|
Start with : not be a scam.
Right away I can tell you Tether, Ethereum and NuBits do not qualify.
|
|
|
|
Gmax might complain about social strokes, but throwing Hearn (and Garzik?) under the bus had the desired salubrious clarifying effects.
Has Garzik been misbehaving too? he's been the one pretending to be somehow offended with hearn's ban from the logs. real drama queen, pretending hearns ideas are somehow worth anything for a start.. but then again coming from someone working for the fail of a company that bitpay is makes it even more ironic.. oh and not even mention his bip100 fraud..  +1 Jeff is a troll at this point. Always stepping in between lines trying to hurt no feelings and coming out with the most retarded miner voting BIPS. |
|
|
|
You, jonald, knight22 and the rest of the BIP101 bible thumpers will do and say anything, with no shame or compunction, in order to impress an alternate reality on Bitcoin. You're sociopaths.
You give them too much credit; they are none of those things. It's true, sociopathy is supposedly a learnt form of psychopathy, and it's pretty obvious that learning is not their strong suit. anyone who is in favor of bip101 is a psychopath. sounds legit. sounds about right to me |
|
|
|
I read OP and I have a question.
What % of the Blockchain 'size' is from orphaned blocks? Dose anyone know?
Dose the blockchain store all orphaned blocks forever?
As block size grows so dose the rate of orphan chains. My fear is the size of all the orphan chains will grow at a faster rate then the main chain.
 Orphaned blocks are not stored.... |
|
|
|
the BIP101 bible thumpers will do and say anything, with no shame or compunction, in order to impress an alternate reality on Bitcoin. You're sociopaths.
Carlton... take a deep breath... let it out slowly... relax... We're just talking in a forum. Nobody is thumping any bibles or "doing" anything.  To be fair it can be unnerving to deal with blatantly dishonest shills of your kind  |
|
|
|
You are also being overly polarizing when we could all be much more united on this issue. So we should just accept everything you propose, for reasons that you cannot adequately frame? You've got only one answer to every and any question, and yet you're the one complaining about others taking a fractious position? The hypocrisy is out of this world. That is not what I am saying at all, you are again misrepresenting my views. You've argued your points well. I suggest you no longer waste your time and energy on people that are more interested in arguing than anything else. Let them beat their anti-XT, anti-Gavin, anti-Hearn, anti-blockincrease drums as loud and as long as they want. Everything's been said. Miners are signing blocks.
Companies are signing statements.And nodes are signing "fuck you" letters |
|
|
|
I completely disagree with what you are saying here, it seems like you do not understand how consensus should work. fifty one percent consensus
|
|
|
|
Im no 8mber let alone 20mber but im still not convinced over blockstream to be honest. So all transactions that don't go through the blockchain will go throught a private company that is basically paypal 2.0? what's the point then? isn't this centralization again? how does this work like, there will be servers of blockstream that process payments? I don't fully understand the mechanism.
You don't fully AT ALL understand "the mechanism" yet you feel warranted to share you opinion and judge the character of someone based on this ignorance? It seems this place is filled to the brim with fatherless individuals. Were you not educated to shut up when you don't know wtf you're talking about? Do you have no manners, no moral? |
|
|
|
or Blockstream  no-one's forcing you to use that either, are they jonald? what? In other word, no one is satisfied that the consensus rules among Core devs only leads to no decision making. This is the point that I have been making as well, very well stated in bold.  Well why won't you fork off already? As of right now it's pretty evident the consensus is with core and anything else is just you noobs trying to distort reality. |
|
|
|
Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB. I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.
That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too. With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured. What a despicable individual your are  |
|
|
|
While I don't agree with their mindless BIPs of raising the blocksize to ridiculous amounts all of a sudden without understand the big consequences in teh severe lack of decentralization that would constitute, I do not condone banning. I haven't seen the entire log tho, so I don't know. Maybe he was straight trolling at some point? or was the admin just having a bad day? who knows.
