 We've been getting full blocks all day. Armstrong may be right that a HF in 2017 is too little too late. wheres brg444 when you need him full blocks != end of the world |
|
|
|
|
the devs have little choice but cater to the miners, and the miners have little choice to cater to the users.
|
|
|
|
make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it
its likely they are stupid.
FFS
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1372397.0strongly recommend moving your BTC out of coinbase do not trust these spot light loving restarts, and show them your disuse for actively trying to stop what little progress we FINALLY have made, by leaving them. if you leave coins on coinbase, you are supporting, another year of bitching and nothing getting done while bitcoin bleeds. I think it was a bad move on the part of Armstrong. We need the miners on the big block side and opposing their deal alienates them. He's right though that we still need to run our Classic nodes but as a deal enforcement mechanism. You know damn well Core will renege if we don't have leverage on them. I'm just wondering how Back is going to sell this to the true believers without have them ragequit. They see themselves as making a principled stand on engineering integrity. They are, but they also don't understand that it doesn't matter. A top security network isn't possible as long as majority hashpower is concentrated in China. A value network, not a quality network is our only option. now we fully understand why we need at least 1 competing impl. Competing implementations that didn't threaten to break the protocol would be nice. Am I asking too much? lol agreed. |
|
|
|
make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it
its likely they are stupid.
FFS
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1372397.0strongly recommend moving your BTC out of coinbase do not trust these spot light loving restarts, and show them your disuse for actively trying to stop what little progress we FINALLY have made, by leaving them. if you leave coins on coinbase, you are supporting, another year of bitching and nothing getting done while bitcoin bleeds. I think it was a bad move on the part of Armstrong. We need the miners on the big block side and opposing their deal alienates them. He's right though that we still need to run our Classic nodes but as a deal enforcement mechanism. You know damn well Core will renege if we don't have leverage on them. I'm just wondering how Back is going to sell this to the true believers without have them ragequit. They see themselves as making a principled stand on engineering integrity. They are, but they also don't understand that it doesn't matter. A top security network isn't possible as long as majority hashpower is concentrated in China. A value network, not a quality network is our only option. now we fully understand why we need at least 1 competing impl. |
|
|
|
|
you know this agreement is the best thing we've ever seen when brg444 and I agree on it.
|
|
|
|
Not having all of the blockstream core devs sign the agreement is what effectively makes it toothless.
80% hashing power and a bunch of devs all agreeing to somthing that most of the community likes is toothless??? The issue is not with the hashing power (the operators of the pools actually), it is with the blockstream devs. The economic majority of Bitcoin and (most likely) the majority of the mining pools (which currently have the majority of the mining power pointed at them) have wanted larger blocks for a long time. The same is most likely true for much of the userbase. It is the blockstream core devs that are opposed to increasing the maximum block size. If the blockstream core devs oppose a HF then such HF will have a difficult time in getting it's way into production. market reacted very well to the news, economic majority likes this. the operators said it themselves they CANNOT act without the consent of their clients. they knew what there clients wanted coming in and they got that.and one of the operators is actually a private pool. for that last point, miners will switch to classic in that case, thats what they said coming in, "we are so fed up with you we will switch to classic if you don't listen to us" or somthing to that effect. I think that is the general sentiment for mostly everyone, so if the blockstream core devs give us a hard time, we will HF AS SCHEDULED without them. burn indeed  we'll be fine, blockstream core devs are learning that the only power they really have is the ability to let there voice be heard, and if they choose to ignore our voice, they will get what they deserve. |
|
|
|
... i want this resolved ASAP way more.
Not possible due to ... ☑ everyone loses. I win  if you win we all loss i could not agree more |
|
|
|
make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it
its likely they are stupid.
