Bitcoin Forum
July 21, 2019, 03:57:33 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 ... 823 »
1321  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Here since 2013/2014? on: November 14, 2018, 03:42:14 PM
 had a nice hoard then. still have a nice hoard.... i say i have more now.

trading is fun and accumulated more. and due to the greatness of deflation i can spend some while accumulating and not feel a loss. basically living off the interest/profits of trading/deflation and not touching the hoard, just adding to it via trading

(no i dont trade my hoard. just some play stash amount. and i just keep grabbing lots of 1-5% waves.. i dont wait and pray for FOMO moons or lambo spikes(100-300%).. i just day play small percentages that add up)

"1% a day keeps the 3x a year at play" .. no greed, no risk, no emotion
1322  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Dominance and Bitcoin Meme on: November 14, 2018, 03:31:42 PM
1323  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are non-Segwit nodes, full nodes? on: November 14, 2018, 03:06:45 PM
In such an outcome, which one of the split would the community follow, the Core developers support, and the market value?

but if segwit itself had a bug. then depending on the bug and its impact. it could go as
downgrade, patch, then upgrade
patch then upgrade..  

But node operators can always downgrade their nodes to the version before Segwit, while the software after Segwit is being patched, right? Wouldn't that be an argument supporting that "Segwit as a soft fork" is better?

We are off-topic. This should be discussed in a new thread. Haha.

if segwit itself was broke then there could be a case where all unspent segwit utxo's need to be removed. thus literally orphaning off 15 months of blockchain data AND reverting nodes to version 0.12 for instance
it could be that it just needs to revert to version0.12
it could be that just a quick patch and release of new 0.14.b -0.17.b
again it could cause many issues or many different scenarios, requiring many different responses.
soft or hard could be a blessing or a curse.
just letting in any random change "inflight" puts the network more at risk of bugs occuring
just having one source of full node code, does not defend against trojan code. and puts the network at more risk of bugs occuring

its not just a case of diversity of levels of validity levels of upgrade. its also about what code language diversity there is, what database store of blocks. and many other things.

what a few people foolishly believe is that the entire chain should be secured by one codebase. and if there was a bug they think that its better that the entire chain should fail(facepalm) rather than a bunch of nodes from brand A continue while another brand is stalled..
1324  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are non-Segwit nodes, full nodes? on: November 13, 2018, 06:39:52 PM
not fully verifying..
dont directly participate

full nodes doesnt mean just verify transactions aimed at you. it means fully validate all data to ensure NETWORK security.
come on. imagine if all nodes didnt fully verify.
the whole point of full nodes is that the whole block should be verified.

The point of running a full node is to validate payments received. That's what "being your own bank" means -- validating payments you receive against the protocol instead of trusting a centralized authority.

If a legacy node forwards valid transactions it doesn't fully understand, how does that jeopardize network security? Can you explain how Segwit jeopardizes network security and why we haven't seen the "ANYONECANSPEND attack" come to fruition?

short answer to that debate was that full nodes should validate everything. not just its own personal needs but validate the networks data.

Why? Explain how legacy nodes are endangered, and why the network is now insecure.

to those that do want to learn about full nodes. research

1. litenodes are more intended to just validate that your own personal transactions are verified in a block(there are many variants that can give you variant levels of data that are as simple as just blockdata related to your own list of addresses(bloom).. just the latest 288 blocks(nodenetwork limited) all the way up to full blocks of data(nodenetwork)).. but a full nodes purpose is to have full data and have that full data fully verified(all of the above).

2. "instead of trusting a centralized authority" yep. exactly.. so legacy nodes are trusting the segwit node validated ALL  transactions... (ofcourse its not your transaction,, but a full node is about network. not just personal)
(emphasis "full node" does not mean "personal only my transaction node" it means "full node")

3. full nodes are to validate the FULL DATA for network security. and to have full data to allow the other network participants to have a source to get data from.

