Wired, LTC is rallying too !!
wow, it is. hmmmm I might have to consider getting in. Just need to determine how much. how much do you want to lose? |
|
|
|
what the fuck am i going to do now?[/b]masturbate  LOL! |
|
|
|
|
shit finex will soon run out of coins.
|
|
|
|
 Warning the bitcoin market is about it explode, proceed to the nearest exchange and fulfill the self fulling prophecy. Time has officially ran out, you must buy coins now or you WILL die. several buy or die warning signs have been posted the past few months, this is it, do you wanna die? THEN FUCKING BUY! |
|
|
|
Hope this is not ITTT, not all in yet  this is it. |
|
|
|
le me thinks 600 this summer, sideways for 6-12 months and then BOOM ATH.
Anyone ?
520 in 14 days 750 10 days later 1200 5 days after that 3200 2 day after that and then KABOOM it over ETH takes over. |
|
|
|
|
FUCKING HOLD!
MEGA BEAR BUBBLE will collapse soon
|
|
|
|
|
now...
>520$ in <2 weeks
HODL!
|
|
|
|
I believe BTC price is about to snap back to 460.
i expect a big green dildo today.
FINALLY it snaps back! took long enough... |
|
|
|
|
Well i hope antpool stick to its guns and doesn't run segwit code until core makes good on their promise. Core knows 2MB would gain >75% hashing power pretty fast, but they choose to undermine the will of the majority... satoshi would be proud....
|
|
|
|
2MBHF Vs SegWit
FIGHT! |
|
|
|
Thank goodness at least one of these miners has [some semblance of] a spine... Time to start talking about PoW changes again? 
I/we should email antpool thanking them... |
|
|
|
...sure, yaaaa, no one is having any difficulty with TX times and figuring out the appropriate fee, no one.
Maybe someone but that doesn't mean we should fork Bitcoin. That's like a bank CEO saying: "Since there are a few people that are too stupid to use ATM's we should have assistants next to every ATM" Just use a higher than recommended fee if the transaction is urgent. ya sure, increasing capacity isn't a good enough reason to fork bitcoin. besides we have a simple idea on how to solve this, and it will be ready soon. so who cares. |
|
|
|
... it's not that the fee are too expensive, it's that they prohibit micro payments. and make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable.
and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow...
all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow.
on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit.
also, the idea of a central org dictating limitations is blasphemy!
And why do we need micro payments on the blockchain? They can use payment channels for that. There is no need to bloat the blockchain for that. TX fees are not unpredictable. I have sent hundreds of transactions with only 0.00001 as fee. That's a few cents. ...sure, yaaaa, no one is having any difficulty with TX times and figuring out the appropriate fee, no one. |
|
|
|
The most secure blockchain, the most ecosystem, and the most user base -- at least for the moment. My fear is that by driving transactions off the main chain, these advantages will be ceded to another crypto.
Well isn't this happening? Your big block pals are now crying that they cannot afford to send transactions. They are under the impression that everything should be free. Kinda reminds me of the Bernie bots. ... it's not that the fee are too expensive, it's that they prohibit micro payments. and make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable. and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow... all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow. on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit. also, the idea of a central org dictating limitations is blasphemy! |
|
|
|
in short RELEASE THE CODE and then let users run it... then later pools can start making bigger blocks when and only when they deem the saturation point has been reached that their blocks wont get rejected/orphaned. without having to check a calendar to find out when spring turns into summer.
RELEASE THE CODE AND LET USERS GET PREPARED AND START THE BALL ROLLING TO ALLOW POOLS TO DECIDE WHEN THEY THINK THEIR BLOCKS ARE SAFE TO BE MADE BIGGER
by stopping users from having the code your just delaying any prospect of pools ever growing. RELEASE THE CODE AND GET THE BALL ROLLING
Uhh... didn't Classic already "release the code"? Isn't the point of this thread that no one is using it? LOL? but Classic represents a change in government. miners are willing to avoid this by making an agreement with core, in that core will eventually( in 2017) support a block size incress to 2MB core seems to have 0 intent on making good on their agreement and are trying to BS their way out of the agreement. saying things like " TECHNICALLY we didnt agree to anything  " |
|
|
|
All I want to know is if the core devs will allow miners to "vote" for the 2MB HF activation.
Definitely not. Miners do not decide hardforks, much less vote on them. so much for "Luke is focused on fulfilling the promise" The HK roundtable included agreement on this point, that miners do not decide hardforks. It doesn't contradict it in any way. Even if it wasn't part of the document, this inability of miners to decide hardforks is an aspect inherent in the nature of hardforks, not something I nor anyone else has decided. so you're saying you think core will not/should not, add in the code required to allow miners to activate a HF with >75% hashing power. Correct. And even if we did, it would be futile, since neither devs nor miners can force users to adopt it. It is literally technically impossible for miners to activate a HF period. hashing power has a strong incentive to align itself with the will of the userbase. your right miner cannot HF somthing the user base will not adopt but IMO you're wrong in thinking the user base will not adopt a 2MB HF should if it achieve >75% hashing power and get activated. it's really sad to hear you will not code in that 2MB HF. |
|
|
|
if core doesn't allow the miners to vote try to get >75% hashing power to activate the 2MB HF that 5-7% hashing power classic has, will incress substantially. but dont worry, socioeconomic majority decides hardforks  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
