word "hath". Seriously?
This dude has been trolling the forums for ages now. This is like the 40th incarnation of him that I've had to ignore because he uses a new account for every thread. |
|
|
|
A good daily driving vehicle should probably be reliable, efficient, comfortable, capable of dealing with inclement weather, and inexpensive and easy to fix when something does need repaired. I don't have a lot of experience with 911s but I would imagine there are a TON of better options out there, especially for 40k. Then again, it all depends on your budget. If I could afford it, I would daily drive a Boeing AH-64. |
|
|
|
Prediction: in 5-10 days price will spike another few dollars and we all come on this thread, first talk about how we are going to the moon, and then vigorously discus block size limit, once again i'm going to lose my shit and post something like this.
How's your full node going Adam? I asked in the other thread, but you must have missed it. I decided to up my connections to 30 while we were discussing nodes in that thread, so I needed to restart mine. Since then (September 16th), I've received 20GB and sent 83GB. That's almost 5GB per day. |
|
|
|
You deleted the phrase "(e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)." Are you opposed to multiple forkwise-compatible implementations of the Bitcoin protocol?
I am not opposed to multiple implementations (forkwise-compatible or not) of the Bitcoin client/protocol/whatever. I think I would actually prefer a fork at this point. There are clearly irreconcilable differences between certain groups here. Let's fork already and may the best chain win. |
|
|
|
Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development?
No. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
