And that's got nothing to do with City of London's autonomy or legal powers Most people haven't hear of the LBMA good delivery list, but it allows for the exchange of gold bars at the international level, and it is meant to avoid constant assaying. LIBOR is yet another way the City controls world finance. The LBMA good delivery list is current under appraisal, as the tungsten filled bars bought by China from Fort Knox was supposed to be guaranteed as pure. Some organisation has got at the bars and created gold plated tungsten bars to replace the pure ones. Some people estimate that as much as 40% of the bars used for international settlement could be forged. It is extremely difficult to find out any information, as the asset values involved are astronomical, and disclosure of irregularities could cause massive waves in the banking system. Where is the extraordinary evidence to back your extraordinary claims? If you care about corruption in the City of London, you are doing the worst thing possible to combat it. If you make fantastic claims with zero evidence, you look crazy Meanwhile, people working in the City of London, and all over British territories, are commiting apalling acts for which acutal evidence does exist |
|
|
|
I don't see how hard forks are possible anymore at all There are alot of other hardfork changes that are totally non-controversial, so you're exagerrating |
|
|
|
We need a hive mind type of deal.
Incedible idea! What we need is a network of computers all over the planet, and some kind of way to create independent little digital communities around which people form and voice their opinions. Then, we can choose who we think is good at figuring this stuff out by looking at the evidence, then checking that against opinions about the evidence! So terrible that something like that doesn't yet exist |
|
|
|
|
@Vladdirescu87
:/ seriously, these stories are all stupid, stop posting
|
|
|
|
Is there any risk to my coins that I should be aware of if I move any coins from this wallet?
no Is there any risk to my coins that I should be aware of if I move any coins from this wallet?
Do I need to update the wallets or can I leave it as is? There is no need. But, you might want to use the newer address types to save on future fees, that would require updating the offline wallet software (wallets using 0.92 signer can only sign for uncompressed pay-to-public-key-hash type keys, the newer types were introduced in Armory 0.96+) If you're just keeping long term BTC, there's no need to change anything. If you start to use Bitcoin day to day, consider using the new key types, especially if you send to addresses using them (addresses that start with 'bc1', as opposed to addresses that start with '1' that you are using now). To send to the new 'bc1' addresses, you do need to update your offline Armory to 0.96.5. If you're given a 'bc1' address to pay to, 0.92.3 can't sign transactions sent to those addresses. |
|
|
|
|
BREAKING NEWS: TAKE ADVICE FROM PEOPLE YOU TRUST
|
|
|
|
Can you tell me what solutions were found from those debates years ago? so, let me see: - you're interested in economics
- you asked the first question that occured to you
- you opened a thread about that question
- you didn't do any research
- you want me to do the research for you
focusing on point 2; what makes you think that the first question you thought of was so original? did you really believe that no-one has ever asked that question, and that no attempt has been made to answer it? |
|
|
|
Very few people seem to accept the fact that the EU is controlled by the City of London (in partnership with a few other dynasties), as is much of the Western world. Their employees and activists are in control of Parliament and the Civil Service. Parliament is located in the City of Westminster, and once you realise this, you can understand that the whole Brexit process was an orchestrated plan.
What most people consider to be London is in fact a county ( Greater London) with a Mayor, and the City of London is an independent state that has retained its separate identity since the time of William the Conqueror. It has it own Lord Mayor, police force and laws. It is ruled by Almoners and Livery Companies, and the Queen needs to be met at the gates and escorted by an Almoner if she wants to make an official visit. It has its own representative in Westminster, who is known as the Rememberancer, and he is not elected, but is appointed by the City of London. England has a very old and complex political structure, and most people are not aware of the powers that it has. For example the Queen is able to enact certain statutes in the US. She gained these rights as a result of defaults on debts owed by both aides in the Civil War.
Even though some of this is slightly true (i.e. City of London is somewhat politicially autonomus), it's not relelvant to your point. British military, spying and corporate power has an undue influence on the world, but it has nothing to do with arcane legal powers which may or may not exist (and are difficult to research). Y'know how British spys, military and corporations really exert control over people? Lies and bullying. The whole point is that they don't care about rules or morals, and so citing weird laws as the basis for hegemonic acts makes precisely zero sense It's very simple, and not quite as weird and spooky as your explanation, which only makes you and people like you look like weirdos that can be safely ignored. If you really care about balance of power issues, try to sound a little less like David Icke |
|
|
|
I was not implying only the units. I was also talking about distribution. A cap on supply encourages hoarding, it also opens bitcoin to the problem of sustainability of security on fees alone. I predict that this might become another major crisis in bitcoin. this was all debated years ago, you're only demonstrating that you've not done any research you're exaggerating the issue using hyperbole too, "another major crisis" (what previous "major" crisises have there even been? Bitcoin is one big largly unmitigated success story) Why are you making exaggerated claims about issues you have not researched? |
|
|
|
|
so, your question is:
"I understand the whole of Bitcoin, but I don't understand it. will someone explain the whole of Bitcoin?"
|
|
|
|
|
@Vladdirescu87
please stop posting this idiotic "stories"
|
|
|
|
EOS gets the highest rating, due to its "innovative governance features". Don't make me laugh. What's innovative? Having the 21 Block Producers have complete control over the blockchain, including the power to reverse transaction, freeze wallets, and confiscate coins? Or maybe that they print thousands of EOS out of thin air every day to award these Block Producers around $10,000 per day each for the privilege of having complete control over your coins? Not exactly innovative, more like "same shit the banks having been pulling for decades".
EOS is a scam, and any "rating" system which can't see that is worse than useless.