4. and no. dont try to dilute the meaning of full for 'personal use' as thats just weakening the amount of nodes available to properly sync to.. imagine it. nodes pruning out transactions that are not important to that person.. means the next peer cant get them

imagine if some nodes had a stripped block of legacy only.
imagine if some nodes had a pruned block of only data that was still UTXO
and only 1 node was actually fully archival.

now imagine a fresh user wanted to run a actual full node. guess where they will get thier data from.
it wont be from the stripped nodes.  it wont be from the pruned nodes.

thats why its important to identify whats actually a full archival node.
same goes for validation
no one wants to be messed around with receiving invalid data, even if their actual full node is going to full validate anyway. but atleast knowing theres many true sources of believed full valid data. saves time and hassle of not having to drop connection and wait for data

in short. imagine if out of 10,000 nodes.. not all are actually full archival, fully validing nodes.
but a mish mash.
thats not supporting the network with a 10,000 strong network of full 100% 10k copies of the blockchain. the reality is far less than 10k.

as for the anyonecan spend stuff.. thats where many argued from 2016+ and the end result was dont release the wallet for making a segwit tx until weeks after nodes activated.
(the arguement prior to activation was that its fine, all compatible and people could make segwit transactions inflight without consensus)

but end result was consensus was needed. hense the november 2016 consensus
consensus was not reached. hense the mandatory
then after the mandatory. the wallet facility to actually make transactions was allowed weeks later.

now if there was a bug and segwit was deactivated the transactions revert back to anyonecanspend. and because pools are the ones collating the transactions. guess whos gonna pick up those funds

as for the if legacy dont forward transactions it dont understand how does that jeopodise the network.
if the network doesnt actually have 10k full nodes that do forward.. but only a few... imagine that,

trying to say there are 10k nodes that do a to z. when in fact theres one a few thousand that do a-z shows how people dont understand that the numbers are fudged

ok imagine it this way
you go into a shop. wanting a buy a few things. you prechecked online and seen 10 in stock.. you go to the store and told actually theres only 3 in stock as 7 are either older models, asian 'replica's missing vital things or they are ex display

would you treat them all the same or question the quality of the 7
you probably would likely ask why were they not advertised as ex demo or exrepair or replica models to save your journey and so that your fully informed before getting involved in a decision process.
1325  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are non-Segwit nodes, full nodes? on: November 13, 2018, 02:53:04 PM
In such an outcome, which one of the split would the community follow, the Core developers support, and the market value?

mainly people would follow whatever the majority of merchants use. and the merchants will follow whatever one will cause them least losses and most functionality without most delay to get back to business as usual.

until an event occurs there are many decisions.
but having diverse nodes of different codebases/teams would atlease give options to remain running instead of spending hours worrying/or having only one choice.
EG take the 2013 bug. 0.8 introduced a new database format to store block data in a different way(levelDB instead of berkely). but they done it as a inflight upgrade that didnt require network consensus.

nodes of 0.7 were treated as equal as 0.8 but beneath the social buzzwords. rules did change. although the sentiment was that it was all "compatible"
0.7 nodes couldnt store data of a certain amount of 'locks'. so they stalled out at blockhight of 225430 while v0.8 continued on. thus causing a orphan drama event of differing lists of blockheight.

the network decided to downgraded to 0.7 orphaning off blocks accepted to 0.8. simply to get everyone back up and running and business as usual. and then regrew a new block height using rules about the data being below the database 'lock' limit..  until it overtook the blockheight of the chain that was 0.8
. then later released version 0.8 again and promoted that everyone should upgrade
only once majority moved to 0.8 as a mandatory event. and then progress where those running 0.7 were just told to upgrade or stay stalled out as they were just laggers/second class(not to be treated as important to the majority)

so in short the 2013 was a downgrade.. then patch then upgrade then ignore those that remained downgraded
the 2018 bug. if a DDoS would occur taking out all core nodes of 0.14+ would have been a patch to all versions of 0.14+ because not everyone just runs new code(0.16 -0.17) "on trust" without independent review.