FFS
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1372397.0strongly recommend moving your BTC out of coinbase do not trust these spot light loving restarts, and show them your disuse for actively trying to stop what little progress we FINALLY have made, by leaving them. if you leave coins on coinbase, you are supporting, another year of bitching and nothing getting done while bitcoin bleeds. I checkid my coinbase app on my iPad to see price has raised sence community has reached uncotinshous concentsus. Then I red that CEO brian is trying to kill bit coins with more capacity before late 2017. Quickly, I moved my millis to my blockchain wallet, phew, thanks Adam, that guy is evil for real, tries to kill the bit coin concentsus. This honey marmot don't care about capashity, price raised to $1000 in 2013 with 1MB, and wheel do again in 2016. Cheers, we can't loose. Skål!!! coinbase could get there way you two would be here telling us they are killing bitcoin all you care about the entertainment value of disagreeing... admit it. I'm halfway in the "wait and see"-phase, but I'm glad there are central business actors in the Bitcoin space who's got the guts to tell the devs off when they deserve it. I still think the lot of them should be fired. At the very least, Wladimir should go. But it doesn't work that way, so having some big players calling them out is nice.
Besides, we all know you'll be here screaming like a little bitch when Wladimir refuses to implement the code 5-6 months from now. We wouldn't want to make you feel out of place.ahahahaha you know it! I too would like 2MB HF first and then segwit but i want this resolved ASAP way more. |
|
|
|
Not having all of the blockstream core devs sign the agreement is what effectively makes it toothless.
80% hashing power and a bunch of devs all agreeing to somthing that most of the community likes is toothless???  this agreement awesome! its this or we continue the blocksizebitchfest indefinitely take your pick. |
|
|
|
 Just something I saw. It would fit perfectly. To the Elliott Wave Pattern. The 5th wave is the only thing which doesn't fit perfectly. Could have been a bit higher... But still. I also like how it sold off after we barely touched 3000 CNY.  So huge drop incoming? Well just oppened a huge short so I agree with you. We gonna see a small dumping in not long. should this pattern hold i guess we'll see 420 maybe 410, before moving >750 ( given this the agreement holds together ) just keep that inmind. |
|
|
|
make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it
its likely they are stupid.
FFS
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1372397.0strongly recommend moving your BTC out of coinbase do not trust these spot light loving restarts, and show them your disuse for actively trying to stop what little progress we FINALLY have made, by leaving them. if you leave coins on coinbase, you are supporting, another year of bitching and nothing getting done while bitcoin bleeds. I checkid my coinbase app on my iPad to see price has raised sence community has reached uncotinshous concentsus. Then I red that CEO brian is trying to kill bit coins with more capacity before late 2017. Quickly, I moved my millis to my blockchain wallet, phew, thanks Adam, that guy is evil for real, tries to kill the bit coin concentsus. This honey marmot don't care about capashity, price raised to $1000 in 2013 with 1MB, and wheel do again in 2016. Cheers, we can't loose. Skål!!! coinbase could get there way you two would be here telling us they are killing bitcoin all you care about the entertainment value of disagreeing... admit it. |
|
|
|
make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it
its likely they are stupid.
FFS
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1372397.0strongly recommend moving your BTC out of coinbase do not trust these spot light loving restarts, and show them your disuse for actively trying to stop what little progress we FINALLY have made, by leaving them. if you leave coins on coinbase, you are supporting, another year of bitching and nothing getting done while bitcoin bleeds. Don't be a retard, Adam. You know Coinbase isn't the problem. the problem is bitcoin is bleeding and everyone is like: use this bandaid no use MY bandaid no my bandaid is best mean while bitcoin continues to bleed get your coins out guys. |
|
|
|
|
everyone that disagrees with coinbase wanting to back peddle and continue the blocksizebitchfest while bitcoin bleeds out, needs to withdraw there bitcoins from coinbase to cold storage.
|
|
|
|
make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it
its likely they are stupid.
FFS
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1372397.0strongly recommend moving your BTC out of coinbase do not trust these spot light loving restarts, and show them your disuse for actively trying to stop what little progress we FINALLY have made, by leaving them. if you leave coins on coinbase, you are supporting, another year of bitching and nothing getting done while bitcoin bleeds. |
|
|
|
... This is the loophole. If core blockstream proposes a HF that includes controversial changes along with an increase in the maximum block size then such HF will not get adopted.
