'Fake it 'til you make it'? Say it ain't so, Gracie. Color me astonished. Not. |
|
|
|
Is "Negotiation" a bot learning?
Seems to be a non-native english speaker, doing a word-by-word translation from his/her native language. |
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen to the price of Bitcoin once quantum computer technology advances. I suppose quantum miners would plummet the markets to the ground?
Why would you think that? |
|
|
|
That's a bloody shame. I got a chance to ride on a B17G a couple years back.  Pic was taken sticking my head out a sizable hole in the top of the aircraft. |
|
|
|
Ref: Adam and the WO thread: JJG was largely right. Adam left and set up an alt thread on another forum due to a disagreement with the overall policy during the blocksize debate.
For some time there was no mod at all and Theymos locked the thread. There was an ultimatum that the thread would only be opened again (in its same form) if there was a new mod.
There were candidates who were prepared to volunteer and a bunch of us sorted out an election to get someone in - which resulted in infofront being given the poisoned chalice. I was in touch with Theymos at the time and he really didn't want the thread to go, he just needed someone to take it on.
I don't think there is wholesale animosity towards Adam. Personally I think he did create the whole atmosphere in the first place, and think he is due some credit. However, infofront has general support and I am not sure many would even want the job - while all of us want 'someone' to do it.
TLDRL
Infofront's role is entirely legitimate - no ifs, not buts. Adam's credit is due, yes - but he did turn his back on this place, so while some of us remember him fondly, the 'it's Adam's thread' point is moot.
Good summary of the situation. Though Fatman, having been absent for a while, is understandably not up to date on the matter. And he/she has a point. No slight against infofront, who is doing yeoman's work in moderation, but adam should be properly attributed for history's sake. |
|
|
|
Am I reading the roadmap right? The code has been changed in this coin to allow the miners to set the block size however big/small they want? How is consensus on that reached?
Consensus is reached through market forces. You know - just like satoshi designed to start with. |
|
|
|
When FOMO? I can't predict. But I'm positioned to benefit.
Nobody is really interested in what you think. You're a loser. Well, obviously, _you_ aren't interested in what I think. Or rather, you wish to appear amongst the echo chamber baboon squad as not being interested in what I think. I don't much care about that. As for the other assertion, just keep telling yourself that. |
|
|
|
Yeah. Too bad #channels and total capacity are both dropping. |
|
|
|
Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
That's an evasive response if I had ever seen one.  No evasion whatsoever. If one reads and ponders, that response is all that need be said. You seem to be of the notion that since BTC is doing well relative to the other Bitcoins at the moment, that it will do so for all time. You are punishing me for leaving you an opening. My error. I was indicating evasion because you did not really respond very specifically regarding how much you still seem to be allocated into [other bitcoins] in comparison to BTC, I told you months ago what my relative allocation was. It has not changed materially. Again, no evasion. I don't need to repeat that there are no other bitcoins,
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll truly believe it. As you are aware, my thesis is that Blockalypse II is in BTC's future, which will drive adoption to the other Bitcoins.
1) blockalypse II implies that blockalypse I has already happened, which neither the facts nor logic support such historical rendition. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll truly believe it. 2) for the sake of argument, let's assume that there is some kind of problem with bitcoin, ... a very long shot, maybe in the less than 1% region,
So all that _really_ separates our positions is a relative likelihood. 3) what you are really hoping is that your bags pump....
Sorta. Not really. I am expecting that the strategic flaw within the Core philosophy will surface as soon as the next FOMO happens. Such FOMO will expose the folly of strangling tx capacity with a centrally-planned production quota thereupon. This strangulation will result in Blockalypse II, with another drastic drop in market cap dominance. Those wanting to use Bitcoin, but unable to due to long waits even with huge tx fees, will reevaluate the choices in front of them. At which point the obvious set of choices would be the other Bitcoins. Until then, I expect BTC will do relatively well in the marketplace. Upon Blockalypse II, I expect a massive move from BTC to BCH and/or BSV. When FOMO? I can't predict. But I'm positioned to benefit. |
|
|
|
You seem to be of the notion that since BTC is doing well relative to the other Bitcoins at the moment, that it will do so for all time.