so not everyone would instantly upgrade to 0.17 and some would fear downgrading to version 0.10-0.12 as this would cause bigger issues around the whole mandatory ban/segwit drama stuff(as a second event ontop a DDoS event) so patches would have been released to version 0.14+ much quicker. where a quick review that only one code function/rule was changed.

so in short in a 2018 DDoS event it would have been a patch and then upgrade later

but if segwit itself had a bug. then depending on the bug and its impact. it could go as
downgrade, patch, then upgrade
patch then upgrade..  

until you know the possible cause, historic damage(orphans) and future impact(functionality). asking specifics are unknown
1326  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are non-Segwit nodes, full nodes? on: November 13, 2018, 01:19:42 PM
validate full data=no
validate full rule set=no
archive full data=no
mempool full transaction types=no
relay full transaction types=no
relay full blockdata=no

is it a full anything=no

logic check.
if a node only has X rules it specifically knows and checks X rules.. does it mean its a full node.
a) what if X was 1 rule, 10 rules, 12, 15
b) what if x was the NETWORKS FULL list of rules

1327  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are non-Segwit nodes, full nodes? on: November 13, 2018, 12:43:41 AM
If all of the Nodes revert back to the Legacy non-mining nodes , then you basically have a fork that removes segwit from bitcoin and then and only then would those legacy nodes revert back to being true full nodes. But only with the death of segwit, which by the way will kill Lightning network. Smiley

not exactly. (pools would need to stop collating segwit transactions)
i say not exactly because you excused mining pools from your downgrade. meaning you want pools to allow segwit

a better example:

if there was a segwit bug. requiring segwit deactivation.. the network would end up having to:
orphan off all the blocks back to mid august 2017 (very worse case(research anyonecanspend debate))
continue at current blockheight. but revert to legacy block additions.. but then people with funds in segwit addresses wont be able to spend their segwit funds, if segwit got deactivated.
thus funds end up lost to the true recipient because legacy nodes wont 'playball' with them due to no signature.

yea i know what you are thinking. in such a bug the reversion would mean old nodes see segwit UTXO as "anyonecanspend" but not anyone will... trust me. the pools will grab the funds not average joe legacy node

but yes .. other side effect.. bye bye to btc access to the SEPARATE NETWORK that many coins can use called LN
1328  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are non-Segwit nodes, full nodes? on: November 13, 2018, 12:28:16 AM
not fully verifying..
dont directly participate

full nodes doesnt mean just verify transactions aimed at you. it means fully validate all data to ensure NETWORK security.
come on. imagine if all nodes didnt fully verify.
the whole point of full nodes is that the whole block should be verified.

this debate has been discussed. if full nodes should only verify transactions that only relate to a payment recipient then the payment recipient should only request blocks containing transactions that are addressed to the recipiient.
short answer to that debate was that full nodes should validate everything. not just its own personal needs but validate the networks data.

That's why the "legacy nodes don't fully verify" argument is weak. If you run a legacy node, you don't directly participate in Segwit transactions -- you aren't accepting payments where you don't verify signatures.

legacy nodes are on a sublayer and also not part of the full network relay
sending out a stripped block to a full node will get rejected. you can only send a stripped block to a fellow downstream (legacy) node.

       /   \
      o     o
   /    \ /    \
0  -o- o -o-  0
   \   /  \    /
     o     o
       \   /

the actual topology of the network if you were to lay it out in a straightish line would be (left is top(upstream) of network right is bottom(downstream))

pools->fibre ring network->segwit nodes  - > segwit lite wallets
                                                             \-> legacy(old) nodes -> legacy lite wallets

blue and red are segwit nodes part of the p2p network(pool and fullnode). then on the outside are the green legacy nodes. they receive stripped block data but they dont relay full data. hense they end up as leachers rather than seeders (using torrent terms)
the red and blue work at the centre and full data sync of p2p using the '--witness' parameter of the rpc call for block data..
which legacy nodes are not privileged to. so legacy sit downstream (outside edge) of the network