Dude has been going around routinely making sly remarks and straight up disrespecting Wladimir's position and competence. Everything he touches becomes a political flame fest and diverges focus of other developers from important technical work. Well after reading some things about him, including the IRC logs, he goes on questioning Wladimir's competence on being a lead dev. It's funny how he continues to bring up leadership/decision matters in a middle of a conversation. It's fun to watch lol. The way he does it as if Wladimir is somehow absent from the discussion when he can actually read everything Mike writes shows total lack of respect. |
|
|
|
Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA? C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist. I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future. Terrible argument. Not least because the Scaling Workshops are clearly more than a "sign" that the issue is being addressed by consensus, and not by a tiny minority of aggressive ideologues who won't take no for an answer. Did the workshop came up with a working solution that I am not aware off? You can work on something forever. It is not a sign that a solution is near to happen. Participants in the workshop (people apparently much smarter than you I should say) all recognize that Bitcoin scaling has absolutely nothing to do with the block size. Therefore any solution brought forward or proposed at the conference purposefully avoided addressing the block size concern as it serves nothing but as a distraction to the actual challenges at hand. |
|
|
|
Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA? C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist. I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future. XT doesn't scale, it merely increases the transaction throughput in a linear and limited manner. Since we like to pretend to know every details about obscure projects supposedly waiting on bigger blocks then allow me to suggest that what XT proposes does not fit or even comes close to satisfying the throughput required to accommodate the likes of Fidelity's on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.
So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!
All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality It makes a lot of sense. 1. No one with half of a brain would invest in a technology that doesn't scale so the price won't rise from speculation. Except when precisely that happened in the past, for a period of several months. It happened in the past because people speculated that bitcoin would literally take over the world and would make them insanely rich. A slight increase in usage made people going nuts. Now now one is expecting that to happen again with 1 mb blocks being artificially enforced and which was supposed to be only a temporary anti-spam measure. Speculators speculate on future usage which is now crippled and shows no signs of being changed. You understanding of what Bitcoin is actually used for and the nature of the surrounding speculation is so ridiculous and narrow minded it's no surprise you are so confused. |
|
|
|
I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.
So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!
All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality It makes a lot of sense. 1. No one with half of a brain would invest in a technology that doesn't scale so the price won't rise from speculation. 2. Big projects that have the potential of bringing new massive influx of users are being pushed away. If there is no room for new massive influx of users then the price won't rise from usage. Do you think the price will rise by pure magic? 1. Increasing transaction throughput != scaling. Moreover an enormous amount of capital worldwide lays dormant and is not concerned with velocity of the network. Bitcoin can scale to accomodate orders of magnitude more value as is, as long as demand for transaction remains marginal. 2. Most of the big projects you refer to are only interested in leeching onto Bitcoin as some sort of database which it isn't fit to be. They would provide little value to the monetary function of Bitcoin. You whole logic as to what creates value for Bitcoin is utterly broken. |
|
|
|
While I don't agree with their mindless BIPs of raising the blocksize to ridiculous amounts all of a sudden without understand the big consequences in teh severe lack of decentralization that would constitute, I do not condone banning. I haven't seen the entire log tho, so I don't know. Maybe he was straight trolling at some point? or was the admin just having a bad day? who knows.
Dude has been going around routinely making sly remarks and straight up disrespecting Wladimir's position and competence. Everything he touches becomes a political flame fest and diverges focus of other developers from important technical work. |
|
|
|
It Will not be blacklisted cause its BLOCKCHAIN .. It will not work , if one is blacklisted
So? It does not matter if that is blockchain or not. If you think bitcoin could be mass adopted without regulations and changes you are deceiving yourself. Government intervention in the bitcoin industry is simply inevitable. It is only matter of time, when government will start to think seriously about bitcoin your opinion will mean nothing to them. Their opinion means nothing to Bitcoin |
|
|
|
Thanks for insightful post. Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps? If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size? Slower confirmations? I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this. He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.
When Satoshi lowered the max block size to 1MB network conditions were different; and, it was intended only as a temporary measure. Then he vanished with an estimated 1 million bitcoins. If he were around today, he would simply raise the limit to 8MB. The reason this has not been done is mainly because some of the core developers have conflicts of interests involving outside paid projects. Hi OP! Just popping in this thread quickly to say everything this guy just wrote is shameless lies. Enjoy the rest of your discussion |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
