|
I saw the new conference live yesterday, Conor McGregor was looking very confident, way better than the first one, he put on a show, smacked the microphone and throw it on the floor and used his hand microphone. Mayweather had no chance to comeback from that, but what matters is what happens august 26, so we will see what happens. For now there are 2 more conferences to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Hehe. you beat me to it. Thanks for posting. And I changed the original post btw. Look at the event poster, looks really good. I wish I could get a real one, frame it and get it displayed it in my office.  Daniel Cormier looks like he has white eyes like a Mortal Kombat character like Subzero lol. The buildup is great, I want to see the press conference and see them go at it, but right now the Mayweather and McGregor press conferences are being one of the most entertaining I have seen. Conor rocked Mayweather on stage yesterday, but Mayweather also got some good ones. |
|
|
|
Hello,
I am planning to develop a web based BCN wallet and I don't know if it's worth spending time, money and effort on it or no? Because I can see that BCN is almost dead and this actually because of the leak of support, the none answer questions and also because of the Official wallet that really suck and take days and days just to synchronized and people are facing a lot of issues regarding this.
So what do you think guys?
This forum is about bitcoin development, yo ushould post this in the altcoin section. In any case, Bytecoin introduced really interesting technology, they started the whole ring signatures stuff. The big problem of Bytecoin is their massive premine of like 80% of coins. This made the Monero fork to thrive and become the number 1 ring signature coin. |
|
|
|
..study built upon faulty premise.
what premise is that? It looks like there's no way to convince big blockers of their mistake. What can be done at this point? Will they actually hardfork and find out for themselves? Looks like no amount of arguments will ever change their mind. They want to live in 2010 when bitcoin was cheap as fuck because no one used it. They have lost their mind, they don't get it. We are witnessing something ridiculous unfolding. If the JarzikCoin code actually forks backed by the mining cartel it's time to get some popcorn. |
|
|
|
Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.
What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.
I did some quick math.
Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 MB.
10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain
1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB
Even with 10 MB blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.
Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bucks for another 100 GB.
So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.
How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) and in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!
If you have 80mbps download you can do 600 10MB blocks in 10 minutes.
I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...
So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile. Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...
It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss. There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised. I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all. Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.
What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.
I did some quick math.
Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size, 1mb or 2mb or 3 mb or 4 mb.
10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain
1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB
Even with 10 mb blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.
Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bcks for another 100 GB.
So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.
How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mbp and in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!
If you have 80mbps download you can do 600 10MB blocks in 10 minutes.
I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that won't happen!
It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss. There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised. I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all. Nice copy-pasted answer. At least big blocktard sockpuppets should put some more effort into varying their answers. Anyway, we don't need big blocks because the mempool is not full, except when it gets attacked by Roger Ver and other rich attackers:  The Bitmain-Ver PBOC sponsored attack on Bitcoin is increasingly obvious as the spam attacks become increasingly less organic and happening right in key moments where hardfork FUD is being spread. Segwit2x will soon join XT, Classic, and Unlimited into the also ever increasing list of Failed Bitcoin Takeover attempts. Sorry, no hard forks for you. It's objectively stupid to risk a hardfork that only contains a 2MB increase when we don't need to. If we are hardforking you should look into other interesting technology and not the dumb blocksize increase only: https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/We also do NOT want to hardfork with unsafe code, developed in an unsafe amount of time, risking a 40 billion market in the process. We do not need bigger blocks now, it's objectively a mistake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ |
|
|
|
"satoshi's vision"
Forum's common big blocker retard: -I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick. These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure.  -brainwashed Coretard This is what happens when you push a big blocker in the cliff of reasoning. "muh coretard". Sorry buddy, you look ridiculous defending the big block morons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQTake some notes on why big blocks are fucking stupid. You're 100% wrong about everything. Wrong. The miners won't approve segwit because segwit = off-chain devaluation (fiat).
Wasn't it the Core developers who lowered the blocksize from 32MB down to 1MB to begin with? For three years they've been hoping that the miners would break under pressure and approve off-chain segwit.
You either have a bitcoin or you don't. No more fairy dust and empty promises.
