I hope this will continue on all the way to the halving and beyond. I was at going to cash more in but decided against it ...glad i didn't now. Although yes should have unloaded at $50 for sure. Be good to get back to that point again though  I think Litecoin is range bound for the next 6 to 12 months. Look for prices to stay + to - 25% over the short term. |
|
|
|
It has been decided that the blockchain will fork at a height of 372,000. This will allow pools, users, exchanges, block explorers, and others approximately 6 1/2 days to update.
Binaries and source code will be made available a little later today.
should i worry about the fork and the reasons for that ? I think the only worry would have been had we done nothing. We decided to make Goldcoin much more scarce and much more difficult to mine. This fork has been discussed previously. There are two Goldcoin Reports on YouTube, posts here and on GLDTalk.org, and a discussion in the Facebook group. https://www.gldtalk.org/index.php?topic=3528.0The team has decided to roll forward the coin generation rules to year 20 which will reduce the block reward from 31 to 4. This will result in 53 million fewer coins for a total of 70 million total coins to be minted over the next 100 years. This update will also increase the maximum block size to 2 MB and reduce transaction fees to 0.01GLD from 0.1GLD. ~~ |
|
|
|
|
It has been decided that the blockchain will fork at a height of 372,000. This will allow pools, users, exchanges, block explorers, and others approximately 6 1/2 days to update.
Binaries and source code will be made available a little later today.
|
|
|
|
hello,
is there a plan to become goldcoin as a POS coin or hybride (POW/POS) ?
regards
I would like to see Goldcoin invent its own proof-of-work scheme that would have increased energy efficiency. But that will probably be somewhere down the road. |
|
|
|
I think a lot of the people who are freaking out about Bitcoin being "declared dead" are the ones who have Bitcoin as the majority of their cryptocurrency holdings. Bitcoin may not survive with all the infighting and and the limitations on how fast the Bitcoin network can process a lot of microtransactions, but that doesn't mean that major players won't simply leap to another cryptocurrency and keep right on going if it dies. I've been accepting a lot of altcoins (the ones I think are worth supporting) for my writing services on my blog as kind of a way of hedging my bets. The ideas that went into the original Bitcoin won't die so easily once they've gotten this far if we just don't let it. This is exactly what will happen. Rarely does the contender with first mover advantage maintain his throne. We need multiple blockchains to mitigate the risks of having a single point of failure. Altcoins provide yet another layer of decentralization. |
|
|
|
Since you actively delete and censor posts.........who cares? If you delete/censor ANY of my posts again......I'll go non-stop at your ass. You have been warned.
Who are you and when were any of your posts deleted? You will be held to the same standards of behavior as anyone else. If you want to contribute to the conversation, you are welcome. If you want to harass or disrupt, your posts will be reported and deleted. |
|
|
|
BTW your avatar which promotes altcoin reminds me why only those who supports Bitcoin are important in this decision
Are you saying that people that support other digital currencies don't support Bitcoin? Actually, the opposite is true.  Altcoin prices are derived directly from Bitcoin's price, making the health and vitality of bitcoin of "extreme interest and concern" to supporters of other digital currencies. It is bitcoin that's opening the door for other currencies. We need the front runner to remain strong and free from subversion. In addition, individuals involved in altcoins are some of the most technically knowledgeable and informed in regards to the blocksize issue! |
|
|
|
2 MB block size brings nothing.
This is strange answer coming from a bitcointalk.org staff member. But you are the same person that said Satoshi's vision is irrelevant? Funny how well now I can remember you and your ways. I thought 2MB blocksize would mean keeping Satoshi's protocol intact, whilst relieving full blocks, quelling the current international dispute, and at the same time leaving open the possibility for SegWit, and other Blockstream corporate-sponsored programs. |
|
|
|
But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin
This is the question mark.Who are they 'fixing' it for and why? Does it need to be 'fixed'? and does this 'fixing' help their clients more? the community more? How do the core devs balance this dizzying conflict of interest? |
|
|
|
You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.
I'm sure there were people that tried to stop Hitler? Maybe too many thought the 'bickering' wasn't worth the trouble. All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. If anything, it will be silence that spells the death of bitcoin - not the voices of concern. |
|
|
|
Satoshi's vision is irrelevant.
Honestly never thought I'd hear that statement from a bitcointalk staff member. |
|
|
|
We argued last summer that this will happen, and we were right, with core being proven wrong. Core at the time publicly stated that once blocks are full we can have an emergency hardfork. Well, blocks are now full, and Classic proposes the emergency hardfork. Yet core continues to refuse because they want a settlement system, but we, the users, the companies, the wallet developers, the most senior core devs such as Gavin and Jeff, reject the settlement system. https://medium.com/@Aquentys/on-the-theology-of-hardforks-312ab2f0ca9b#.d121nwxdsIt is becoming increasingly difficult for the Blockstream™ paid/controlled Core devs to conceal the severity of their conflicting interests. Their lies and rhetoric - their smoke and mirrors - have all lost their luster and appeal. Satoshi Nakamoto must be saddened by disgust. |
|
|
|
I have been so done with the block fight I don't even know what segwit is and why it can't work with 2mb blocks, if it can then why not both?
As I understand it, SegWit and increased blocksizes are two completely separate issues. SegWit improves efficiency, and is the equivalent of a 2Mb blocksize, or better. It introduces a number of other possibilities as well. As there is no immediate need for a blocksize increase, it would be better to implement SegWit, and then see what is needed for the future. Who knows, maybe the Litecoin and Bitcoin chains should be combined to facilitate exchanges. An irrational fear of hard forking to 2MB is not valid justification for Blockstream's paid/owned core devs to ignore the wider community and strap on their experimental protocol-perverting sidechain. Fact: Satoshi reduced the blocksize to an arbitrary 1MB as a temporary security measure only. It was never intended to stay fixed at 1MB and certainly never intended as a consensus rule. What we are seeing is a 'classic' example of a hostile corporate takeover having fully co-opted command and control of bitcoin core. |
|
|
|
Lets just all agree and do it, there really is no negative to kicking it up an extra mb.
It will give people experience on hard forks and a mutual one is a good place to start, to be honest I am pretty sure we all know there will more hard forks in the future.
The community already does agree but core will never get approval from its corporate Blocksteam™/PWC wage masters. |
|
|
|
none of this noise changes anything though - it can't cover up the fact that their approach - (be it XT, Unlimited, Classic, or whatever the next retread's called) - is inherently inferior.
How exactly is increasing the blocksize to 2MB an inferior 'retread' when it preserves Satoshi's original protocol in pristine virgin form? |
|
|
|
What is FOMO? Coud you tell me? i'm new here. I hold btc because I strongly believe it's going up. Didn't buy drugs with it yet but it's not out of my plans  I enjoy the satisfaction of knowing bitcoin is centrally backed by a multi-million-dollar corporation. |
|
|
|
He's compromising on the blocksize. The general public might be completely in the dark about who runs core now, but people that eat, live, and breathe bitcoin aren't as easily fooled. He's not. '20 MB urgent' -> '2MB absurd' -> '2MB fork'. This is not compromising, this is manipulating. A thing can't be "urgent" if you can accept a 10x smaller version of it. Also you have no idea why he left Core because you were never more deeply involved ("eat, live and breath" the propaganda I'd say). I think the rest of my post made it clear that it's a rhetorical question.
Correct. My post was actually directed at the person that you've quoted, but I felt like quoting you as well was better. Wrong. You're putting up tweets from long ago. In addition, you can't possibly be an objective contributor to this conversation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