(let me guess instead of a open consensus debate. certain group will now say that by not upgrading to their code your a network leacher..(did i accidentality give them the next REKT buzzword for next future REKT campaign) as their excuse to force people to adopt new code their not comfortable with activating.. (although it would still end up getting activated via their tricks anyway but i still see future REKT campaigns)
1329  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are non-Segwit nodes, full nodes? on: November 12, 2018, 07:41:58 PM
So IMO, non-SegWit node is full nodes, but can't run all non-critical tasks.

its not a full node. because as you say it doesnt do all the critical tasks
but its what some call a 'heavy node' or 'old node' or a few others (who dont understand the meaning) a 'compatible node'
or as the majority prefer. to save confusion.. 'legacy nodes'

as its not a lite node that is just has a wallet.dat and a transaction creator ability, but not a full node either
1330  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are non-Segwit nodes, full nodes? on: November 12, 2018, 07:23:40 PM
legacy only nodes do not:
1. receive unconfirmed segwit transactions
2. relay unconfirmed segwit transactions
3. verify unconfirmed segwit transactions
4. verify confirmed segwit transactions in blocks
5. receive true full length blockdata
6. store true full length blockdata
7. relay to other nodes true full length data

if a legacy node sent a stripped legacy block to a segwit node(for syncing purposes). the block would get rejected as its stripped and not got the data segwit nodes need

so legacy nodes are not part of the:
1. full validation
2. full relay
3. full sync
4. full archival

if you did not know this. then please research:
stripped blocks aka filtered block data
downstream nodes aka filtered/bridged nodes
if you think all blockdata is sent and everything gets the same thing. research
which is a parameter addition to the blockdata RPC call that asks for full data. which legacy nodes do not get to call

the bitcoin devs were very clear about this

legacy only nodes are treated as downstream(separate layer) nodes that receive filtered data
In this configuration, you set your current Bitcoin Core node (which we’ll call the “older node”) to connect exclusively to a node running Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later (which we’ll call the “newer node”). The newer node is connected to the Bitcoin P2P network as usual. Because the newer node knows about the segwit changes to the consensus rules, it won’t relay invalid blocks or transactions to the older node—but it will relay everything else.

When using this configuration, please note that the older node, if it uses Bitcoin Core defaults, will not see transactions using segwit features until those transactions are included in a block.

If you don’t upgrade, you may experience one difference: if someone who has upgraded to segwit pays you, your wallet may not show you the payment until after it has been included in a block. This is a safety feature that prevents your wallet from seeing transactions it doesn’t completely understand until they’ve been confirmed by a miner.

they even draw pictures for the non-technical minded to understand
legacy only nodes do not fully validate blocks. as the devs have said they rly on segwit nodes to validate fully and then for the segwit nodes to send out data the segwit nodes believe to be true. and so the legacy nodes then simply accept them as true without validating signatures of segwit transactions in blocks. because they are not supplied with signatures that they can understand to verify.

this was explained many many times.
heres one example, explaining it even before segwit was activated that the compatibility was not actually as compatible as proposed.. i even draw pictures..(yea i tried to help ELI-5 it for those that are not technical)

(p.s before triggering a rage reply. take time to notice the source of the information(the link is from the devs themselves). understand the information. and reply without insult and only with content about the topic. do not meander it into personal attacks at me to avoid learning the truth from the devs themselves)
ooh and do not reply just to reply about this grey paragraph.
1331  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Axiom of Resistance (Why Craig Wright is not Satoshi) on: November 11, 2018, 09:47:38 PM
more costly to run a node??

