WTF? I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL. Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera? Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...? Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!  My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera: Its all about a single line of the protocol Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest. And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels. Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites. If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams. This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin! Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete. Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins". If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money. Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right? I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams. Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork. Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that. Changing the code to SW is much more risky than change a 1 -> 2 . You are just trapped by the invisible HF monster. Buuaaaaa.  Segwit is opt in. If you don't like segwit then just get another client. The market OBVIOUSLY wants segwit, look at how we went from $1800 to $3000. The market OBVIOUSLY does not want two tokens. Look at XT crash, look at Classic crash, look at Unlimited crash, look at segwit2x/BIP148 crash. We don't want two fucking bitcoins, it's not that hard to understand. |
|
|
|
WTF? I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL. Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera? Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...? Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy! My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera: Its all about a single line of the protocol Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest. And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels. Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites. If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams. This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin! Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete. Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins". If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money. Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right? I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams. Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork. Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that. |
|
|
|
WTF? I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL. Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera? Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...? Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy! My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera: Its all about a single line of the protocol Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest. And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels. Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites. If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams. This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin! Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete. Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins". If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money. Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right? |
|
|
|
|
As we all known, Bitmain and Roger Ver have decide to create their own altcoin in Aug 1st. I want to be ready, so I got all of my coins on my local wallet where I control everything. I run a Bitcoin Core full node with the latest version.
When the split happens, how do I guarantee that I don't lose my coins? My plan is to dump BCC for BTC in whatever exchange has the most liquidity. I will probably wait some hours for things to stabilize a bit and see how the market reacts, I also don't want to be the first sucker to test if this even works with their own bitcoin.
Anyway, how to do this safely knowing you aren't spending your legacy-chain coins?
|
|
|
|
WITHDRAW ALL OF YOUR MONEY ASAP FROM POLONIEX!!!
This is EXACTLY what happened to Cryptsy. They had "deposit issues" while they stole everyone's Bitcoins and then ran.
Hehe, you are forgeting about BTC-e as well... But still, I am only trading on poloniex I a not holding any significant amount of cryptos there. For that I have my local, cold wallets. Even if you aren't holding any relevants amount in Poloniex, what do you lose just to withdraw your money? I lost 0.2 in Cryptsy. Back then it was like 50 bucks. I was pissed back then, you can imagine now. The price will keep getting up, and you will eventually regret not withdrawing what appears to be a small amount now which will be a decent amount later. In times of hardfork FUD, exchanges are prone to pull exit scams... just get your money out of all exchanges ever. |
|
|
|
I have been having a one sided(me opening tickets and getting no response) battle for well over a month with Poloniex(Polo) regarding ETC deposits. My deposits do not show up. You open a ticket with Polo support. They get ZERO response. I open more tickets, again ZERO response.
Now I don't know if this issue is specific to just ETC. I know I just received a deposit today on Polo for ZEC. I haven't mined ZEC for over a week and I get a deposit today. So this issue may extend to other coins besides ETC.
Polo used to have the Trollbox where you could get someone to take a look and give you a quick response if they were having wallet issues or some other problems. Now you don't even have that. They do not process their tickets.
Your money goes off into limbo pending them doing something... MAYBE!
At this point I would like to warn people that Polo has serious problems and there is no recourse for you and they are not processing any tickets. As long as things work fine then you may get your deposits, but if they don't work there is no way to get anyone to help you.
At this point I consider my missing ETC deposits THEFT. My first tickets for this were opened the second week of JUNE and still no reply and no deposits. I changed coins I was mining and came back to ETC second week in July and again my ETC is not being deposited and again no response from Polo Support.
I hope Polo monitors the forums. I seriously doubt it. If they are monitoring the forums I would really like them to monitor the TICKETS!
Maybe it is time for regulators to look into Polo like they have done with BTC-E. What is going on with ETC is theft, and I hope it isn't happening with other coins as well.
Share your recent experiences with Polo support here. It is time to put the heat on these guys.
