|
1301
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Fork 1:1 of Bitcoin - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees
|
on: March 24, 2018, 09:57:55 AM
|
The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.
With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.
It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before. The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker... As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN? The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal ready and activate which they did And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol. Why would litecoin have TM issues anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code and litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it Why would litecoin have TM issues .................. "And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix" your comment above. anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code .....yes it does , thats why bch is special like og btc, the only version that is segwit free (pleeeease dont start that clashit stuff lol) litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant ...id say ltc and blockstream took over and killed of btc the way it was meant to be but stole the ticker. anyways forget ltc. Back to this uasf/uahf, ...so you agree it was an uahf activated by useless ,free to create nodes.  Segwit it nothing more than a malleability fix yes it now allows for larger blocks but that was just a side effect One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH is very much segwit-like Segwit moves the signature out of the transaction area into a separate merkle root that allows for backwards compatibility BCH's proposed fix moves the signature from the transaction area just the same as segwit but simply moves it to the end instead of to a separate merkle tree but this means it must HF and nobody gets to choose it's forced Its a fix without the miners consent, the people that have real investment in the coin. It pretends to be a sf but really its a hf. Whenever bch makes any major future changes, it will be the miners that choose what happens, not free to create nodes that were used to hijack btc. Something we agree on the miners will decide major changes the same miners that pushed for the fork do you see a issue here The miners are just employed to secure the network and are the tiniest percentage <1% of all users so why should they decide what everyone should be forced to accept Going back to supply inflation just say BCH takes on a stupid infinite block reward subsidy and abolishes all fees somthing like 10 BCH forever per block. Obviously you won't agree same as all other users that have value and does not want it diluting with such high inflation but the miners would be a dream come true they will hold so much wealth so why wouldn't they pass it. The whole premise of crypto currency is to take back financial freedom and not to be just slaves to the current banking system and allowing the miners to control the code and changes is just the same you are just giving them total control instead of banks What is the cost of setting up a node that allows a vote on major changes to the whole system?.....It is so cheap, that it becomes an exploit as the uasf/hf has shown. Its not like the nodes that vote have to hold a minimum amount of btc (thats how it should be done) I understand the whole premise of crypto, and taking back financial freedom and not being slaves to bankers system, this is why i support bch. |
|
|
|
|
1302
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Fork 1:1 of Bitcoin - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees
|
on: March 24, 2018, 08:41:53 AM
|
The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.
With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.
It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before. The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker... As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN? The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal ready and activate which they did And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol. Why would litecoin have TM issues anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code and litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it Why would litecoin have TM issues .................. "And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix" your comment above. anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code .....yes it does , thats why bch is special like og btc, the only version that is segwit free (pleeeease dont start that clashit stuff lol) litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant ...id say ltc and blockstream took over and killed of btc the way it was meant to be but stole the ticker. anyways forget ltc. Back to this uasf/uahf, ...so you agree it was an uahf activated by useless ,free to create nodes. Segwit it nothing more than a malleability fix yes it now allows for larger blocks but that was just a side effect One of the proposed malleability fixes for BCH is very much segwit-like Segwit moves the signature out of the transaction area into a separate merkle root that allows for backwards compatibility BCH's proposed fix moves the signature from the transaction area just the same as segwit but simply moves it to the end instead of to a separate merkle tree but this means it must HF and nobody gets to choose it's forced Its a fix without the miners consent, the people that have real investment in the coin. It pretends to be a sf but really its a hf. Whenever bch makes any major future changes, it will be the miners that choose what happens, not free to create nodes that were used to hijack btc. |
|
|
|
|
1303
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Fork 1:1 of Bitcoin - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees
|
on: March 23, 2018, 09:05:08 AM
|
The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.
With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.
It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before. The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker... As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN? The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal ready and activate which they did And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol. Why would litecoin have TM issues anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code and litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant LN makes commerce simple I purchased some steam vouchers the other day from bitrefill took me about 20 seconds from clicking buy to getting the code email and activating it Why would litecoin have TM issues .................. "And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix" your comment above. anyone can use segwit every Bitcoin fork now automatically has segwit code .....yes it does , thats why bch is special like og btc, the only version that is segwit free (pleeeease dont start that clashit stuff lol) litecoin didn't need lightning it wanted it to remain relevant ...id say ltc and blockstream took over and killed of btc the way it was meant to be but stole the ticker. anyways forget ltc. Back to this uasf/uahf, ...so you agree it was an uahf activated by useless ,free to create nodes. |
|
|
|
|
1304
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Fork 1:1 of Bitcoin - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees
|
on: March 23, 2018, 07:26:27 AM
|
The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.
