Curious - did you ever meet Frap.doc in person? |
|
|
|
Poloniex SUCKS !
Margin sells don't close. lost all my money and i paid for negative funds because i can't close margin.
Be aware of this website !
Be aware of shorting! |
|
|
|
but nobody cares about the code....someone will fix it !
Who? You? Me? Thanks, but no thanks I think bitcoin its a powerful idea Just one another ponzi scheme. , and maybe a decentralized system is not cheaper, but i think its needed No, it is not needed. Bitcoin will have a brillant future as an alternative currency : scarcity, secret, special, tool, elite ,... = value No, there is no future for any crypto. It is too expensive for maintaining. So we have a brillant currency Wrong. You have nothing, but 50 GB of junk data on your harddrive and a dream to be a $ millionare. Good time for this post. Marks the one year anniversary of Amaclin's prediction of $10 BTC "...within three months..." |
|
|
|
So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!
So were the doctors who performed frontal lobotomies on unruly children. The Bitcoin market price doesn't seem to think much of his help. How do you know the market price is not dropping in response to the Blockstream's selling of the blockchain to Price Waterhouse? You have an infinite number of news stories to choose from and an infinite number of price movements. Are you sure you got this correlation right? How about the causality? Do you check the market price after each 10 lines of new code? 20? 100? |
|
|
|
Here we go again  I doubt we'll ever figure out the answer to this question. Not quick, but simple. Step 1. Eliminate everyone who is not Satoshi. Step 2. The person/person left is/are Satoshi. I'll start: Not Sylvester Stallone Not any of my nieces or nephews (total 8 people). Not Hashfastdoc Not Mark Karpeles Not John Riggins Not Sarah Palin That's 13 people eliminated. If everyone on Facebook eliminated 13 unique people, we'd know who Satoshi is. |
|
|
|
These schemes reduce orphaning and allow miners to make a greater profit. It's not hypothetical, Matt's fast block relay protocol is the simplest and least effective of this class of scheme and it is used almost universally today to carry blocks between pools. (A good thing too: otherwise there likely would only be a single mining pool now...).
In the last week or ten days, Matt posted that he was looking for someone to (paraphrasing here) "take over the running of the relay network server". If the relay network server goes unmaintained, what will be the consequences? Is this server a point of centralization? |
|
|
|
|
Calling VultureFund.
90 minutes left.
|
|
|
|
Polo currently has the biggest exchange 24h volume on coinmarketcap, impressive.
Are there any plans to offer fiat trading in the future?
Hope so. I have a 1990 Miata that I'll trade for 3 BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Calling VultureFund.
Fewer than 13 hours left.
|
|
|
|
I don't understand what is with this phantom concept of 'economic majority'. As far as I can tell, it has been created by the big blocks shills in order to help their propaganda efforts.
It doesn't even make sense. Majority of what? Are we talking about economics or elections here?
Are you aware that not all 2 nodes are equal? When discussing the economic majority of nodes we are simply pointing out the differences in quality and influence of certain nodes over others. I.E.... 1 node controlled by an exchange has far more of a vote than 1k amazon ec2 nodes spun up without economic actors behind them. How is economic majority status identified? How is economic minority status identified? How is economic majority measured and quantified? Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is not a number that can be applied to any discussion of vote or preference. Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is just a vague unmeasured mass, a word thrown around in philosophical discussions or policy discussions. While the discussions may be educational, the use of "economic majority" is not going to contribute to the resolution of anything as long as it remains unquantified. |
|
|
|
Here's a fun thing:
Pick a random point in time, then:
A) the average amount of time from that point to the next CLAM block is 1 minute
B) the average amount of time from that point to the previous CLAM block is also 1 minute
C) the average time between CLAM blocks is also 1 minute
Wouldn't you expect A + B = C? Yet A, B, and C are all 1 minute.
