1
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: August 05, 2017, 06:28:45 AM
|
... why the angst over a fork?
... no angst. Merely some stridently delivered advice to idiots to warn them of the error of their ways. Ultimately the market will decide ... and my pal Loaded and I stand ready to dump Bcash and keep it eternally below the cost of production. If you could just Bring it on that would be good, My miners breath hot air like this for breakfast.
|
|
|
3
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell
|
on: March 31, 2017, 02:36:44 AM
|
BU is not bitcoin it's an open source software implementation of the bitcoin client. - Unlike linus torvald's Linux or mike hear's XT it does not have a benevolent dictator, and unlike Core's crony consensus, BU has a mechanism by which controversial changes are presented evaluated and voted on.
Core may have a geographically decentralized developer base, but make no mistake it's only a few influential developers who get to decide what projects take priority, and no rational process to resolve conflicts, case in point BIP101 - which ironically lead to the discussion on how to better resolve conflicts that resulted in BU's Articles of Federation.
Ultimately users decide what bitcoin software they run. BU members want more diversity less centralized control, BU has one governing system for controversial changes to one implementation, Core has none. I hope to see more.
|
|
|
4
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell
|
on: March 31, 2017, 01:44:12 AM
|
core-fans seems to have no problems with high fees, why?
they trust core trust no one, we are talking about controlling money. Bitcoin has incentives, if anything trust the incentives, (i quoited the economic policy of the most influential Core Developers) miners do not have an incentive to limit transaction volume, nether do the users, core developers who are building layer 2 networks - actually do have a reason to limit bitcoin growth). And beware the boogeyman centralization buzzwords with no science - Until someone can prove how moving from 300,000 transactions a day to 5,000,000 transactions a day over the coming years results in me having to upgrade my entry level internet and my PC at home they are just bluffing. When they say removing the transaction limit results in a data center controlled by government or some other centralized entity, they need to show the math and projected costs.
|
|
|
5
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell
|
on: March 31, 2017, 01:31:25 AM
|
Just a reminder. SegWit is a transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight.
No, that's wrong. By fixing tx malleability, segwit enables payment channels like Lightning Network, which may support unlimited numbers of instantly confirmed on-chain transactions. iCEBREAKER Fixing malleability is like fixing your cat. It's the owner that gets to define the problem and it's the cat that gets fixed. (The cat works just fine with it's manhood intact) Malleable transaction haven't stopped Bitcoin from working. In fact malleable transactions prevent types of applications that move fee paying transactions off the Bitcoin network and onto other networks like the Lightning Network - resulting in less fees to pay for bitcoin security Let me explain - Malleability is a behavior that encourages network participants using the network in other ways to have functions other than money confirm on the blockchain. Its functions should be defined and agreed before it's classified as something needing a fix, it's not a bug it's not harmed bitcoin, if anything it's been a scapegoat used to arguer fraud and that bitcoin is not broken and works for everyone, fix this and we fix fraud (NOT). Bitcoin Transaction Malleability puts individual users who want to be their own bank on the same playing field as multinational corporations who want to use bitcoin to build a private banking layer on top of bitcoin, why remove it? Just a reminder. SegWit is a transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight.
I would like to understand more about this. I know that there is a transaction piece and a witness piece, but why can't they simply both be increased in a linear fashion in the future? If we activate segwit we get a marginal increase in transaction limit, (the number of transactions obfuscated so you can't do the math but maybe it's a 70% increase) and we move from a 1MB block limit to a 4MB block weight. where a simple 4MB limit would give us a 300% increase in transaction volume. In the future if we what to increase the transaction limit once segwit is active lets say a 4MB block limit, we would get a 16MB block weight. So if we compare apples with apples the transaction limit with transaction limits, we get a much higher transaction limit if we move to a 4MB block size than we do if we move to a 4MB block weight. the difference is more profound when you think that moving to an 8MB block limit is equivalent to a 8MB block weight. with segwit it gets harder and harder to increase the transaction limit
|
|
|
6
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell
|
on: March 30, 2017, 10:30:35 PM
|
Just a reminder. SegWit is a transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight. here are the economic policies being pushed by incumbent developers - they unanimously support limiting bitcoin transaction: “There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.“ “we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later” “Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome.” “Reasonable block sizes currently range from ~550k to 1 MB" “…higher fees may be just what is needed…” “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
|
|
|
7
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How to explain bitcoin to teenagers or children
|
on: November 04, 2016, 06:06:10 PM
|
It trully is a waste of time. They will never understand it. Kids and teenagers don't want to hear about how a currency works or any of the details, they will find it boring, they can't be bothered, most adults can't, let alone kids and teens, let's just focus on making bitcoin work as expected by casual people.
