Why are people established enough to remember all the nothing posters from 2014-15 bothering to engage them this time around? Insta ignore for all.
Before my time. Was hanging out the altcoin ann board getting schooled on how to get jerked around.  |
|
|
|
Hmmm who should I trust more, Warren Buffet (intelligent guy worth 88 billion dollars, the greatest investor) or crypto retards like John Mcafee (crackhead and a pathological liar)
BTC is WORTHLESS
Neither. Trust no one. Not even your own mother. |
|
|
|
So BTC died again?
 Still waiting. Not certain if the timing is right to start feasting. |
|
|
|
@franky1
This is what we call being proactive and anticipation. The example you give about the SegWit roadmap from 2014 is one example. Are we forced to use SegWit? As DoomAD says, they cannot integrate everyone's wishes, but they anticipate to make Bitcoin usable with various convenients solutions. It's like complaining because someone is working to improve Bitcoin and talk about consensus. A consensus from the mass could turn in a 10 years old kid decision.
No, we are not forced to use Segwit. However, if someone chooses not to use Segwit, you are penalized by paying higher fees. This may only amount to pennies at the moment, but it can add up. If BTC starts to get used even more, many casual users will then be compelled to use LN, to avoid prohibitive fees. Or be forced to use Bitcoin Cash. I believe that was their idea of why they split from Bitcoin, right? But apparently, not that many people in the community believed that bigger blocks for scalability were a good trade-off on decentralization. The social consensus remains "Bitcoin is Bitcoin Core". Why should anyone be forced to settle for something which is less secure? So far LN is still in alpha testing stage. Risk of loosing funds is too high ATM. Maybe when they improve their network, I'll want to use it. BCH has always had less hash rate and is therefore less secure. I think people should be able to utilize the most secure network out there in an affordable manner and not be forced to settle for some less secure stuff. Even if lightning network gets its act together, a second layer solution will be second best when it comes to security. So I guess the BTC blockchain will only be secure vip2vip cash. The riffraff can settle for less secure crap. |
|
|
|
|
@infrofront Where are you? Bad freeverse sin incoming. Please delete!
|
|
|
|
Can someone point to where it says bitcoin was supposed to be decentralized in the white paper?
From Satoshi's introduction of the whitepaper: I've developed a new open source P2P e-cash system called Bitcoin. It's completely decentralized, with no central server or trusted parties, because everything is based on crypto proof instead of trust.
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-sourceIts the entire premise of the idea. Creating a DECENTRALIZED currency. Show's over. Craig lost. Actually, all of BCH lost. Nothing more to see here. Thank you so much for this link. It totally debunks the narrative that the white paper doesn't mention the word "decentralized." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FscIgtDJFXg Last piece of the puzzle. |
|
|
|
Your point seems to be that first mover advantage is everything. I agree, when comparing Bitcoin to alt coins. But I don't consider forks of Bitcoin as alt coins. I see them as different implementations trying to reach the same goal.
Please advise how you feel that BCH met the criteria of Nakamoto consensus as briefly described in the last section of the white paper. AFAIK, the BCH chain never was the chain of most work at any moment. Also, the BCH chain was not compatible with the BTC chain from the moment it split due to it invoking replay protection. It's definitely an "alternative" to BTC and therefore is an altcoin. At least when BU was running on the BTC chain, it was totally compatible with BTC. It's emergent consensus would have let the miners decide via Nakamoto consensus how large the blocks were. BU qualified as a "different implementation." BCH ABC does not. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfI have no idea if LN will be free of goverment interference or not. Maybe some countries will force all Bitcoin transactions through government controlled nodes and sending freely on chain would be illegal (enforced by deep packet inspection). I don't think anyone really knows how LN will end up. I hold Bitcoin forks to hedge against the possibility of LN becoming a failure.
Since LN is a second layer, if it fails, then 1st layer, BTC, will still function. It is better to argue that segwit is somehow vulnerable or insecure. If true, and it can't be modified or patched. then that is an issue. However, I'm not certain it is indeed insurmountable to come up with a patch, as some would argue, if a vulnerability was found. May be quite painful, but not impossible. |
|
|
|
Buttcoin is coming to an end.
 Perhaps you ought to put together a well thought out post, giving us your reasons for coming to this conclusion. Enlarging your text does not make your warning very compelling. |
|
|
|
Everyone will ask for socialism when oil runs out
What are you talking about? Much of the world's oil is supplied by government owned entities and is completely socialized. Venezuela is the perfect example of this. All that oil and in the end, their socialistic system utterly failed. As the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." |
|
|
|
Don't bother arguing with these fools as 99% of them are too lazy to have done any due diligence themselves and just hope that someone else will work on bitcoin and it will somehow make them rich. From memory, when I did the estimates way back in the day, I think I came up with bitcoin needing 8 MB blocks in the long run to function as a global settlement system where transactions of around $10k or more are viable.