With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.
It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before. The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker... As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN? The system that was in place was for miners to signal when they was ready in order to activate a improvement this was not a issue when Bitcoin was early and spread out but since asics and large pools becoming the norm it was getting abused as any miner with over 10% could stop something even if 90% agreed UASF was just that users running a node that activated segwit without the miners so they had 2 choices come along or signal ready and activate which they did And yes litecoin needed a malleability fix and chose segwit for LN The nodes that do nothing and cost nothing to set up out voted the miners lols The nodes activated a uahf, why do i say this....because a HF isnt forced on you...."follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you" tek yea i thought litecoin may have had TM issues, was unsure on what cobbles had changed back in the day when making ltc....TM wasn't one of them anyways lol. |
|
|
|
|
1305
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Fork 1:1 of Bitcoin - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees
|
on: March 23, 2018, 12:56:17 AM
|
The masses decide what 'Bitcoin' is by the adoption and usage exactly how they decide what their search engine or web browser is.
With SW as a SF BTC is a fork as well and it might be the NetscapeAltavista for the masses.
It still follows the same chain though is didn't fork off you decide it is not forced on you if you don't trust or want to use segwit then you don't have to you decide by the type of address you use If you carry on using legacy addresses then you are using the exact same Bitcoin as you were several years ago nothing changed in that respect the data is still stored in the block in the exact same way as before. The only time the data structure changes is when you use a segwit enabled address which in laymens terms just moves the signature data from the transaction field to a separate merkle tree that's pretty much it Again, isnt that because it was closer to a uahf, disguised as a uasf.....in order to prevent a fork off...which led to segwet coin being called btc and retaining the ticker... As for ltc, did they need a segwit malleability fix aswell in order to use LN? |
|
|
|
|
1310
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Fork 1:1 of Bitcoin - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees
|
on: March 18, 2018, 04:24:52 AM
|
I hope it won't go that low, or lots of people will lose confidence. I believe cryptocurrency will recover before the end of this year. We will keep going down until there is no more hope lol If people that bought crypto for short term gains, they probably lose confidence.. Those that know crypto well, they have been in for the long term, and going back to end oct, early Nov 2017 prices, is understandable. We still got a few more big dumps and then the lack of buy support ,then the fun part of suppression  before we can even think of going back up. |
|
|
|
|
1319
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Venezuela will launch a commodity-backed "petro" cryptocurrency (unmoderated)
|
on: February 20, 2018, 02:13:10 PM
|
Correction : Petro is the unit name (like BTC), Mene is the Satoshi equivalent.
I think it will be a milestone in the cryptocurrency history.
At last, we will see if crypto is state resistant, and by state I mean USA/CIA.
For sure the CIA will try to attack the Petro which is threatening the USA petrodollar.
I'd be ready to invest, just for the middle finger to TPTB !!!
Well the Americans are already trying to talk the currency down: https://www.coindesk.com/u-s-senators-decry-venezuelan-petro/U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R.-Fl) and Robert Menendez (D.-NJ) have denounced Venezuela's planned cryptocurrency in a new letter.
In an open letter addressed to U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Rubio and Menendez asked how the Treasury Department was monitoring Venezuela's plan to create its own oil-backed cryptocurrency, which the country's president, Nicolas Maduro, has said will help the country avoid global financial sanctions.
The two senators want to know how the department will move to prevent the country from using the "petro" to bypass American sanctions. The letter noted that Venezuela has spent several years in an economic crisis, resulting in a lack of access to basic resources for most citizens. The usa senators could be in for a big shock... people around the world ..not just Venezuela are fed up with usa being the world bully.... this could be the beginning of a new form of democracy... one where people all over the world decide if your country deserves crypto financial support.. we could be ready to witness a new world...a decentralised WORLD ORDER  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