um.. sorry but you can get a PC with more space and ram for less cost than 2009. (its cheaper to run a node than before)
even something like a 256gb microsd card (the size of a fingernail) proves against the whole myth of "nodes will need servers"

even the fact that 56kbit/s dialup would be 4mbyte/10min..
so with fiber which is 1000x faster then dialup. again proves against the myth of nodes on servers

but the funny part is that resisting developing onchain using the excuse of "cost to run node".. while letting those same decision makers then inflight upgrade new stuff.. where that inflight upgrade mechanism is a backdoor (trojan gateway) is a security risk to the network.

and all we hear is the muttering rants of "trust the devs"

seems some axioms have been lost on some people

as for mining..
block creaters cannot create/alter the rules... they can only collate transactions to crate blocks of data(not new code). it does not matter if its 10exahash or 1zetahash, if they tried to make a block thats not within the rule they would get rejected. there is no threat. bar empty blocks (which devs can create a rule to avoid/reduce risk of)
pools stay within the rules to get paid. if they break the rules they simply dont get paid and the next pools gets the win.

its a simple game of 100m running. if the first cross the line is found to be cheating. the runner up wins. and the runner up is usually able to cross th line milliseconds aftr the first one.

mining is not a 'if the first runner does it in 10 seconds then the second runner must take 20 seconds to run 100m and the 3rd racer must take 30 seconds.. you will finds that the reality is that the runner up is only a short period behind the LUCKY first runner.
(^ pre-empting the block delay myth of rejecting blocks ^)

and as for the centralisation myth of "china 50%". slush is in thailand, f2pool is everywhere. and the stratums tagged as "antpool" are in iceland, georgia, canada, mongolia, china, and other places.

but lets compare. GPU mining "OMG centralisation AMD own mining and have their openCL boost that out competes geforce"
also asics in general whether it be bitfury avalon or bitmain are WAY WAY WAY cheaper and electric efficient than GPU

take the stats.
that would require 10 trillion PC's or 330 billion GPU or just 3.5million asics.
where an ASIC is just the cost of 2GPU not 10,000

so. when it comes to bitcoin security and resisting protocol control. its the CODE people should be concentrating on. not the social drama that has nothing to do with code
1332  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin was made by CIA or NSA on: November 11, 2018, 09:11:51 PM
bitcoin was made up as a patchwork quilt of idea's from cypherpunks group. which only one person had the inspiration to stitch together. the names are clearly available of all the parts that built up the quilt and its easy to see that nick szabo wei dai and others were not cia/nsa

when the first release occured the CODE was clear, in the open and had no secrets.
new coders came in and people knew hal finney, gavin, hearne, serius and others were not cia/nsa

however. years later (now) there is VC money puppetmastering devs and the NYA agreement of merchants.. its less clear where the puppet strings actually lead back upto.

as each level up the VC ladder it becomes less and less clear about the motives of those changing bitcoin.

its getting funny that things ar changing now. but all we see is distraction drama of making memes about non-coders of other networks and only look at the history.

seems strange that anytime discussion about current/recent events arise. the usual ploy of distraction finger pointing occur, even to such an extend that some resort to insults if people mention certain current recent events involving the groups that can affect the network. and again the ploy is just trying to distract the conversation to lead it away from the current/recent issues and instead turn it into some social drama or finger pointing away from the issue.
but this has only really started after 2013.. not 2008
1333  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If you need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of your arm on: November 11, 2018, 03:39:43 PM
Yes, OpenBazaar is very similar and had a great success in this field.
But the main idea of OpenBazaar theory is decentralization, and the main idea of this system is implementation bitcoin in real life.
Some difference between these two point of view.

are you more thinking of an open bazaar which advertises products
or more so a "spend bitcoins" where to go signposting site(map)

maybe another idea. is a mix of spendbitcoins/local meetup signposting(map) site.
that shows where the regular meetups/garage sales occur..