Is 2 MB blocks + LN equal or better to that? No. LN is an even more centralized, more permissioned version of bitcoin where they seek to transfer all consumer payments to. So you theoretically CAN transfer most bitcoin traffic there, but LN doesn't actually have anything in common with bitcoin in the first place. It's a totally different system. It's like replacing bitcoin with bitshares and pretending it's the same thing. But when it comes down to it, bitcoin transaction validators are designed to centralize, nullifying any reason for it's existence, so there's no point in even discussing building any 2nd tier layers on it.
Discussing LN vs bigger blocks is like discussing what color to paint the Titanic. It's 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency where transaction validators don't centralize.
I'm not certain why you constantly belabor this point of decentralization. Satoshi himself already acknowledged this isn't going evolve into a perfectly decentralized system. The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306The goal is to not allow any single miner or cartel to gain 51% control over the network. If 51% control is obtained than the system is totally vulnerable and is worth zero as p2p electronic cash. If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. |
|
|
|
Just because its not "settled science" (there is none), doesn't mean you shouldn't start to act on it. If you are dying in the hospital and your doctors recommend a new drug, you don't really have the luxury of waiting until there is 100% proof that it works. Listen to the experts.
The most unrealistic of aspect of that analogy is that there is no drug that would also have a completely positive affect on your health regardless of you having the targeted disease or not.
We should start the work and let the research continue, if the research does a 180, then we will stop the work and admit we were wrong but to hell with abandoning science because of the chance we might be wrong. Mitigating climate change would improve society even if we were completely wrong and the climate stayed exactly the same way forever. The wild suggested brought up earlier (nuking the sky, painting everything white) are not serious solutions being considered by governments.
I agree that it is best to err on the side of caution. However, it ought not be used as a springboard for the government to implement burdensome taxes and draconian, pricey regulations. Always remember that when a corporation has to pay hefty taxes or put up with hefty regulations, they either pass the extra cost along to the consumer or move there operations to a country that is more lenient. In the end, the working class gets the shaft, again. Why do you think many disaffected democrats in the rust belt flipped from blue to red and voted for Trump? A promise to raise the minimum wage to 12.50 an hour really doesn't sink in well with someone who used to get paid 20+ an hour with their good union job. |
|
|
|
The crypto scene is the most "group think" thing I have ever encountered. Most of it stems from reddit, which is an easy-to-manipulate hive mind. There are even busineses that attempt to sway opinion using paid shills.
LOL, if you hang out here long enough, it will become abundantly clear that there is a multitude of alternative and conflicting opinions expressed here. I mean look at r0ach. A good portion of his posts are definitely not popular, yet a good portion of his posts remain. The moderation on Bitcointalk is actually quite light compared to reddit. Both the btc and Bitcoin thread there appear to be echo chambers. |
|
|
|
some of the big block arguments resonate with me.
Retard The typical ad hominem response I was expecting. It just proves my point about group think. Seeing as I am a leftie, I will make it more PC for you. Differently abled. Not all lefties are on board with the PC nonsense.  |
|
|
|
what if others will only buy/ sell merit even though their post is garbage? they should be ban
If the seller is a merit source, they should be stripped from being a merit source and theymos should reverse merit transactions at his discretion. If it is a regular user selling merit, theymos might reverse any merit transactions at his discretion. (Not quite sure if he will or not.) Furthermore, theymos has made it clear that dt giving red trust to merit sellers is acceptable. As I've said before, I'm not really worried about it. Especially at those high prices (plus the risk of being red-tagged), it's enough of a barrier that it should still serve its intended function of creating a significant cos[t/barrier for garbage-posters.
BTW, if any merit source goes rogue and sells a ton of merit, then I will probably go through the transaction graph and undo all of the transactions touched by that sold source-merit. Merit ain't no immutable cryptocurrency!
If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.
|
|
|
|
...
I only noticed this signature campaign about a month ago. I will patiently wait until someone gets kicked off. I like the terms of this campaign because there is no post quota. Although I am a rather prolific poster, I don't like the pressure of having to post 20+ posts a week in certain sections, or face getting paid nothing at all. I wish more campaigns were run like this.