Not all kids! Some totally get it they just don't know the best way to fix the problem with money. check out Victoria Grant at 12 years old. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE But in all reality bitcoin is a surprisingly simple concept my kids got it very early they just don't get how important it is that a broader audience understands how important sound money is to preserving society. the quote above holds true for the added complexity that's creeping in with things like segwit and how LN works, they just don't care. The problem is developers are not simplifying the concept they making it exponentially more complex, the result is a narrower audience who can understand what bitcoin is and the pool of potential investors shrinks. the bitcoin protocol should be striped down to the basics so its eazt for a 5 year old to get and the added complexity should be happening in the economy of money products.
|
|
|
8
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: June 30, 2016, 06:35:08 AM
|
This is why the DAO is up 13%. It's for our wickedness. We're the Lot's wife of crypto. Is that landscape from Mars?it's an r/bitcoin troll on his back with a hardon, he stuck around a little too long and forgot to pull up his shorts before the sun rose. on another note, the halving if it's anything like the last one will be anti climactic until the reality of reduced liquidity takes effect. The last halving rally peeked too early and then again much later once liquidity dried up. last time we didn't know what to expect, and this time we are headed into it with another unpredictable complication a very stubborn limit on transaction volume. I think it's going to have a negative effect on growth, but we have to wait and see how it plays out. I hope you are all here to play the next one 4 years from now.
|
|
|
9
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT
|
on: June 24, 2016, 11:12:15 PM
|
Troll harder, you might get that Goldman Sachs share option you were promised
LOL way to deflect attention but honestly, Goldman Sachs, AXA, PwC, Innovation Endeavors whats the difference - you're the one backing the changes to Bitcoin protocol funded by existing elite. FYI a shill is paid to push a biased opinion, it is the antithesis of a bitcoin investment who wants to maximize the return on their bitcoin investment. Full disclosure I'm invested in the successful deployment and deployment of the Bitcoin network for the benefit of all users without bias. Apparently I just hold developers to a higher standard than you.
|
|
|
10
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT
|
on: June 24, 2016, 10:56:22 PM
|
Roger Ver is knee deep in Ethers. Don't pretend that place isn't what it is.
I'm not invested in ETH, so no I haven't noted the fascination it may just be me self censoring and ignoring all the inappropriate headlines. I did see this though, censoring in full force over on r/bitcoin so maybe you're dreaming. r/bitcoin is OK discussing ETH but not discussing the topic of moving the block limit.
|
|
|
11
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT
|
on: June 24, 2016, 10:50:53 PM
|
It's a totally relevant! Rather than test LN and its base code SegWit, (bitcoin's DAO), in the real world befor deploying it on a $10B network
LN's basecode is not Segwit. I'm surprised that you have been fed false information. Segwit is not Bitcoin's DAO and is not even as complicated as some people say that it is. Most of the codebase is just automated testing. LN could be created (AFAIK) without Segwit but it would be much harder. why shouldn't SegWit be deployed and tested in the real world on an altcoin before being implemented in Bitcoin?
Nobody is preventing altcoins from implementing Segwit. I'm 99% of sure that if the Core developers decided to wait for this 'testing period' that the 'shill campaign' would complain everywhere that Core is stalling progress, fee market panic and other rubbish. I know, sure SegWit comes bundled with a bunch of other changes among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant. No need to trust me but it's way more complicated that you alluding too. I don't see any shilling campaigns maybe you can enlighten us? I do see a bunch of digital influences paid by huge corporate sponsors to create FUD around the dangers of bigger blocks. I'm glad to see there is no resistance to altcoins implementing Segwit, I suggest Core got on that and do some real world testing before messing with Bitcoin implementation, what do you think about deploying it on the Litecoin network? it shares a lot of fundamentals with bitcoin.
|
|
|
12
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT
|
on: June 24, 2016, 10:40:35 PM
|
I know it's "Classic" (and /r/btc) style to spend most of the time talking about Ethereum; but how about we buck that trend and talk about classic instead? In an ultra rare fit of software development, they've begun to try to add BIP9/68/etc. support to Classic: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/177But because their "single constant fork" remained anything but and they've diverged from Core and don't seem to know what they're doing-- they've made a fine hairball of it and the tests aren't passing. I wonder if they'll get it working before CSV is live on the network? I also wonder, since they already released a "0.12.1" which was, if anything, an anti-0.12.1 (ripped out warnings related to the 0.12.1 features it lacked!)-- are they going to call their kludge port 0.13 and claim to be leaders in Bitcoin innovation-- while lacking the half year of development from dozens of people and dozens of features that will be in the real 0.13? Only time will tell, but I guess that would be consistent with their "Classic" naming practice, enh? Are you the CTO of Blockstream? you don't sound like a CTO r/btc is where the uncensored bitcoin discussion happens, who cares about ETH, but for the fact that we can learn from their DAO mistakes.
|
|
|
13
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT
|
on: June 24, 2016, 10:35:11 PM
|
Who ensures that LN does not become bitcoins DAO like experience?
