Suuuurrrre.

People changed the bitcoin protocol.... other people didn't adopt those protocol alterations (segwit and opdsv).   It's quite simple.

I doubt that very much.

40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.

By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?!  How much will be left ?!!??!   

The blockchain is not about people or price.

Those who focus on that are incredibly naive about the world.

It is not "immutable" with respect to blocksize.   The blocksize can be changed, but since everybody has "defaulted" to a specific limit, it requires extensive coordination..   The specific limit changes the game theory of "stale blocks" significantly.

It is naive to "blame satoshi" for this.


No.   They cannot.

They cannot effectively censor my transaction, as they neither know which transaction is mine, or what the contents of the tx is.
They cannot effectively censor a block ... as other blockfinders will catch up, and mine the tx into a competing block.

I will leave it there... but if you game out a "censorship" (or similar) scenario in more detail, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer about how it doesn't actually work in practise.

These are the things which make blockchain technology GOOD.   Your comments indicate that you either do not understand blockchain, or you are actively trying to undermine it.



No not "all" soft works.   Just specifically segwit, due to the way it was implemented.    Again, you are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding.


No you didn't.  You didn't say HOW.   You just said "it can be done", and you are incorrect.



Indeed.   The market sets the price of all the different tokens, include any "air drops" caused by BTC forks during the coming segwit calamity.

However, why would any of them be worth anything.   1MB every 10 minutes, shared between the entire world is very very very very stupid.    P2SH is stupid.  RBF is stupid.   Nobody involved with BTC sees that (because they *did* it) .... so who's going to fix the mess?   All those people (capable of fixing and building) left in August 2017.


It was never up to Satoshi to fix it.   It is up to the miners....  they could find a larger than 1MB block if they really really want to.

None of the miners who understand (or care about) that are mining BTC any longer ..... or at least they are only mining it for it's short term profit motive.

BTC has been dead for years.

How?

A miner cannot censor my transaction.  I do not practise address re-use... they do not know what my tx is, or who it is between.  They're economically incentivised to mine it (via tx fee).

How does a large miner reduce "permissionless"?
The whole beauty of the blockchain.... is that the don't/can't.    It's why the blockchain is actually good technology.

I know that you can't explain in detail how this "censorship and lack of permissionless system" actually comes about  (in a way which isn't easy to point out the flaws in)....  but I'd like to see you try.


Oh dear.  Are you for real?
It is a fork in the protocol.  The nodes have to decide.  The hodlers are not relevant.



Explain to everyone how larger/variable blocksizes make for not-immutable.



It's good thing that Satoshi's posts have been recorded, and people can go and see for themselves what he said.


Yes... I'm not sure I can compete on that front /S   .... so I will leave.

I just feel sorry for the hordes of people who have been fooled by the "centralised mining destroys trustlessness" idiocracy.    You can't explain how it does that.... because it doesn't.

Perhaps people misunderstood what I meant.

I mean:

BSV is bitcoin.  Bitcoin is BSV.   BSV is the original bitcoin protocol  (or as as close as you get, right now - before undoing the remainder of the idiocy that BTC developers changed in the protocol)

BTC was forked away (segwit) from the original bitcoin protocol (which people refer today as BSV) in August 2017.

It was known as BCH for a while... but then BCH also forked away (and took the name with them).



You didn't explain "why this matters".

Hint:  It doesn't .... at best a large/majority miner can disrupt the system ... they cannot attack it in any other effective way.    But this "power of disruption" applies to any other large player in any (!!!) other type of system.   It's the natural state of things.


The "original chain" is BSV.    BTC diverged from the original chain in August 2017.

Small blocks doesn't change or stop this problem .... all it does is damage the usefulness of the blockchain.



I'll give you a big hint... it is not primarily to do with possessing keys, or "being satoshi" .... and only "newbies" (also idiots) think "proof of keys" is not incredibly naive.   Anyone saying it is either stupid, or being disingenuous.

The people who matter are those who say things about bitcoin which are both useful and correct.



Yes... that is how the bitcoin protocol originally worked.    A cap was added to protect against an attack vector, which is no longer economically viable.    It was ALWAYS discussed by satoshi as something which would need to be increased (and ultimately removed) before it actually LIMITED the available blockspace below the current number of tx.


... and one of the biggest idiots which ever lived.   


Not ignored.    However, only miners can effect the block size increasing.... by actually mining larger blocks.   Any one miner "going it alone" would be forked.

No, you are incorrect.

Oh, did I not acknowledge or reference what you said?!

I am not "pretending" anything.  

Not BSV's theory.  Bitcoin's.

There was no block size cap in the original bitcoin protocol, and one was only added to mitigate an attack vector which is no longer economically viable.

Seems like it, but I'd expect him to do whatever works out best to maximise value at the time.   He doesn't need to do that just to "tank BTC", it will do that itself eventually.

Wow.   Try the opposite of this.

Restore original protocol
Blocksize decided by nobody but what the block-finding node is willing to risk


Although it isn't accurate to say "Craig Wright is doing it".  Plenty of people are "doing it", if Craig wasn't around there are many others who understand the real power of bitcoins, and all the things BTC did to remove that power.    

a) I don't think you _really_ know that

b) Mine them, buy them .... it isn't that complicated.



Someone selling a bunch of coins should be the last of your worries.

Segwit and 1MB blocks should be your concern .... and Craig Wright isn't responsible for either of those.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactions.html

Transactions per day chart doesn't really support this.


Spammers?   They must really want to waste money ... but also, if spam is increased, then becuase the transactions are relatively constant, then bitcoin (legit) use is not at all increasing.


... but they're not.

Hi Everyone.   (I know this is not tech support, but)

I tried to mine $MUSIC on the nomnom.technology pool...   on the nomnom website, it says to configure the miner like this:


... and so I did.    I put my ethereum address where it says to, thinking that the musiccoin would show as an ERC20 token in my ETH wallet.

 
I pointed 700MH/s at the pool for 24 hours, before I realised my (potential) mistake.


I've done the wrong thing, haven't I ?! (and no way I can't get these coins back somehow?).    I've signed up for an actual musiccoin wallet (using the web wallet) now just to be sure.

It is logic like this which is very very dangerous.    You want a quick solution to a immediate problem you are having .... and you think you know the solution, but freely admit you don't understand it.


Increasing blocks ... will allow bitcoin to be controlled by those who are powerful enough  (and we all know there are very powerful forces out there that will take control if an opportunity presents).   Slippery slope, that leads to nowhere good.

Solutions to capacity will come in time.

... but doesn't this mean that we don't get the automatic profit switching ability ?

My aim it to have it switch between ccminer and ccminer-fork based on whichever pool which has been selected from the pool-group, by the profit-switcher.

I hope there is a way to achieve this.  

EDIT:  Also with ccminer (and same if I load in a ccminer fork) I have issue where I cannot send parameter for the miner by using the pool settings dialogue.   example: maybe a specific intensity or worksize, or similar - to be used for a pool.      I have sent an email about this to info@awesomeminer......  maybe I just do not understand how to achieve this.   I see I can do it with the managed miner, and a template ..... but then *I* have to switch it - but I would like the profit switcher to do it for me.

Hi everyone - I feel this is probably a silly question, but I wasn't able to easily see the answer.


I have the nicehasminer gui.    It has come with the excavator version stable.    If I would like to try an alpha version like this one, can I simply replace what is in the folder .\miner\bin\excavator\   with the alpha version?

Is there anything else I must do?   (Please point me to a guide/post if there is one, and sorry).


Happy hashing!