Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2022, 05:03:46 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 »
1  Other / Off-topic / Re: What do you hate about Bitcoin ? on: September 10, 2016, 09:49:03 PM
The top 7 things I hate about Bitcoin currently:

1.) Hijacked development

2.) Mining centralization

3.) Clueless userbase

4.) Capacity is artificially limited at a fraction of what the infrastructure could already handle (which causes delays and a premature fee pressure)

5.) The forums which have the most traffic are controlled by the same sphere of influence (yet another point of centralization and apparently these weaknesses are being actively exploited)

6.) As it stands, the inherent transparency of the Bitcoin blockchain has the potential to severely hurt the prospects of this experiment on the long term

7.) The community has been overrun with idiots who don't care about anything but the price and potential profits.
2  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: www.bit-keys.com scam on: September 07, 2016, 03:01:33 PM
Can a mod please delete this thread?

the merchant delivered a working key after I sent him a link to this thread. Quite a shame that public shaming was needed for him to act.

Quite a shame? Someone should mention that we provided 3 keys regardless of everyone was working when tested it ourself.

If you buy something which does not work and the merchant ignores your emails, what would you do?

Perhaps you should improve your communication as the service I have received was unacceptable.

As a starter, DO NOT IGNORE YOUR CUSTOMER'S EMAILS.
3  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: www.bit-keys.com scam on: September 07, 2016, 01:48:08 PM
Can a mod please delete this thread?

the merchant delivered a working key after I sent him a link to this thread. Quite a shame that public shaming was needed for him to act.
4  Economy / Scam Accusations / www.bit-keys.com scam on: September 07, 2016, 12:30:32 PM
I wanted to buy a windows 10 pro license key.

The first key I got from this company or individual was already used and it took weeks for a response from www.bit-keys.com to address the problem.

They have delivered a 2nd key, which according to Microsoft tech support is a black listed key and cannot be used.

I have tried to contact bitkeys again, but they have failed to respond.

5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 21, 2016, 04:50:49 PM
TIL: most people on forums owned by theymos still believe the lies of Blockstream/Core.
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 2MB Pros and Cons on: March 14, 2016, 05:43:04 PM
Poll should include another option: "I want a blocksize limit increase ASAP, but not from Core".

Anyone who still respects and follows Blockstream/Core should leave the theymos owned, manipulated forums and seek unbiased information.
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What's your biggest problem with Bitcoin on: February 21, 2016, 05:25:41 PM
My biggest problem with bitcoin currently is the apparent difficulty to remove the influence of Borgstream.


3. Bitcoins can be used to buy physical items but they cannot be used in physical stores.


I frequently use bitcoin to buy physical items in physical stores
8  Other / Off-topic / Re: Who is BtcDrak?? on: February 21, 2016, 04:57:42 PM
I cannot understand why some people follow characters like BTCdrak, todd, Back, Luke-jr and maxwell.

Their track record in the past year alone should have alienated everyone already.

It just boggles my mind.
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi round table on: February 11, 2016, 08:24:43 PM
Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.

I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling.

You're not a fan of reading comprehension, are you?

Why are most Blockstream sockpuppets retards?
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi round table on: February 11, 2016, 08:14:35 PM
The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.
It can't. Stop spreading false information.



Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.

I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi round table on: February 11, 2016, 08:03:25 PM
No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!


What if I told you that keeping bitcoin crippled will assure the centralization (and later failure) of bitcoin as it doesn't allow more participants to hit the network?

Consider that currently about 1-2M people own BTC. There are about !!3300M!! internet connected users currently.

The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.

Blockstream is incentivized to keep the protocol crippled and under their control, so sidestepping them is highly important.
If it won't happen bitcoin will remain centralized.

Also, please consider that centralization/decentralization is not an exact property, but a spectrum.
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi round table on: February 11, 2016, 07:52:54 PM
The BlockstreamCore apologists should open their eyes.

Bitcoin needs a fork or its network effect will disappear.
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi round table on: February 11, 2016, 06:41:33 PM
can someone explain to me what is wrong with the classic proposal, i currently run a core node and am thinking of running classic, is it not the case that the 1mb cap is slowing bitcoin down?  how can we move to mass adoption if we dont up scale bitcoin.....?

The main problem is that it's not under  the control of Borgstream. -s
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi round table on: February 11, 2016, 06:39:29 PM
Sorry if it was posted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/458x1w/who_is_who_in_the_signed_fud_letter_pushed_by/

Seems like part of that $50M borgstream funding went straight to bribing idiots and spreading FUD in media.
15  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Did Siacoin really beat Storj to market with decentralized storage? on: November 28, 2015, 06:52:04 PM
Just started playing with SIA. Very promising.

Do you have a subreddit for it?

I wish you the best of luck.

16  Economy / Economics / Re: Why bitcoin value in dollar always changes? on: November 04, 2015, 04:06:14 PM
The price is based on supply and demand.
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: November 04, 2015, 03:56:21 PM
Pathetic lies.
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core on: November 04, 2015, 03:51:29 PM
BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.

I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.

Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea.


Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.

I'm not saying that I can predict anything, only my opinion. (mind the I think part)

As for your opinion that miners do not give a shit about users is obviously wrong. Without an userbase/satisfied participants they have no bitcoin mining business.

Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block.

Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets.

I think BIP101 is the best solution as it does not give more power to miners than necessary like bip100 (that would open up an other can of worms). I would love to see actual tests (testnet?) with unlimited blocks .

Mind that I'm open to alternatives, but the keeping of a crippling limit.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core on: November 04, 2015, 02:48:48 PM
what will happen otherwise? they will simply continue to use core? because i think they don't known how consensus, work if they think they can instigate a change in this way

nothing will happen by december, and certainly mainers are not in favor of XT

BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.

I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.

Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core on: November 04, 2015, 10:37:47 AM
XT and BIP 101 FTW.

It's time for participants to rise up against the tyranny and lies of Blockstream/Core.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!