Should have remembered that (so many cryptocurrencies are created as scams, it's hard to retain it all) These Weiss characters are sure to be associated with EOS block producers somehow, there's no other reason for them to (essentially) recommend it when EOS is such an obvious scam |
|
|
|
Supposedly, atomic swaps won't work over Lightning Someone on the Lightning mailing list ( https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev)) made a convincing case that either or both parties can perpetually wait out the exchange rate changes until they get a rate they prefer, refusing to sign their half of the lightning transaction until the rate looks good to them. This behaviour could become so widespread that liquidity in the market would never develop if too high a proportion of traders cancel their trades in this way. tl;dr: the mechanism works, but traders won't use it if they can't close a swap deal at a price they actually want |
|
|
|
How many people are using the Lightning Network?? I have seen many people are talking about it, but how long have you been using that in the recent days?
I use a Casa for few months now. That device is literally plug & play, very straight foreward. It cost $300 but you don't need to do all the hassle by setting up a Bitcoin + Lightning node from scratch by yourself. It's better to do it yourself really, the Casa uses a regular USB interface for it's storage and a mechanical disk, neither of which are as reliable as they could be. For always-on computers like a bitcoin/lightning node, reliability needs to be high. There's a great device from Pine called the Rock64pro, it has a little more RAM than the Casa and can use either the SATA or NVME dedicated disk interfaces. It's also an ARMv8 SoC type of device, so all the same guides to setting the node up should work almost identically. |
|
|
|
|
These Weiss people have precisely zero credibility, and this latest assessment hasn't improved their reputation. Every single other cryptocurrency follow the same trading pattern, i.e. they all follow the percentage change in the Bitcoin price. There's no reason not to include every top 50 or top 20 cryptocurrency in the same category in terms of value storage, and all for the same reason: they increase in value against the fiat currencies they trade against, they do not maintain value by any possible interpretation of that description.
Grouping those 3 together using such a qualifying category only demonstrates that this organisation have no objective assessment methodology, and we ought to wonder how and why this conclusion is being promoted in the first place. Or alternatively, ignore everything they say (as well as those promoting these "findings")
|
|
|
|
(particularly the bonded payments, don't fully understand what you mean there so maybe you could elaborate on that a bit). We first want to get the site up and running with some of the more basic features (invoicing for posts/comments, merit based tipping system, etc). Pre BIP: Solving for spam and other abuse with an HTLB - Alistair Mann I think one of the replies in the thread suggests how lightning could be used, IIUC I would suggest coming up with a comprehensive incentive scheme in case the site becomes popular. If you make small but significant changes, users will complain and sour the goodwill towards your management no matter how you handle it. Or hope you stay small until you make any significant changes, but you may not feel like changes are justifiied if the site doesn't catch on. |
|
|
|
Lightning Labs aren't the only game in town, so maybe the others will keep them honest.
or maybe others follow the same path if they also see there is money to be made. that is the biggest problem when centralized organizations get involved in bitcoin, there is always greed and they always end up caring only about making money. i wouldn't run anything closed source because i consider them 100% unsafe. it is not just about stealing my bitcoins but it is mainly about betraying my privacy. Right, but in this case centralisation and anti-competitivity are the only problems. Lightning Loop appears to have better trust properties (i.e. the business handles it's own keys) or privacy issues than any other lightning wallet service; it's actually a good idea to make onboarding simplified, except the part where Lightning Labs set themselves up as the monopoly provider. It deserves to be condemned; what makes Lightning Labs think they're going to be properly motivated to not abuse such a status? It's simultaneouly shameful and shameless, Elizabeth Stark is presumably responsible for this poor decision |
|
|
|
Different users experience different pain points, some are cpu limited, some are bandwidth limited, some are power limited, some are storage limited. Many are some mixture of multiple of these. Because of this no single weight formula can be optimal. What really matters is that it sets the incentives in the right general direction, in order to break ties in the favour of public interest.
Generally we can assume that in the long run most users are going to do whatever is most cost effective for them. If foobar signatures were a LOT better for the network it would still be sufficient that they be only slightly better for the end user, even if making them much better would be justifiable under some cost model... even a little better will get them made a default. Some users will have different motivations and make different choices, but a small number of exceptions is mostly irrelevant for the overall network health. This is important, because a perfect balance isn't possible. E.g. with weight, you could easily argue that an 8:1 ratio or a 16:1 ratio would have been better-- but a higher ratio means a LOT worse worst-case bandwidth, and so wouldn't be good trade-off for those users who are bandwidth limited. The fact that the only "direction of incentive" needs to be right, not so much the magnitude, means its possible to make compromises that give good results for everyone without screwing over some cost models.
So I read this too quickly the first time, and I think I now see your point: one ratio for sig weight doesn't apply to all possible users given the differing contraints on their node. Signature aggregation improves the CPU constraint, but isn't the only consideration. |
|
|
|
|
so you develop applications for Bitcoin, but don't want to use, and think it has no future. ok
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will never make it but the technology behind it will, eventually.
Bitcoin is the most well developed cryptocurrency. It's posible that someone may in future produce a better design, but no-one's doing it now. Also, your scenrio is biased: yes, if you use that specific app, a $60,000 dollar price would make it unusable. So just use a payments channel based app, fees are then flexible enough ($60,000 BTC price is a great problem to have, isn't it?) - Trade involving Bitcoin is increasing; trade involving fiat is declining (or at best static)
- The number of people using Bitcoin to account for their wealth is increasing; price inflation in fiat denominated goods/services/assets implies that using fiat to account for wealth is in decline
What makes you say that? The global economy grows with every year, there's no way that the trade involving fiat is static or declining, that only happens during recession years. Officially stated growth isn't outpacing inflation. That means de facto low or no growth in trade. And the actual growth rate might be lower than the official published figures. They're unlikely to be lower. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
