He was fucking all over the forum. I am glad theymos banned him. Copy/pasting old posts and trying to answer everybody like a mad man.
The reason for his 1st ban was excessive posting. Why can't he keep it smaller&simple?
In the end, after mentioning infinite number of problems (so he says) about segwit/LN and spamming it on everywhere, he didn't come up with a solution neither. He was annoying.
Sure he had a solution. The solution basically is for everyone to only use the P2PKH addresses. (The ones that start out with a 1.) Basically it is a rejection by each individual user of the segwit/LN solution to scaling that the Bitcoin Core team has implemented. From what I can extrapolate from his arguments is that BTC is really only meant to be used as a store of value and to transact with large sums of value. So scaling is not necessary. The wealthy do not mind paying the high transaction fees to move large sums of value around. Also, according to his arguments, the wealthy elite don't want some platform that is going to constantly be changing. They would prefer something that is immutable and demonstrated to be secure. When changes are constantly introduced, it is possible to have some insecure vulnerability be introduced and have some black hat exploit it. If someone wants to use cryptocurrency as a means to handle everyday expenses, then he recommends people just use one of the multitudes of altcoins available. (Please note that me trying to summarize the gist of what he was getting at should not be construed as a total endorsement by me of what he proposes. Also, I may still be misunderstanding some of his points. So my interpretation may be totally out on left field.  ) |
|
|
|
Who would have thought that you could take down two skyscrapers with a bunch of box cutters?
Not me. I am of the opinion that the governments official conspiracy theory is one of the least plausible of the many conspiracy theories I have encountered regarding that event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 Their story is actually rather comical when you lay it all out. Just because a theory put forward is the "least plausible" doesn't necessarily make it untrue. In any event, even if you look at the other theories explaining what happened on 9/11, they all seem pretty incredible to me, so my analogy still stands. |
|
|
|
And there we go; breaking yesterday's mempool high.
Did my comment the other day start all this mempool talk I have been seeing lately? I don't remember anyone replying to it so I thought it had no impact but I also don't remember people talking about the mempool so much before it so maybe it had more impact than I thought.
Holy wow. When they ban someone for life they REALLY ban them. Every thing he ever posted and even posts that were a reply to him; vanished. Yeah, that's at least the 4th time he's been banned. Even if you don't care for him or his ideas, it's hard to argue that he's not a net benefit to this forum. Yes, although his posts are long and give the "feeling" of being conspiracy theories, they are really well thought out. They also encouraged me to do more research on how Bitcoin actually works. Also, just because a theory being proposed appears to be outlandish, doesn't mean it is invalid. Who would have thought that you could take down two skyscrapers with a bunch of box cutters? |
|
|
|
That openledger seems interesting. But how can it be decentralized exchange, once I log in to a site, instead running a wallet on my own machine?
The actual exchange part is decentralized (you can make trades by interacting directly with the blockchain) but custody of assets is not. Ok. Great. Does it use atomic swaps to do the trade? Are there any other applications, wallets or sites which connect to this decentralized exchange? Is there any open interface for it? More users would definitely bring more volume. They convert your coin to a Bitshare's tokens. When you run their app or the web page, you are actually running a Bitshare's wallet. |
|
|
|
One came just a few minutes ago. Just bad luck. |
|
|
|
How do I buy Monero completely anonymously and how can I buy it anonymously? Sorry, I' m completely new and would be glad about some explanations.
Legendary - newbie  Well thats easy, you can buy monero coins on any exchange and withdraw to the wallet. The transaction to any wallet will be anonymous. I think he wants to know what exchanges don't require KYC info. I'm sure there is at least one, right? Polo certainly isn't one of them.  |
|
|
|
Isn't this the same footage where the thing blew up moments later?  no Confirmed. footage that still haunts me has shuttle at different angle.  |
|
|
|
Isn't this the same footage where the thing blew up moments later? |
|
|
|
I thought the FBI already sold the Silk Road coins in auction. |
|
|
|
What do we think about the Trump balloon?
It hurts my eyes. Don't want to see Trump in only his underwear.  Would you have preferred to have seen Hillary like that? No, the good people of London would have made her's with a pantsuit on. |
|
|
|
What do we think about the Trump balloon?
It hurts my eyes. Don't want to see Trump in only his underwear. |
|
|
|
How are so many people in this thread watching a soccer game? I don't even know a single person in real life who watches soccer, not one.