i dont know exactly what your site will offer. as i feel your still at a first draft, initial thought position
1334  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockspace Is the Commodity of Bitcoin on: November 11, 2018, 12:12:05 PM
a commodity is a raw material used to make other products
once its mined. and refined and turned into something that then is 'used' and cant be altered at all/easily its an asset

so yea UNCONFIRMED blockspace is the commodity. but once a block is solved, confirmed and immutable the block is then an asset(end product(containing end products)) because you cant then edit/change/create anything new from that now used blockspace

its why raw gold is a commodity and sold on commodity markets(raw ore state). but gold is also sold on asset markets too (bars, coins)

nice try to presume bitcoin is a commodity by saying the unconfirmed space (not yet filled/not yet existent) is bitcoin. yet bitcoin is the blockchain of confirmed uneditable data
1335  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Axiom of Resistance (Why Craig Wright is not Satoshi) on: November 11, 2018, 11:07:20 AM
Anyways, this to me points to Craig not being Satoshi. As far as the law goes he seems to be too law abiding to ever have even considered something like Bitcoin.

craig is not law abiding. craig is a scammer

but craig loves public identity and analytics he would happily grab peoples identity and monetise it. he is not into anonymity/pseudonymity. he has been too in peoples face about garnering fame and trying to make a name for himself in anyway he can

he is also not into coding. he gets other people to code

he just wants to make a name for himself and use the fame to get people to hand him money
the reason he pretends to follow the law. is because if he gets arrested. then all his aussie legal issues will latch on and he will be in bigger trouble
1336  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: JUST TRANSFERED 20K USD AND BANK CHARGED ME $700 !!!! on: November 11, 2018, 12:57:32 AM
This is why we need bitcoin. I am soo sick of these central bank mafia scum controlling our finances.!!!

but what you would find. is this
wire transfering $20k from your bank to an exchange would come with costs
the exchange then would do a 0.3% swap for fiat to crypto
you would then withdraw crypto to a wallet. exchange charges you a withdrawal fee
you then move the crypto to another address(or recipient would move it to a exchange) thus another fee
they then would convert crypto into their native fiat and be charged a exchange fee
then they would withdraw fiat to their bank account and be charged a wir transfer fee

add all that up and i guarantee you it wont be 25cents.. it would still be hundreds of dollars.

i personally live off bitcoin. i dont touch fiat.
even if my banks dont charge wire transfer fees in my country(uk)

so OP end solution is, stop being reliant on FIAT. and ask the person you send funds to to not be reliant on fiat. then stick with just btc
1337  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Axiom of Resistance (Why Craig Wright is not Satoshi) on: November 11, 2018, 12:42:39 AM

all i see is insults
time to ignore him as he is just after some social drama.
moving on. ill just let doomad drive himself in circles
i gave him months to talk to devs.
i gave him months to research actual code
i gave him months to research devs desires(roadmap)

i will give him praise
him saying one team controlling code is good. letting in trojans is good and making the blockchain stagnate while other networks evolve is good. really does show his motivations are not that of a "bitcoiner". hope devs give him the christmas bonus he must be hoping for.

1338  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Axiom of Resistance (Why Craig Wright is not Satoshi) on: November 11, 2018, 12:01:11 AM
Code means nothing if no one runs it.  Your problem is that people are running it.  You wish they wouldn't, but you can't stop them.  

but the community didnt all run it.
segwit activated where by pools did not have to run segwit code
segwit activated where by node did not have to run segwit code

segwit got activated no matter what the community decided.. there was no consensus in august 2017

you and the devs admit to it "compatability" is your buzzword for the consensus bypass
devs admit to it "inflight upgrades" "bilateral split" as their buzzwords

i am laughing that you flip flop so much saying the community agreed. when they didnt
thats stats done lie. segwit only had 35% actual agreement before the bypass tricks

it wasnt just a me vs the world is was 65% vs core. i find it funny that you think its was just me opposing it.
you say it yourself many times the community couldnt veto it.

so end your flip flopping because all your doing is meandering the topic into social drama.