The official response on why the Poloniex trollbox is not availible anymore is precisely because "It was too time consuming to assist everyone on the forum". Of course the skeptic on me things that this is a lame excuse to try to get away with censoring people complaining on the trollbox when shit goes south. Having said that, I have never had any problems with Poloniex and all my withdraws and deposits have been always quick except in exceptional moments like DDoS attacks and big amounts of traffic. In any case, I barely do any transactions because I like to keep my stuff stored locally. Good luck trying get your coins. |
|
|
|
Someday sooner or later, If the chinese goverment blocked the Internet access to the whole world,
What can we do?
Do we have any availible plan to protect the great-BTC-chain?
If the chinese government blocks the entire mining infrastructure in china it would be a problem because the hashrate would go down, but the difficulty would go down too so everything would adjust. Also it's only a matter of time when the west enters the mining game. Once Intel and AMD and Nvidia enter the mining game with their technology they will beat the shit out of the Bitmain crap and the chinese will finally have competition. |
|
|
|
I'm also bumping this to call Loaded the lying scumbag that he is.
I contacted him multiple times, provided him with all of my personal contact details including personal cell phone number so we could move ahead, and he never contacted me, and never even logged into the forum again.
I'm sick of the dishonest lying, cheating, and censorship tactics being employed by some (not all) of the Blockstream supporters.
It is disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. (Especially Theymos)
i don´t get the part where theymos gets bashed because loaded did not contact you. are they one person? Roger Ver seems to hate Theymos for life because Theymos registered /r/bitcoin before Roger Ver and he doesn't like his administration policy. Ver wants everyone to talk about all the different Bitcoin forks and client proposals but Theymos isn't as free about it. This in practice seems like a bad thing, but I was there since the begining, I saw the Bitcoin XT thing develop, and what was once naive discussion turned into a clear shilling fest of Bitcoin clients. Im sure there are things wrong with /r/bitcoin but you are delusional if you don't think there are massive amounts of bullshit being posted daily on /r/btc. Having said that, I would like to see another whale battle with a BCC vs BTC bet. |
|
|
|
Supporting Bitcoin Cash: Bitfinex, Kraken, Bittrex, Huobi, Livecoin, BTCC, Bithumb, Viabtc, OkCoin
Not Supporting Bitcoin Cash: Poloniex, Coindash, GDAX, Itbit, Bitmex, Bitstamp
With Poloniex, Gdax, Bitstamp and Coinbase out there's a ton of traffic that isn't going to get exposed to the hardfork, so I suspect that a lot of people is about to get their coins out and into a safe private wallet. In fact, Coinbase is sending out an email notice that says "please, get your coins out before 72 hours if you want to receive your BCC". |
|
|
|
Has there been any word from Kraken?
Kraken would probably decline the idea of support BCC unless they want to operate at a loss or has been bribed by Bitmain. But idk, it still depends on how they see things even with UAHF around. But good thing that most exchanges declined since it will be somewhat confusing for some people around, too. There's no official statement yet. The thing with this situation is, it's on their selfish interest (of the exchanges) to get the coins listed, because it just means more exchange fees for them, so they would list any shit as long as it means more fees. The problem with his behavior is, it shows they don't care about the network and only care about fees. If they support scams, they are portraying themselves as supporters of scams. They should ignore these hardforks or else we will keep crashing everytime some idiot wants to hardfork into some alt. |
|
|
|
|
I was surprised to see Coinbase doing the right thing for once. Coinbase is known for constantly screwing up everthing in these type of decisions, to the point that was I considering Brian A. compromised or bribed somehow by Bitmain. It's good to see they are not supporting this nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Any reason why my request is getting ignored?
|
|
|
|
|
Btctalk name : manselr
Rank : Hero Member
Current post count : 1871
BTC Address : 13VHwYZNr4sQQ8DkUYDgpufQN5UHxyFqjK
As far as the payout model goes... I guess they are trying to make 2 months of aggressive marketing to get their Social brand out there. It is a risk, and we all hope to not waste 6 weeks of hard fork for nothing, so let's hope the ICO is a success, and for an ICO to be a success, marketing is an important part. You need a good product, but you need to advertise it a lot too.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys, would like to join
Username: manselr
Position to Apply: Hero Member
Your Current Post Count: 1874 (Including this one)
Your BTC Address: 1FxAP5PC2wvMQA6XSNLtz3tVsxrJ8LCMuP
|
|
|
|
Just read about this project and got my interest. Would like to get started so I hope I can get some tokens:
Bitcointalk Username: manselr
Forum rank: Hero Member
Current post count: 1872 (including this one)
Ethereum address: 0x007E86B856473DA2e4809e970932DAeE6395b495
PS: Im kinda new to Ethereum. I synced my Parity wallet, i've used ETH in the past but i've never used tokens. Do tokens use the same format as ETH address? or do I need to generate the address in a special way to get the RLC?