That's not really relevant here. Let's all stop any advanced development because an incompetent team failed with their pump & dump coin? I think not. Peer reviews and extensive testing 'ensure' that. Although one can never be 100% sure. It's a totally relevant! Rather than test LN and its base code SegWit, (bitcoin's DAO), in the real world befor deploying it on a $10B network, why shouldn't SegWit be deployed and tested in the real world on an altcoin before being implemented in Bitcoin?
|
|
|
14
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT
|
on: June 11, 2016, 10:42:02 PM
|
In addition, let's not forget that the expression "xthin" itself was invoked as a propaganda tool, every Classic shill was using it to heap scorn on Core for "lack of xthin". If only they put as much effort into the code design as they did into their brand naming, lol.
Hey, Core does not have a 5 - part post with shiny pictures and gifs, so their proposals must be lacking in comparison to BU and Classic. At least the BU folks are not actively trying to pull in people with their campaigns (they don't have much support anyways). I've just read the following on reddit: "I invite Mr. Maxwell to make his 'Xthin Collision Tool' public"--Bitcoin Unlimited Team refutes
after which the tool was posted which proved the flaw. I haven't seen the proofs yet, could you point me to the results?
|
|
|
15
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: June 03, 2016, 10:54:57 PM
|
it looks like they are just hanging in there ... they let these bull runs happen at the weekends to relieve some pressure when new fiat cannot get into the exchanges to send it rocketing, then save up their dumpage for a monday-tuesday dumpathon ... but it's all looking quite desperate, at some point they will run out of idiots to borrow coins from and then the market can find the monetary premium instead of bouncing along on the cost-of-production floor (which is ever-increasing and soon to be doubling anyway)
I don't think its leveraged coins being dumped, But I do think when the tide turns it's fiat from these dumps (and a touch of FoMO) that are going to push bitcoin higher than it's ever gone before. Gmax panic attack yesterday gave some new hope to Core increasing the on chain block limit. edit: there is also a lot of dark pool trading happening in bitcoin that's a big lot of coin that isn't hitting exchanges, I'd guess it's largely responsible for the long period of price stability. I'm also guessing those off exchange block trades are drying up now as some early adopters are running low on coin.
|
|
|
17
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: May 29, 2016, 12:56:34 AM
|
This is mental. No way this holds. I'm buying a rug on Overstock. nice. I hope its a good one. Sheets are a popular choice too. I went out and had an endorphin rush when I checked the price after I returned. I'm all in now so I'm hoping this holds too, at least until the next wave of fomo fiat hits the exchanges. Check out the CNY exchange rate RMB3845 = USD 585 that's an 11% arbitrage margin, I'm betting it holds for a little while until the bureaucrats in China figure out whats happening.
|
|
|
18
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT
|
on: May 29, 2016, 12:40:47 AM
|
Well there is a difference between "consensus" and "absolute consensus". It's not just the percentages that are important. It's the way the Classic people talk and act. They don't care about consensus. They just want bigger blocks.
Network consensus is being opposed by Core's Political consensus. Classic supporters are advocating for a Network consensus to agree on increasing the block size (generously advocating for a 75% political consensus not the required 51% network majority), Core is engaging in a political campaign to oppose network consensus in flavor of their Political consensus.
|
|
|
19
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT
|
on: May 29, 2016, 12:34:25 AM
|
it's time to increase the block size and quit messing around with all this other stuff.
They are validated in every other way, and by using that logic most changes would have you call the new txs non-bitcoin. You haven't joined this group have you? http://thebitcoin.foundation/ says the man who things storage costs in the future are going to be cumbersome and bandwidth has remained stagnant since the block limit was imposed in 2010. everyone in the past has always said they will increase the limit if it becomes a problem, News Flash it's a huge problem today and Core's bickering has stalled every attempt to increase the limit, Shame on you. I'm not into any form of central planning, I don't support Blockstram/Core or the Bitcoin Foundation. but many follow such authorities blindly, if you keep on insisting you are the central authority in bitcoin lead for gods sake and increase the limit the sheeople masses will do whatever you say. The sanest solution is to remove the block size limit ASAP and stop with the bickering and the unnecessary complication of the elegant bitcoin design. Develop the Layer 1 solutions first.
|
|
|
20
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT
|
on: May 29, 2016, 12:21:22 AM
|
Don't mean to be pedantic Greg, but if Segwit transactions can't be validated by Bitcoin nodes should we be calling them bitcoin transactions?
it's time to increase the block size and quit messing around with all this other stuff.
|
|
|
|