If t denotes the time a random CLAM block is generated, then A) the average amount of time from that point t to the next CLAM block is 1 minute B) the average amount of time from that point t to the previous CLAM block is also 1 minute C) the average time between CLAM blocks is also 1 minute Does this make Dooglus's "random point in time" equivalent to "the time a random CLAM block is generated"? I don't understand what you are asking? Are you saying that a block is generated at the exact instant you pick? That is not the case in general. I'm saying that t denotes the time block xyz was generated as recorded by the blockchain. I repeatedly shout out different random historical block numbers, and write down the time t that the blockchain says each was generated. A) The average of "time from t to the next block" is one minute B) The average of "time from t to the previous block" is one minute C) The average time between CLAM blocks is also 1 minute Dooglus is picking random points in time t. I am picking random block numbers. The set of three conditions A, B, and C, are equivalent for Dooglus's pick and my pick. Does this equivalence make Dooglus's "random point in time" equivalent to "the time a random CLAM block is generated"? It sounds like no, because my set of times contains x members, where x is the CLAM block height. Dooglus's set of times has an unbounded quantity of members. |
|
|
|
Here's a fun thing:
Pick a random point in time, then:
A) the average amount of time from that point to the next CLAM block is 1 minute
B) the average amount of time from that point to the previous CLAM block is also 1 minute
C) the average time between CLAM blocks is also 1 minute
Wouldn't you expect A + B = C? Yet A, B, and C are all 1 minute.
If t denotes the time a random CLAM block is generated, then A) the average amount of time from that point t to the next CLAM block is 1 minute B) the average amount of time from that point t to the previous CLAM block is also 1 minute C) the average time between CLAM blocks is also 1 minute Does this make Dooglus's "random point in time" equivalent to "the time a random CLAM block is generated"? |
|
|
|
What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?
Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic. Can you provide more information? Who was polled? Who was excluded from the poll? How was the question phrased? |
|
|
|
Typical organofcorti genius stuff
When organofcorti visits your thread, it's like having the Pope come to your bingo game. Something I'm curious about, though: Is it "organ of corti", or "organov corti"? |
|
|
|
This should be left in this thread:  Indeed. Bitcoin is supposed to be governed by the code people freely choose to run. If a company like Blockstream can co-opt Core, force the adoption of "illogical" features that the user do not want, and prevent the community from migrating to a new repo, then that would demonstrate a failure of Bitcoin. As a developer for Bitcoin Classic, and co-Chief Architect along with jstolfi, you should have input into the message stored in the Classic "genesis block" that will be produced in a few months. Will it be your avatar signature, or your post signature? |
|
|
|
Coinbase and blockchain alliance (including its member Gavin) will take over the mantle (or at least try to). Bitpay has the marketshare on blacklisting. |
|
|
|
The truth may be more simple: the economy lost faith in core to solve the scalability problem.
And yes, this is a takeover. Core forgot that bitcoin is not just development, but also economy and politic. They ignored the needs of the economy, and the politics of consensus. It's not fair to only blame big blockers when we slide into a contentious hardfork.Maybe their way can be considered technical better - but politically it was not the safest and secure, but the most dangerous way: the way that increased the risk of a contentious hardfork. Is the economy supposed to decide on the technicalities of the system? Are we going to let people who major in economics and politics make the most important decisions that people with an IT degree need to be making? If so, then I might as well tear apart my 'degree'. We need both IT experts, economists and political thinkers in order to fully understand and decide the paths we choose to take. Bitcoin requires a multidisciplinary approach in order to gain a better and wider understanding of its mechanisms and effects. This is why in the Bitcoin Unlimited Articles of Federation it does state this explicitly. The voices of scientists, scholars, developers, entrepreneurs, investors and users should all be heard and respected. Articles of Federation hard fork coming up to add jstolfi and TPTB_need_war Bitcoin Unlimited is fully compatible with any changes that are introduced through Bitcoin Classic. I fully support Bitcoin Classic and I am very pleased we are finally reaching a super majority on this issue, the original vision of Satoshi triumphs. Finally! That's why it took six years, Satoshi neglected to write Articles of Federation. |
|
|
|
The truth may be more simple: the economy lost faith in core to solve the scalability problem.
And yes, this is a takeover. Core forgot that bitcoin is not just development, but also economy and politic. They ignored the needs of the economy, and the politics of consensus. It's not fair to only blame big blockers when we slide into a contentious hardfork.Maybe their way can be considered technical better - but politically it was not the safest and secure, but the most dangerous way: the way that increased the risk of a contentious hardfork. Is the economy supposed to decide on the technicalities of the system? Are we going to let people who major in economics and politics make the most important decisions that people with an IT degree need to be making? If so, then I might as well tear apart my 'degree'. We need both IT experts, economists and political thinkers in order to fully understand and decide the paths we choose to take. Bitcoin requires a multidisciplinary approach in order to gain a better and wider understanding of its mechanisms and effects. This is why in the Bitcoin Unlimited Articles of Federation it does state this explicitly. The voices of scientists, scholars, developers, entrepreneurs, investors and users should all be heard and respected. Articles of Federation hard fork coming up to add jstolfi and TPTB_need_war |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