The miners don't give a fuck about anything that isn't profits and outperforming the competition, but above everything they want control. The 2MB hardfork is a way for Jihan to get Jihan-sponsored devs instead of Core which he can't control because everyone on Core is already rich and will not sold out their cryptopunk roots for more money. Segwit has been insanely tested, drop the FUD. The real problem is the fucking hardfork so get your priorities straight. 2 bitcoins = bitcoin no longer a store of value. so pereira4 is crying because garzic is running tests on btc1 on a separate testnet.
well there are thousands of devs, who can just run btc1 on a public testnet.
lol
it doesnt need everyone to sit on their hands and wait for garzic to test it on his own.. anyone can
so if you want to cry about someone privately testing something, go run the code and test it publicly
..
but anyway i mentioned it before in another FUD topic by pereira4. so here is a summary
using a separate testnet specifically for a new bip is not new, and not garzic setting a precedent
hint: SegNet
have a nice day
You keep missing the point: Garzik is setting a precedent by wanting to hardfork with unsafe code and unsafe time. |
|
|
|
"satoshi's vision"
Forum's common big blocker retard: -I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick. These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. -brainwashed Coretard This is what happens when you push a big blocker in the cliff of reasoning. "muh coretard". Sorry buddy, you look ridiculous defending the big block morons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQTake some notes on why big blocks are fucking stupid. |
|
|
|
Segwit is poison to bitcoin and needs to be avoided at all costs in any implementation. Boycott the Blockstream/Core bitcoin takeover attempt with segwit to turn bitcoin into a banking settlement system. Every true bitcoiner should support Satoshis vision by supporting Bitcoin ABC http://www.bitcoinabc.orgIt's funny how everyone shilling their implementation claims to be "satoshi's vision". "Support XT, it's satoshi's vision" "Support Classic, it's satoshi's vision" "Support Unlimited, it's satoshi's vision" Give me a break. Satoshi didn't foresee a lot of things we are experiencing now so "satoshi's vision" (whatever that is) is irrelevant with 2017's data. If they only started their SegWit2x plan a few months ago, they could've definitely test it properly and succeed eventually into activating it because they have the required hash power but they are not going anywhere with a buggy software.
A hardfork requires an entire year AT LEAST of preparation. Jeff Garzik is on crazy pills or is on Bitmain money. |
|
|
|
https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked. Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months. Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
BTC forktards are creating a global uncertainty situation on the cryptocurrency ecosystem as a whole. Once the market understand there will be no fork, I think even Ethereum which I don't like and I think it's going to crash hard long term, will pump again, everything will be green once they understand king bitcoin is not forking.
|
|
|
|
We will know within two weeks if miners move to btc1 as planned. Kind of hard to miss that much hash power switching over to a different client.
Miners will not move, and exchanges will not risk massive losses on clients due a potential bug in the rushed out software. Jeff Garzik has failed once again to deliver solid code, the whole planning is a rushed mess, it has no substance, it's stupid, we don't need a blocksize increase in a matter on months in the dumbest way possible, this is empirical facts against nonsense. Therefore the logical conclusion is that they just want to fire Core, and this is their opportunity to do it, but what they don't know is, they have fucked for life, everyone involved in segwit2x is blacklisted on bitcoin for life. |
|
|
|
I am still not able to see how can one pinpoint a spam attack to someone or an entity or even prove successfully that there was a spam attack. I've asked this many times on the forum and haven't got any answer, and I will ask again, since this thread has everything to do with it: why would people supporting a block size increase spam the network? That's counter productive. These people want bigger blocks because the 1MB ones we have are congested enough. Spamming the network will congest these blocks further. So people wanting a less congestioned Bitcoin are going to spam it? Makes no sense to me. #2 Block size was never the issue, the real problem was nefarious activity which couldn't be classified as legitimate user behavior.
Block size is and will be an issue (this doesn't mean that SegWit or DDoS is irrelevant) Have you not understood anything yet? This is a fight for power, they don't give a shit about the blocksize, fees or anything else. They've found that they can spam the network in order to push a hardfork developed by developers under their control (Jeff Garzik and the other devs are Bitmain-sponsored). This is all about kicking Core out to put Bitmain/Ver-bribed goons. Stop believing into the fake narrative of BTC needing an urgent blocksize increase when it's evident that's bullshit and start looking at what's actually going on. |
|
|
|
Hi... there are some good deals on ebay and I am wondering if it's ok to buy bitcoins on ebay platform? Anyone who bought there could you please share your experience? Also what if the seller don't send the bitcoins after you paid? Will ebay help? What about their ebay purchase protection policy?
Never buy bitcoins on ebay, it is a never ending scam circus on there. If you want to get bitcoins find other ways and never use paypal or a credit card because they can get your money and run and you will receive no bitcoins. Look into some exchange or local bitcoins, there are no other ways if you want to buy with fiat. |
|
|
|
|
That's hilarious. Are the Sk Team and Virtus.pro team FIFA players or something? Otherwise what do they know about football? Also I assume it's european football (known as soccer in usa) and not american football right?
|
|
|
|
|
I have noticed that Overeem has serious problems trying to stop an attacker on striking position and coming forward, he always gets clipped and his head becomes woobly, then an experienced striker could finish him. Werdum is not the best striker in the world so he didn't fully capitalize on it, Miocic could have finished him again on that situation just like last time.