Not controversial features, fixes I'd say. Fixes that might be needed (e.g. Time-warp attack). But if they wanted to, they could put controversial features in a HF, right? What you are arguing could be a possibility, but hopefully they have worked out those terms as well. In your opinion, what could be added to the July 2016 HF proposal that would be a deal breaker or be seen as bad faith? I lack the technical knowledge to give all the possibilities that could be included in a HF that would essentially make the 2 MB HF a deal breaker, however one possibility is that the mining algo is changed in a way so that current ASICs cannot continue to mine (note: changing the mining algo is currently on the Hardfork Wishlist). From the looks of it however, it appears that several blockstream core devs are already opposed to the HF (that currently only has changing the maximum block size to 2 MB in what is changing), so even if there are no controversial features in the HF, it is possible there will be significant resistance to the HF from the blockstream devs. I think it probably would have been more sensible for the agreement to state that a consensus for a HF must be delivered by x date and then there could be a soft fork that allows for SegWit. This would essentially close the loophole of blockstream devs who did not attend the roundtable of torpedoing any HF that increases the maximum block size if they do torpedo the HF.... then there word means nothing, and no one will want to follow a bunch of liars weather or not they agree with them. already a huge % of poeple are unhappy with core, for whatever reason, but we'll stick with them because core + miners were able to came up with something we can all agree on. breaking their word mean that % of people automatically leave, and i wouldn't be surprised if there supports leave simply because no one likes being lied to. |
|
|
|
i don't think this is a valid objection, segwit will effectively double block size ( or 1.5X ? wtv, huge increase none the less ) and this should give much breathing room until July 2017. Do they expect TX volume to go up overnight? I expect it'll take ~a year to start filling these new blocks to the max again at which point the HF increase will be rolled out. a year goes by fast... |
|
|
|
at the very least , we get rid of all these drama surrounding bitcoin and we can finally move on.
Read the thread. It is unlikely that this is going to be the end. Do you think that the people behind the (well funded) campaign would just give up so easily? Bah, who in this thread is supposed to have a credible argument against SegWit? adamstgbit and QuickSeller? This is terrifying propaganda, they'll be sicking Frankie1 on it next lol The various campaigns against Bitcoin as seen by Wuille/Maxwell/Friedenbach etc always had a faint hint of desperation about them, because it was always going to be heavily reliant on success, at least on a 2nd attempt. They've failed many times now. The tactics will change, possibly very quickly. hold the phone. I am for segwit, i loudly supported it when it first came out, i may have expressed some concerns about its complexity, but i'm all for segwit, and praised Core for delivering on their promise of taking more time to come up with a better solution than simply bumping the limit. I got pissed a bit when i heard peter todd's interview suggesting that segwit was as good as it gets and core will never touch blocksizelimit. But now I am quite happy with the consensus reached, I feel this whole processes had lead to a very good solution / plan. as painful as it was it was worth it. I will now continue to loudly support the new agreement that core and miners hashed out. |
|
|
|
All the income in the gox data above is listed as JPY. Does that mean they've already liquidated any BTC, that the BTC hasn't been sold but is still listed at the current exchange rate, or that the BTC isn't included in these numbers?
AFAIK no MtGox bitcoins (of the remaining 202k) have been auctioned yet. For distribution, the rate is 1 Bitcoin = USD483 = JPY50,058.12 ah thats what i vaguely remember... poeple could choose to get there fiat balances in bitcoin at the rate of 483$ which at the time seemed ODD because price was well below this rate. as if they had sold off higher up in order to be able to offer a such a good rate. |
|
|
|
Woah. That's some substantial expenditure. Does anyone know if the bitcoins recovered are also being shared between people who lost USD, JPY and other currencies? I haven't seen any mention of any of that money being clawed back.
i do have a vague memory of them saying they had liquidated some of the coins to cover the fiat claims, they managed to avg a price of ~500, as tho they sold a few months after the collapse.. not sure if this is at all accurate, i read ( or day dreamed? ) this somewhere months ago, . i do remember thinking "wow how did they manage >500$ / BTC" when i read this price was 300-400ish. |
|
|
|
  it's going to take a while to sink in fully. did this really happen??? good night bitcoin! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
