 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
|
|
yes, my shit also looked like a single digit today
|
|
|
|
they will handle it very smoothly so that almost no one feel the difference
lol, you wish you think everyone here is a noob or what's the deal with that BS? |
|
|
|
Oh my god what a stupid OP. Check BTC history and you will see that each hard fork before never had any effect on the price. And with the next one it won't be different!
Hardfork without consensus, doofus Yes it's different. Other times always was consensus. The baby could rip and most likely will. |
|
|
|
What i dont understant is the certainty that both coins/forks are gonna live. If lets say 80% of all Hashingpower switch to the new Fork the old work will get stuck at a very high difficulty so transactions will take 100 minutes. This will cause more miners to switch until the fork is practically death/useless.
And i think if a fork will ever happen it will be made sure that at least 80% of the miners are behind this decision.
Well, that's the beauty. If the 'old' version really retains 20% of the hashing power and people do keep it alive, the difficulty will adjust itself accordingly after some time. If more and more people actually switch to the 'new' version, the hard fork was indeed 'successful'. Thing is: It doesn't matter  or people switch back to the original bitcoin because gavincoin is just a pain in the ass. |
|
|
|
DONīT. Probably i do. Always need ammo to dump on the retards pumps 
Tell me you did shirt at 152 ? And regret it now ? Bottom is never a good time to short.
i did 'shirt' on 290$ and haven't bought back since and you are butthurt cuz you haven 'shirted' -------- Project all your asspain on me you broken bulltards, i enjoy it. lol |
|
|
|
Taking a short position now isnt the smartest decision.
you said the same shit when it was at 600$ ---- yes, it's always time to short i just dumped my LTC in grace ... i'll buy back for 50 cents (maybe, if i'm still interested later) |
|
|
|
tell me how an inflationary currency is an alternative to an inflationary currency
Tell me how half of America thinks homosexuality is a sin, yet sees no problem with gluttony.  R U OK , BRO? |
|
|
|
|
tell me how an inflationary currency is an alternative to an inflationary currency
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin 'taking over' would be a freakin' nightmare.
Cryptocurrencies are a different story. Bitcoin alone is a nightmare.
We need diversity to avoid fascism.
|
|
|
|
There is only one secure network, the Bitcoin network, and many experiments.
This is FUD. How can you say that? I doubt it. You give no proof or argument. What is unsecure about the LiteCoin network? What is unsecure about the Monero network? You should know the shit these bitcoin bagholders cough up in every corner of the forum. Bitcoin is a shitcoin, but bagholders of it need to be in denial of the fact of course (afterall they are still looking for the greater fool to sell to before these coins become worthless) |
|
|
|
|
Did you take hardfork and subsequent split into at least 3 coins in account which all would want to claim to be the real thing?
What makes you so sure the coins you are hoarding are real bitcoins a year from now?
Why would anyone want to buy them for more than a few dollars?
|
|
|
|
Nowhere did satoshi say to raise blocklimit ahead of demand 20-fold.
Hey MP guess what: Satoshi never had a block size limit! Now go and eat more shit please. I'm not MP you fuckin' idiot |
|
|
|
Dumb post by someone who couldn't even bother to read the Bitcoin Whitepaper. Here's a snippet for the uninformed.
"
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
"
Important parts are highlighted. Nowhere did satoshi say to raise blocklimit ahead of demand 20-fold. This would imply that you'll be in favour of a fork when we do come close to hitting the 1MB limit then? Could have sworn you weren't in favour of a fork under any circumstances.  I would be in favour of a fork as soon as the blocklimit starts making trouble - but by then still not 20-fold. I don't think hitting the limit will even produce any big trouble for a long time. I think btc could operate within 5 MB blocks for the next 3 to 5 years (or even longer) without slowing down adoption even a little. I think Gavin must have something in his water that affects his brain. --------- Actually no fork would be necessary at all, if people would just start entertaining the multi-chain solution a bit more. |
|
|
|
A dangerous scarcity experiment
Hah. I kinda like this one, imma use it to refer to Bitcoin from now on. pahaha. I just spewed my coffee over the screen. lmao. |
|
|
|
Dumb post by someone who couldn't even bother to read the Bitcoin Whitepaper. Here's a snippet for the uninformed.
"
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
"
Important parts are highlighted. Nowhere did satoshi say to raise blocklimit ahead of demand 20-fold. |
|
|
|
blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:
-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex
Lol What? You mean the people who aren't trolling or spamming for anti fork? I think Muuurrrrica is not a fan of decentralization, let wait this fork and we will see who *follow* it and who not . lol, how full of shit some people are  |
|
|
|
|
blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:
-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex
|
|
|
|
Increasing limit is not solution.
a) there are 7,000,000,000 people (let say only 1,000,000,000 will use bitcoin)
b) everybody makes 2-3 transactions per day
c) 1 transaction takes 230 bytes
d) there are 240 blocks per day (24 * 10)
=> (1,000,000,000 * 3 * 230)/240 = 2,8 GB per block
We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.
the answer is quite simple To me there is no question about it, the future is:
Altchains + merged mining =
Multiple chains, easy convertibility, no central point of failure, efficiency, no problem to innovate, no hardfork dramas and no problem to scale
Bitcoin bagholders for some reason like to argue for monotony instead of diversity. I think that line of thought is unhealthy.
altchains - what else? Each chain can hold a few million users. Maybe it'll take some more time with most people to let reality sink in. There is really no rational reason to mash everything onto one blockchain - it's even impossible |
|
|
|
|
And now the hardfork will seal its fate ...
|
|
|
|
|