As you are aware, my thesis is that Blockalypse II is in BTC's future, which will drive adoption to the other Bitcoins. This is an episodic event, consisting of a sea change in BTC's operating environment. Such an precipitating event may result in a snowball into the more capacious Bitcoins, each of which fits the purity narrative of hewing closer to the initial protocol design.
IOW, Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
Hey jbreher... Lets say for a moment Blockalypse II takes place. I would think this would be so damaging to Crypto it might not add value to other cryptos. It might just make people turn away altogether. Just thinking out load. In a real Apocalypse it would take a long time to recover from the devastation. Why? There were two directions (ultimately three) in with the masses could have thrown their lot. The masses went one way, when the proper decision was another. All it would show is that sometimes the masses choose poorly. Would this stunning revelation really surprise anyone? Nay. They'll just adjust to the usable chain. As they should have at the initial fork time. Your 'stall of BTC means the death of crypto' narrative wears no clothes. |
|
|
|
^^
NP jbreher will keep pumping/supporting that one
Clearly BSV led that drop. Little ol' BTC merely caught in the wake. or smth Whatevs... I have all the time in the world. One will not say that when he’s under the dirt...... No man got all the time in the world.... When one is in the catbird seat, the difference between the end of the world and 'it doesn't matter' is merely academic. Well hopefully you are referring to you BTC investment rather than bcash or various varients of bcash, which are both likely to perform less well than bitcoin. Of course, if you have a smaller portion in bcash, then you still might do o.k., but not as well as if you ONLY held bitcoin. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. That's an evasive response if I had ever seen one. No evasion whatsoever. If one reads and ponders, that response is all that need be said. You seem to be of the notion that since BTC is doing well relative to the other Bitcoins at the moment, that it will do so for all time. As you are aware, my thesis is that Blockalypse II is in BTC's future, which will drive adoption to the other Bitcoins. This is an episodic event, consisting of a sea change in BTC's operating environment. Such an precipitating event may result in a snowball into the more capacious Bitcoins, each of which fits the purity narrative of hewing closer to the initial protocol design. IOW, Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. |
|
|
|
^^
NP jbreher will keep pumping/supporting that one
Clearly BSV led that drop. Little ol' BTC merely caught in the wake. or smth Whatevs... I have all the time in the world. One will not say that when he’s under the dirt...... No man got all the time in the world.... When one is in the catbird seat, the difference between the end of the world and 'it doesn't matter' is merely academic. Well hopefully you are referring to you BTC investment rather than bcash or various varients of bcash, which are both likely to perform less well than bitcoin. Of course, if you have a smaller portion in bcash, then you still might do o.k., but not as well as if you ONLY held bitcoin. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. |
|
|
|
^^
NP jbreher will keep pumping/supporting that one
Clearly BSV led that drop. Little ol' BTC merely caught in the wake. or smth Whatevs... I have all the time in the world. One will not say that when he’s under the dirt...... No man got all the time in the world.... When one is in the catbird seat, the difference between the end of the world and 'it doesn't matter' is merely academic. |
|
|
|
^^
NP jbreher will keep pumping/supporting that one
Clearly BSV led that drop. Little ol' BTC merely caught in the wake. or smth Whatevs... I have all the time in the world. Earlier we had peeps saying that LTC is wagging dee doggie, and now we got diptwats asserting that some fraudster variant of Bcash is wagging dee doggie... I might have to request surgery to get my eyes reinstalled to the front of my head. Perhaps your sarcastometer needs recalibration. XD |
|
|
|
^^
NP jbreher will keep pumping/supporting that one
Clearly BSV led that drop. Little ol' BTC merely caught in the wake. or smth Whatevs... I have all the time in the world. |
|
|
|
Goodbye 9500.
Get your Vegetas ready.
Prepare for Ree Vah Gee Tah |
|
|
|
This is worth keeping an eye on, because it could become an existential threat to encryption.
Good thing that Bitcoin does not employ encryption, hunh? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
