That's funny as all get out. I can't imagine anyone using that thing for more than a few hours before smashing it into something though. |
|
|
|
Off topic but is everybody aware of Vod’s work - BPIP https://bpip.org/It gives all kinds of cool info, ranking people in the forum for - Forum rank sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately, human nature conspires to make it nothing but a measure of in-crowd popularity. |
|
|
|
Very true people as Tone ruin some peoples with little knowledges BTC investment...
Just like Samson  |
|
|
|
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.
By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction. All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already. A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private. Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC. Auditing means running a full node, Okaaayy.... validating the entire blockchain and confirming that everything checks in within the rest of the network, something you can't do on centralized, running-at-scale-on-chain approaches
Ok, so what's your point? like SV
Oh I see - you're deluded. Carry on. My point is that you are bagholding an altcoin (BSV) from the look of your posts, and you are not understand the game theory at play when it comes to what makes Bitcoin valuable on the first place. A Bitcoin which is ran on datacenters on both the auditing and mining part is basically fiat. Not if there are multiple competing entities at each of these roles. Let me tell you a parable: Once in the early days of cryptocurrency, there was a person. This person was a principal in a mining collective. A mining collective that at one point was one of the largest holders of hashpower on the planet. This mining collective went through several technologies leading the pack in H/W efficiency. This effort was very profitable. Yet this effort was a huge PITA. Hence, every block win, all the principals whined all the way to the bank. Eventually, some of the principals decided the PITA factor was not worth the effort. So they decided to get out of mining. They offered to sell the entire system to the other principals. Those other principals debated ROI, colocation services, expected technology node upgrades, power distribution, geographical location, possible competition, etc. And decided that they had had enough as well. The mining entity shut down. Some time later, a cabal of economic ignoramuses (albeit quite talented as coders) somehow wrested control of the hearts and minds of the Bitcoin faithful. These economic ignoramuses foisted a negative and potentially fatal change upon the Bitcoin protocol. There was a short battle held over the adoption of this flaw. Our protagonist, who had been a principal in the mining collective, was aware of the negative aspects of this protocol change. He wished to fight against this abomination. Having divested himself of mining power, however, he was absolutely powerless to do anything about the situation. |
|
|
|
|
Well that was a vertiginous drop.
Oh well, harvest the volatility.
|
|
|
|
|
I am reserving my celebratory jig until we get back on dooglus' top 100 days post (at about $9230 IIRC). Seeing as we may see $10K by end of Monday, it shouldn't be too much of a hardship to wait.
|
|
|
|
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.
By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction. All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already. A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private. Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC. Auditing means running a full node, Okaaayy.... validating the entire blockchain and confirming that everything checks in within the rest of the network, something you can't do on centralized, running-at-scale-on-chain approaches
Ok, so what's your point? like SV
Oh I see - you're deluded. Carry on. |
|
|
|
You'll note *my posts are not investment advice* in my signature . (You know that place where most people link to some pump and dump coin or ICO scam!)
Hmmm. Like -- just for an example -- Fortune Jack? The irony is rich. |
|
|
|
It's not easy taking a BIG ASS cut in your networth,
Truth you speak, young padowan - but with practice, easier it gets. |
|
|
|
Is this the BSV Blockchain thread or Craig Wright circus thread.
"Craig Wright" is a huge part of the "BSV blockchain"...... Welcome to Truth and Law. Barring some astonishing new breakthrough in cybernetic technology, it is impossible for a person to be a part of a blockchain. Welcome to Logic. |
|
|
|
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.
By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction. All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already. A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private. Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC. |
|
|
|
The first 2 flags don't have a broken contract. (That's why theymos opposed them) I think you should re-create those flags. Who gives a duck what theymos thinks. If he wants to protect scammers and enable them to further scam it is his choice. I shall not. Now go away/stop following me - by harassing me you are committing implied direct contractual harm to me. Jeebus cripes, you're a piece of work. Admitted extortionist going back to your one-trick trick bag. Any other thread in Economics, and this crap would be deleted as off-topic. Why don't you crawl back to drama-ville where this shit belongs? |
|
|
|
In retrospect the whole BCH scam thing was very profitable, I just feel sorry for the poor buggers that fell for it
No need to cry for me. Thanks anyhoo. |
|
|
|
... but could xapo really own so many coins?
Why not? While 'own' may be a stretch, they do have one of the most elaborate and trusted custody services in the cryptoshpere. |
|
|
|
Jeebus, what a shitshow. Lie down with dogs... |
|
|
|
irony
it is v funny. btw i've 'forgiven' your bollocks . few days back How magnanimous. You've stopped stepping on my face with your hobnailed boot. My apologies. |
|
|
|
BTW who the Fuck is paying for this crap? It's the first fucking hit when I googles satoshi.
Haha. You realize that Google tunes its returned search results to each user, right? |
|
|
|
Great! Additional opportunities for clique-based, in-crowd, virtue-signaling, social-engineering, playground bullying! /s At least, it is supposed to help by keeping trade reliability separate from petty personal issues. 'Supposed to'. Those who have already abused the trust system in order to punish other folks they simply don't like will waste no time in abusing the flag system in an identical manner. |
|
|
|
Impossibru! The Core devs proved that to be Impossibru! Actually, that's a pretty clever approach to a scalability demonstration. I like it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