dude, bounty campaign not taking new participants almoust 2 weeks:) Well shit, call me when there are any new/free spots. |
|
|
|
|
Just read about this project and got my interest. Would like to get started so I hope I can get some tokens:
Bitcointalk Username: manselr
Forum rank: Hero Member
Current post count: 1872 (including this one)
Ethereum address: 0x007E86B856473DA2e4809e970932DAeE6395b495
PS: Im kinda new to Ethereum. I synced my Parity wallet, i've used ETH in the past but i've never used tokens. Do tokens use the same format as ETH address? or do I need to generate the address in a special way to get the RLC?
|
|
|
|
|
In 12 years most of the bitcoin supply will already be mined. 20 million coins mined, the remaining BTC will be the one that goes slowly released through the rest of the 140 year period.
In practice, more than 1 million coins will be lost. This puts the 21 BTC holders in less than 1 million person on the entire planet.
This MUST mean that holders of 21 BTC are at least $millionaires. Otherwise BTC would have been a failure as a store of value (this is irrelevant to the scaling debate).
|
|
|
|
By looking bitcoin trend from 2009 until 2017 and start to calculate and speculate using some model method, bitcoin will reach significant value on the future but still invest bitcoin will consider as risk investation because they can vanish or "broken" in different ways
If we end up seeing a growth similar to 2009 to 2017 until 2030, then it means we will see an huge bubble, a final bubble that reaches $500,000 And in between, smaller bubbles but increasingly bigger until the last big bubble to $500,000+ |
|
|
|
***
***Bitcoin being the reserve currency of all the altcoins, means that all fungible value generated in the other altcoins ends up being settled indirectly on the Bitcoin blockchain (because that is the way finance works were the least volatile or most widely held unit-of-account will suck all the value out of all the others analogous to wave friction). So Jihan doesn't need to block for that reason.
Jihan want maximize profits like anyone want . Crypto is soft/technological warfare bitmain can not hold technology from advancing he can keep stalemate in BTC while same time whole war is winning 3rd player not disturbed by internal fights that is ETH. BTC miners want block LN and other stuff but miners can not stop technology like governments and banks can not stop BTC. Free market will always moves towards best player in city so if BTC won’t have LN and other tech ETH will have them. Using new tech tools ETH will grab more and more market from BTC from micropayments to taking blochchain business with it. Can BTC stay forever as crypto reserve currency ? No gold/pounds are not worlds reserve currency anymore so BTC can loose that status too. Old King dies, new king rules. This is super good that ETH is Jihan Asic proof they can always move to POS and piss off that guy. ETH can never be used like gold because ETH can be changed with "proof of vitalik". ETH will crash again, it's too complex, more DAOs will occur. It doesn't have the required necessity and simplicity of BTC. People will keep running to BTC in order to hedge against markets, not ETH or other crypto. Now that f2pool is signaling segwit, we have a big chunk of hashrate. Slowly miners will give in and jihan wu will be the only one cornered still not signaling. It's then that an UASF would be doable without irreparable damage. |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/853250894162350080Only a node that is mining is a true full node. The rest are just slowing down the propagation of blocks between the real full nodes. At this point, I am convinced Roger Ver is compromised and is posting absurd shit like this to tip us off. Well, Satoshi said the same in 2008: http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section  to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal. We corrected satoshi's mistake by thinking centralizing nodes into farms was a good idea. As we are seeing, a single man (Jihan) can control price by control signaling of segwit. If they also had control of nodes, it would be the end of the everything. You might as well use paypal at that point (which is what Roger Ver wants btw) http://coinjournal.net/roger-ver-paypal-acceptable-risk-bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
