|
1023
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Confessions of an /r/bitcoin moderator
|
on: August 21, 2015, 07:48:18 AM
|
anyone is perfectly free to start their own bitcoin forum and moderate it however they chose  But, you're wrong. It is easier to complain about the non existing censorship in addition to spreading misinformation.  AFAIK things are getting out of control. This is like the 5th thread I've seen where people complain about "censorship", while there is none. If there was real censorship, we would not be seeing such threads nor would we be ever hearing from those members again. i'd agree i think the mods are being too conservative with their moderation atm. just look at the threads, insults and misinformation left right and centre. but forum moderation is up to the forum owner and their moderators, tis a big internet out there you can post anywhere you like if you don't want to follow the rules at any individual forums. some seem to think its their god given right to post anything they want anywhere they wish in the history of this forum i've had many a post deleted, when it happens i don't think "censorship"., i think "sorry my bad for breaking the forum rules" |
|
|
|
|
1024
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hearn's Worst Case Scenario: Checkpoints in XT to "ignore the longest chain"
|
on: August 21, 2015, 01:14:36 AM
|
Altcoin Discussion is the proper place to discuss XT. Theymos is very generous to make such an allowance on his private server.
If I were him, XT and Gavinistas would be given the Bitcoin-scrypt treatment (IE disappeared like pinkos in Pinochet's Chile).
agreed that would be being constant, and this XT alt is way worse as bitcoin scrypt wasn't trying to be bitcoin nor was it an attack on btc. |
|
|
|
|
1025
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [CENT] Pennies relaunched
|
on: August 21, 2015, 12:54:17 AM
|
whats the point in reviving pennies?
seriously claims no premine, probably not but it was worse then that, like a many people made huge profits when it broke out of those who didn't know it was broken.
Hi Kelsey, To be honest, every one has their own view why they liked something. I liked CENT for it's simplicity and reminder that a dollar start with 100 CENT. This coin does not promise anything, it just worth few CENT and again it carries two strong images / message ; 1. IN GOD WE TRUST 2. Abraham Lincoln These symbolism empowered the fundamentals of CENT. It just a cent if you see it that way, but for me it more about how humble it could be than a cent. I found CENT when it's in midst of stake reward mess and spend some BTC to XPM before able to purchase a mere 20B. Yup, you're right ... some make huge profit then when their wallet giving them crazy rewards and maybe that's their luck or they just simply smart. Furthermore, I just love the challenge to see CENT have some real meaning when the coin itself being placed at the bottom of the crypto history and it's almost impossible to gain anything out of it. After all ... it just few cents. Hope you could see it they way I see it and you are always welcome to the community. Finally, my apologies if I'm disrespectful with my words. "The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.” Honest Abe you're certainly not disrespectful in your reply, thanks for an honest n clear answer. good luck with it  |
|
|
|
|
1030
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Options for core people who consider core the real bitcoin?
|
on: August 20, 2015, 03:30:21 PM
|
Okay, nobody mentioned this here. The only reason for which I'm not doing it myself is, that I'm afraid that it won't get enough attention. Someone needs to make a petition and request bigger blocks with core (some compromise like 4 MB = less resistance from users). After which one should open a thread here, and spread the word. If a lot of people agree, and the Core developers refuse to do this, then I'm afraid that the current system is very flawed. In that case even I would probably drop Core (not saying that I would join XT). well its actually similar to what the core devs actually want. read coblee a few hours ago; "There's a better option. Really try to reach consensus. Unlike what you have been told, the devs actually support increasing the block size. They just couldn't come to a consensus on how much and when. And we still have plenty of time to get to a consensus. Next month, most of the devs and bitcoin experts are gathering in Montreal to discuss this topic to get everyone on the same page" https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj |
|
|
|
|
1031
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Nakamoto speaks on BitcoinXT
|
on: August 20, 2015, 03:17:42 PM
|
gees people still going on with this hell i'm anti XT (read my previous posts), but this is 100% fake. the fact that this email has been used a few times in the past, and some rounds trying to fake satoshi's sig (google it, which was spotted so they arent trying that one again) tis a dead giveaway tis fake. |
|
|
|
|
1032
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Options for core people who consider core the real bitcoin?
|
on: August 20, 2015, 03:05:46 PM
|
i may have to clean up any post in this thread that are simply bitcoincore v bitcoinxt because this is not what the thread is about, tis only about bitcoincore's options. if it included xt it should be in the alt section or may even get deleted.
please understand if i delete ur post it wasn't meant as a censorship of your ideas (which i'd be more the happy to debate elsewhere).
Please dont delete my posts, I am back on topic again. yes i'm leaving all post for now. just gave a warning so the thread didn't go too far off track. |
|
|
|
|
1033
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Options for core people who consider core the real bitcoin?
|
on: August 20, 2015, 03:00:10 PM
|
|
i may have to clean up any post in this thread that are simply bitcoincore v bitcoinxt because this is not what the thread is about, tis only about bitcoincore's options. if it included xt it should be in the alt section or may even get deleted.
please understand if i delete ur post it wasn't meant as a censorship of your ideas (which i'd be more the happy to debate elsewhere).
|
|
|
|
|
1034
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Options for core people who consider core the real bitcoin?
|
on: August 20, 2015, 02:46:38 PM
|
Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.