|
|
|
|
More spam from the department on Advanced Verconomics:  Bitmain gets all that mining revenue due their mining monopoly and ASICBOOST cheap, they mine empty blocks too, and when they want to spam they re-invest some to spam the network. A nice wheel of perpetual machine to scare noobs into supporting JarzikCoin. Sorry, not going to work. Segwit2x hardfork is already dead, they are wasting money (again). Surely the insane price action had nothing to do with it. </sarcasm>
Talk about a reach OP. Bitmain and Ver are pro Satoshis vision. The only anti bitcoin agenda is Blockstream and Core.
hi Roger. |
|
|
|
lol
segwit2x = barry silbert
barry silbert = blockstream puppet master. all barry wants is segwit activated ASAP, all spam+propaganda leads back to barry even the tx spam that started when core bips "needed" to be pushed,
check out the mempool spam accelerate in october-november 2016.. oh and a spike around the june '16 period the other core bip needed some attention..
nice try pereira4, but next time you and billy really should stop trying to grasp empty staws from reddit and do some real research
you are right ! see where DGC (Digital Currency Group) is shareholder too. there SO MANY shills and brainwashed here. the last ones think that they really count. LOL few gangs "own" the e-currency called Bitcoin. they manipulate the market, they own the biggest exchangers, the BTC developers(yes, they pay them) , biggest wallets , miners and BTC media. Bingo franky1. Funny that he would try to pin the mempool spam on Ver, obviously it was Core/DCG/Blockstream shills FUDing for Segwit adoption. It didn't work so they switched to the UASF tactic. Peter Todd is working behind the scenes (shaolinfry) as Ethereum takes more and more Bitcoin market share away. Greg Maxwell thinks UASF BIP148 is nonsense. Everyone on Core think segwit2x is a scam. You are missing the points here. This is an obvious XT/Classic/Unlimited situation. Another hardfork-excuse to fire Core devs. How can you not see this yet? You don't seem new so you must be a troll or just missing the game theory at play. |
|
|
|
If miners stop playing stupid games and really want the best for bitcoin, they would stop stomping on the hardfork drums of war, and they would activate BIP141 as they have been told by everyone worth listening to in the space. But what happens when you give stupid janitors the ability to vote on engineering matters? that they will don't do the right thing.
Enable segwit with no stupid hardfork drama, and see bitcoin skyrocket.
Break bitcoin in half, see the price crash, and see everyone involved in the forked chain going bankrupt, with the price going to 0 on Forkcoin, and with Bitcoin crashing but going back 3 years in price and taking another 3 years to recover.
Your choice.
Stupid janitors that you're talking about here are actually the engineers who gets to decide what path would the project take since they have large amounts of money at stake for the system to continue rolling. Also, I don't see why we need to rush activating BIP 141. All of those unconfirmed tx before was clearly an attack to "emphasize" why we "need" BIP141 on as soon as possible. It was all indeed Roger Wu spam attack as well, and we don't even need segwit, but that is not the question. The narrative is not if we need segwit or not anymore, segwit is going in one way or another, and we all know that BIP141 is the least disruptive, less annoying way to get segwit in. A hardfork would be a disaster for holders that simply want to sit back and relax, because their holdings will suffer, a lot. Not to mention the mess of 2 chains. The mistake of anyone supporting the hardfork is clear. At this point BIP141 is objectively speaking the best way to get through this mess. |
|
|
|
pereira4 and billybob
there is no point you sing 2 accounts to say the same garbage
if all you care about is the bitcoin price then you are just FIAT lovers.
go check out litecoin.. the pools that pretended to support segwit are not even using it.. they are still using legacy tx's for their coinbase
you have no clue about how segwit works, what it cannot achieve or what it is suppose to achieve.
all you ever shout out is "activate=speculate"
everyone with brains knows that malicious users will continue spamming using legacy, so segwit solves nothing
its like trying to reduce gun kills in certain neighbourhoods by offering to voluntarily move everyone out of the neighbourhood into a gun free zone.
the only issues is.. the ones that dont have guns will move. but even then the ones without guns and never attempted to use guns still have to drive through and leave their parents in the gun ridden neighbourhood.
where the few now vacant apartments in the gun ridden neighbourhood does not really help overcrowding. nor does it solves the double spending drivebythugs who will continue to doublespend driveby(malle attack)
so stop your "activate for $10k speculation" and all your fake graphs and finger pointing.. atleast grasp logic and show something real and justified
Contentious hardfork into 2 bitcoins = disaster, everyone thinks bitcoin is a joke, massive price crash (only autists that dont live in the real world dont care about this), lack of confidence, bitcoin as store of value lost forever etc. BIP141 = no hardfork, no 2 bitcoins, no disaster, bitcoin continues being a safe store of value. It's as simple as that and you still don't get it after 100000 posts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