I agree with you but while it would be nicely convenient for posters, it probably isn't as great for the promoters. If you can make good posts, but you're more casual, and another user makes posts of equal or maybe even less quality but posts a lot more than you, I'm pretty sure the latter is more attractive from a promoter standpoint. So while we can only wish there are more lenient campaigns like this one, there probably won't, hell even for this one, I'm sure if you post below (a hidden minimum) quota for long enough you'd probably lose your spot.. But in the mean time, if I only post 1 qualifying post, I would get paid 70K sats. Not zero. Also, many signature campaign participants post absolute garbage or plagiarized content in order to meet their quotas. It's a constant battle. It's why the merit system was introduced in the first place. Also, if someone is posting absolute garbage, I am likely to stop reading and move on to the next post and don't even notice the banner underneath the post. In many threads, where I see post after post of garbage, I just move on to another thread and miss any possible gold flecks. |
|
|
|
some of the big block arguments resonate with me.
Retard The typical ad hominem response I was expecting. It just proves my point about group think. I really despise the term "group think." Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason the most popular opinion is popular is because it is the most compelling? Although it is true that sometimes the most popular opinion is dead wrong, it doesn't mean that every popular opinion is dead wrong and that I should only accept "alternate" theories. Every argument has to stand on its own merits. |
|
|
|
@Coolcryptovator, As well, you really don't need someone to die in order to try your luck and take their place. Make your own stand and achieve/earn it. You don't really need to rely upon someone's removal from the campaign to ^win their position", there are specifics already mentioned in OP that you can join if you're trustworthy. Another part is "total amount of users allowed to be enrolled", and I didn't found a post but there's something like there used to be 50-55 participants only who were allowed to join (in terms of number) but the number increased because there are many high quality posters whom Darkstar_ couldn't ignore. I don't think the term "trustworthy" means someone who simply has a good post history. I thought trustworthy meant you go above and beyond that. Perhaps by establishing a very good trust rating or being a DT member. Also, I think being a staff member in good standing also could qualify. Perhaps my interpretation is wrong. I will be honest, I only noticed this signature campaign about a month ago. I will patiently wait until someone gets kicked off. I like the terms of this campaign because there is no post quota. Although I am a rather prolific poster, I don't like the pressure of having to post 20+ posts a week in certain sections, or face getting paid nothing at all. I wish more campaigns were run like this. |
|
|
|
buying BSV dip like crazy
You realize Dr Wright doesn't respect people sitting in their pajamas and daytrading. To show your support, get a non-Bitmain Asic and start mining. (Or build platforms that actually give SV use cases.) |
|
|
|
|
With all due fairness, people with red/green color blindness probably won't get any benefit from changing to bold black to green. Perhaps make it a bold green? I'm not certain how a color blind person sees it now though. I know that only in one in 12 men suffer from colorblindness. (1 in 200 women.) But that is not an insignificant amount of people to accommodate.
|
|
|
|
Can someone point to where it says bitcoin was supposed to be decentralized in the white paper?
It doesn't. It just states that it is p2p electronic cash. However, it is much better to have many entities mining rather than fewer entities mining. More entities mining helps ensure that the mining nodes are competing rather than colluding. If you make the barrier for entry too high, you end up with an oligarchy that have a good likelihood of entering into a cartel. (Although it is abundantly clear in BCH case that the two big mining alliances in BCH are actually competing. However, it has resulted in a split, and now each chain is mostly being support by one alliance. I wouldn't go so far as state that it is a "cartel" but it is obvious that both the BCHABC chain is now run by Bitmain and it's allies and BCHSV is now run by nChain and it's allies.) Also, in order to be true p2p electronic cash, it would be nice if most people have the option of performing an independent audit of what the miners are actually doing, by running a full node. Although a proper SPV wallet can assure that at least your transactions are valid, it would be nice to be assured that the miners are not colluding and pulling some dubious shit. If you make it prohibitively expensive for anyone to be able to conduct their own audit, we all have to rely on the fiscally capable to keep tabs on the miners. How is that really any better of an alternative than just using banks which are controlled by a central bank of the government? But it seems that temporary centralization of the mining nodes on SV is what is needed to push the global adoption for p2p electronic cash. SV wants to lock down the protocol, SV wants big business and enterprise level use of bitcoin. ABC does not want any of these things, hence the implementation of DSV which effectively makes bitcoin illegal. My concern with SV is it is obvious that if anyone comes along and has competing ideas, Dr Wright will just threaten to ruin and orphan them. How is that encouraging free and open competition? Agree with us or else? However, if I really had any skin in BCH, which I don't, I would prefer SV over ABC. Bitmain is the absolute worst. Anything that counters them is welcome. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