certainly you can keep both forks going. if people decide to keep the cores fork, even if XT gained the most nodes, they certainly could (although one or both would tank in price, and both would tank in value). keep the true bitcoin core going, even if XT the alt, gains traction and majority it'll be shortlived like all previous competing alts. If the fork happens I believe Core is the altcoin because XT is continuing the original vision of Satoshi. I think the Core developers should create an alt coin and that way they do not need to force their vision on everyone else, that way Bitcoin can stay true to the original vision of Satoshi. Furthermore if you believe that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, it is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". If you really want to continuing using Core after the fork you can, that is part of the beauty of volunteerism. I suspect Core would become like an altcoin where people that really want to use third parties instead of transacting on the blockchain directly can do that. I just do not want to be "forced" to use third parties over Bitcoin, I would stop using Bitcoin entirely if that was the case and move to another cryptocurrency. To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly. Instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses. However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is important to remember that the Pools are most often different entities then the miners themselves. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners. I do urge everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want. https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1BitcoinXt will always be the altcoin. "The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned." Mike Hearn don't be so deluded he's attempting to kill bitcoin so his alt prevails, the code the he'll fully control. I will ask you directly, do you think that Bitcoin should never hardfork? If you truly believe that I would love to hear a rebuttal of my arguments from you. Specificity in response to why you think that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep the Core development team in check should never be used? its been hardforked in the past and i'm sure there'll be hardforks needed in the future. but the hardfork mike hearn is trying to pull off has little to do with keeping the development team in check. now please realise, to this point i've tolerated your post as i don't wish to simply delete opposing points of view (i welcome them) however there is 101 million bitcoincore vs bitcoinxt threads already on this forum and i didn't start this to be another (u can debate me that elsewhere preferrably in an xt thread in the alt section). this thread is about option for people who want to stay with the bitcoincore no matter what, ignoring the altcoin bitcoinxt. it can continue if it has support no matter the outcome. |
|
|
|
|
1035
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Options for core people who consider core the real bitcoin?
|
on: August 20, 2015, 02:30:18 PM
|
The 'real' Bitcoin is whatever the majority are using to transact. Apart from an honourable, or deluded, few ideology will be chucked away the moment it looks like they're on the losing side.
bitcoincore won't be the losing side. but yeah being blackmailed with fear ones coins may become worthless is the incentive xt is pushing. |
|
|
|
|
1036
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Options for core people who consider core the real bitcoin?
|
on: August 20, 2015, 02:29:37 PM
|
Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.
certainly you can keep both forks going. if people decide to keep the cores fork, even if XT gained the most nodes, they certainly could (although one or both would tank in price, and both would tank in value). keep the true bitcoin core going, even if XT the alt, gains traction and majority it'll be shortlived like all previous competing alts. If the fork happens I believe Core is the altcoin because XT is continuing the original vision of Satoshi. I think the Core developers should create an alt coin and that way they do not need to force their vision on everyone else, that way Bitcoin can stay true to the original vision of Satoshi. Furthermore if you believe that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, it is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". If you really want to continuing using Core after the fork you can, that is part of the beauty of volunteerism. I suspect Core would become like an altcoin where people that really want to use third parties instead of transacting on the blockchain directly can do that. I just do not want to be "forced" to use third parties over Bitcoin, I would stop using Bitcoin entirely if that was the case and move to another cryptocurrency. To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly. Instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses. However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is important to remember that the Pools are most often different entities then the miners themselves. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners. I do urge everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want. https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1BitcoinXt will always be the altcoin. "The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned." Mike Hearn don't be so deluded he's attempting to kill bitcoin so his alt prevails, the code then he'll fully control. |
|
|
|
|
1038
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Options for core people who consider core the real bitcoin?
|
on: August 20, 2015, 01:43:36 PM
|
Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.
certainly you can keep both forks going. if people decide to keep the cores fork, even if XT gained the most nodes, they certainly could (although one or both would tank in price, and both would tank in value). keep the true bitcoin core going, even if XT the alt, gains traction and majority it'll be shortlived like all previous competing alts. |
|
|
|
|
1039
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [Guide] Surviving the fork, or How to double your bitcoins (or save fiat)
|
on: August 20, 2015, 12:19:27 PM
|
The question is: Where does that leave the average Bitcoiner who is not aware of it or lucky enough to get them coins and attempt to double them?
An average bitcoiner who saw the guide will likely pay 0.1 BTC to get exclusive 0.0001 BTC and will lower the loss by doubling his bitcoins. In the best case scenario he will get his bitcoins saved at the current price and will also get free coins of an altcoin named XT or Bitcoin. Someone may buy those altcoins giving him free money for beer. not much to gain though if btc and/or the pretender drop at this point in price v USD a significant amount (compared to when u acquired said btc), which is an exceedingly likely scenario imo. |
|
|
|
|
1040
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: CoinWallet says Bitcoin stress test in September will create 30-day backlog
|
on: August 20, 2015, 11:43:19 AM
|
i read this in ibtimes last day, i dont really understand about the backlog.will this affect our online wallets????it says,:
"UK-based mining service CoinWallet is gearing up to conduct a stress test of the Bitcoin network in early September, which it said will likely render most standard wallet software "worthless" and create "nearly a 30-day backlog".
Interesting. Things are not as they seem, nor as they are claimed to be. Hint: They are spending far too much money on it for this to be a "stress test." Figure out who profits. Figure out whether the profit is enough to justify the expense. Then you will understand what is really happening. "Mining service" my ass. How much are they spending? and wont they just be sending money from their own wallets to another wallet? So probably not costing them that much in fees if they're paying them at all that is. I don't buy the bullshit about them rendering wallets useless. All that'll happen at most is a backlog and probably not as long as they're claiming. Probably just fud. i think they are spending about 40k USD in fees all up to spam the network. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