I don't know anyone either. However, soccer isn't exactly a popular spectator sport in the USA. It appears to be popular almost everywhere else. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin difficulty is again expected to rise by 12% in about a week. - https://fork.lol/pow/retargetAre miners still making profit? The break even point must almost be exceeded ... What are you trying to say, exactly? I understand that I should not be egging on a beartard (PM pumper) to explain, but perhaps there is an outside chance that you have something substantially meaningful to say? By the way, you understand that mining profitability remains considerably variable, and there is considerable speculation in mining too, so some miners are going to be ready, willing and able to operate at a loss for a considerable amount of time.. in other words there time horizons regarding profitability can be quite drug out. Furthermore, you understand that there can be gamesmanship with mining too, especially if there could be opportunities that the directing of mining can be used as a means to pump the bcash attack vector, and the calculations regarding timing of attacks might be short windows and momentum based, too. What I am trying to say is that miners will not mine unless they are profitable. So either they will switch off some miners so the hashrate goes down (which I see as unlikely) Or the price will follow the increasing hashrate (e.g. miners stop selling their BTC for a period of time to reduce BTC supply on the market) which should result in a higher BTC price. I just find it an interesting topic :-) Unfortunately, the traders making the market don't seem to give a shit about whether the miners are making profit or not. The 12.5 fresh BTC generated every 10 minutes isn't even a dent in the current market, at the moment. However, there is speculation mining. Also, there are quite a few places in the world that pay considerably less in electricity than other places. I am quite certain that Bitmain and probably Bitfury are working hard on developing a more efficient ASIC. I would not be surprised if both companies already have a more efficient ASIC that they are already deploying on their mining farms. Also, Bitmain made at least 2 billion dollars last year. They are certain to have enough of a cushion to get them through the lean times and keep mining at a slim profit or even at a loss to outlast their competition. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin difficulty is again expected to rise by 12% in about a week. - https://fork.lol/pow/retargetAre miners still making profit? The break even point must almost be exceeded ... Yes, currently as long as your electricity costs less than ~0.13USD per KWH, you can still get a slim profit profit on the Antminer S9i. After a 12% increase in difficulty, you will need to pay less than ~0.11USD/KWH to get any profit. I'm not sure what the stats are for the other miners available to the general market. |
|
|
|
ffs coinbase
I can't see my opens and my fills on the same page?
not better
That's the new feature that is giving me the most angst. However, I noticed the API between the trading bot that I am using and Coinbase Pro is working a little better. Before, when my Bot made a purchase or a sell order, it treated it as a filled order, even if it was not. Now, my Bot will actually show it as a pending order until filled. Not sure if the web bot that I am using improved it on their end though or if Coinbase improved it on their end. |
|
|
|
|
Oh for heaven's sake. I'm not finding the great new features on Coinbase Pro that make my trading experience any easier than it was under Gdax. It was clunky as Gdax and it's clunky now. Perhaps someone can clue me in if I am missing something. Whatever crackerjack team that designed this UI needs to be looking for another line of work.
|
|
|
|
Bob knows. Bob always knows. This Bob?  |
|
|
|
had a small amount from long long time back sold @ 0.00005290  Good lord, I have poor taste when it comes to shitcoins. None of the bags that I have had ever made a move like this. At least not when I was still holding them. Yes, when it comes to shitcoins, my hands are quite weak. |
|
|
|
Segwit signatures are still on chain they are just in a different spot. Segwit moves the signature out of the input script and stores it in another part of the transaction on chain.
Speculating about future hard forks that might compromise Bitcoin security is pointless because any hard fork could compromise security in any number of ways. And be rejected. That’s what full nodes are for.
Where is the concern trolling over a fork where only segregated signatures are valid and all signatures included with the transaction details invalid? That is technically theoretically possible too you know. It couldn't go all the way back to inception obviously but the fork author could contrive a random deadline date. JUSTSAYIN Because any concern troll worth their salt knows that the philosophy of the Bitcoin Core team is to not implement hard forks. In fact, that philosophy is what is at the bottom of most of the angst from big blockers. However, Bitcoin core wants to stick to the principal that Bitcoin is immutable. How can you claim something is immutable if you go off hard forking each time you want to introduce a new feature? As we can tell, BCH has no qualms what-so-ever of hard forking. Most other coins have no qualms what-so-ever of hard forking. None of them are even close to be considered immutable. Of course, some will bring up that even implementing soft forks renders bitcoin mutable. But hey, at least someone can still use old versions of BTC software that go back to 2010, i believe, and still be able to interact with the BTC P2P network. |
|
|
|
The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.
And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well.
This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.
The chain committing the "theft" could not be considered a hard or a soft fork since it it would be implemented by a miner running a node with an older version of Bitcoin. The older software will simply be following the same old rules that it understands. In order to be considered a fork, rules need to be changed. In this case, if the chain were to truly split because all the nodes could not reach an agreement, the chain that would be considered "forking off" would be the chain following the Segwit chain. After all, Segwit is considered a "soft fork." Please note that I am not convinced that both these chains could survive for long, simutaneously. Either one or the other is going to be orphaned off. I thought that we already did some variation of this in August 2017? There were various decisions to move forward with segwit that involved threats to get left behind and required at least 95% to follow.. then the new rule set was locked in. If there is a desire to go back to some old rules, then there is a need for more than 51%.. and more likely to be something like 95%, but of course the consensus rules could be changed. Alternatively, if there is a suspected threat, then could there be rule sets that address the threat? I recall some kind of BIP that went into place that pretty much kicked some nodes off the network if they were running certain kinds of attack software.. wasn't it the nodes that signalling support for segwit2x or some other behavior that was no longer be allowed, and had like a 1 year period before it would become strictly implemented? I think part of my point is that if there certain suspected security problems, such as deviant minority nodes (miners) then there could be ways for the network to discontinue to recognize them by rules that are agreed to by the vast majority. and even if that is not a hardfork, exactly, the effects are nearly the same as a hardfork. In this hypothetical case, the "attack" nodes would be previous versions of core software. If this attack is indeed viable, and Bitcoin Core wanted to protect the Segwit consensus chain, they would need to implement a hard fork. It would be considered a hard fork because the new rules could not be made to be compatible with previous versions of Bitcoin Core. Now we all know that Bitcoin Core's philosophy is to not implement a hard fork unless it is the most dire of emergencies. My guess in such a situation, Bitcoin Core is just going to let the best chain win. Honey badger don't give a shit. Edit: Actually, Bitcoin had a problem with the chain reaching consensus for months after implementing BIP 16. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Pay_to_script_hash They just waited until all of the miners finally got on the same page, by all of them updating to the correct software. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