core FAILED the consensus test. november 2016 -summer 2017 (35% not 95%)
but core couldnt take no for an answer. core didnt want to accept consensus so they then bypassed it with the other bip that had a mandatory date where pools and nodes would get banned and blocks rejected.
and where those that didnt vote would be supplied with stripped data, make them second class no longer full nodes.

that was NOT consensus that was tyranny

a) What's your "fix" to prevent softforks?  
b) Why do you think anyone other than you would even want to prevent softforks?
c) Are you happy to compromise permissionless freedom to satisfy your desire to veto any ideas you personally disagree with?

a) not to use the summer 2017 bypass bip and stick to the original consensus bip used in 2016(and prior)
b) adding things without network consent...... um ever heard of trojans
c) its not my idea.... 65% of the community didnt want segwit
     also to highlight. i am not controlling or causing any tyranny..
     i have not made code for the community to use. my software is for my use
     code i make has no mandatory crap in it. and does not have any consensus bypass crap

     so to ultimately to destroy your meanders.. there is no point you getting upset by me. all i am doing is talking.
     but it is funny that you think i am controlling/ causing tyranny. and all the other empty insults you make.

anyway even now.. with it fully activated and a year later..
do you see 100% desire for segwit... nope. do you see 50% desire.. nope
the UTXO count. the amount of funds on segwit outputs. the fact that lukejr, sipa and btcc are still asking for funds using legacy addresses.. (thats the real funny)

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button

1339  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now? on: November 10, 2018, 11:31:14 PM
If that was to happen then when FBI breakdown the silk route and found the chunk of bitcoins in this process would not have been selling it in open market. Once more think that when they are selling this bitcoins means they are supporting it. So i think what OP is expecting is not possible. But still cannot say about future. If that happens then it will be benefit for the other Altcoins as Bitcoin will lose the faith from its investors and they will diverse themselves to other altcoin.

just holding coins does not mean controlling.
however spending the coins where the funds influence devs or bitcoin businesses to be swayed in a particular direction does create control.
by this 'sway business' i dont mean businesses change bitcoin code rules. but if a business was to only accept 'whitelisted' coins or was told to only accept litecoin.. then suddenly people will see less utility of using bitcoin if they cant spend it with certain businesses.

id say i have more coins than you as i have had a nice hoard since 2012. but i dont flash my stash, because i know my coin hoard has no meaningful control over anything.
thus id say my hoard has no more control than your hoard of coins..

however if i bounty campaigned or VC funded a dev team to change the rules.. then things would become controlled

take DCG.CO having ownership stake in blockstream that coded segwit. ownership stake in bloq that done segwitx2, ownership stake in that gave opposition the fake "free choice". ownership stake in many merchant/exchanges and payment gateways that formed the NYA agreement. ownership stake in a few other people (USAF)

you'll see that things did change and anyone else was just sheep herded into the change activation via the "compatibility" trick where by not upgrading didnt actually prevent activation. thus people in the general community could not vote/veto/prevent the change.

so yea FBI hoarding silkroad funds caused nothing. but spending coins means THEY now have more fiat. to buy more guns and swat raid bitcoin business or send out court orders to sway businesses into doing what the fbi/sec want

thats why we need to ensure we are not reliant on third parties. and not reliant on single team of devs. to avoid us falling into the trap of corruption and monopoly games
1340  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Axiom of Resistance (Why Craig Wright is not Satoshi) on: November 10, 2018, 11:05:30 PM
threats have showed-up, ASICs and pools put decentralization in danger

this have to disagree with. as there are over 20 "tagged" pools. but even within those tags. theres actually more stratum servers. and different facilities/users. you would be shocked at how diverse things actually are...

but here is the thing no matter how much hash power a block is created with. if it doesnt fit the rules it gets rejected. yep a block could be created with zetahash(1k exa) and still get rejected.
pools dont code the rules. all a pool can do is include or exclude transactions.. not change rules

also the worry of centralisation... via the propaganda of "china 50%"
china dont have 50% no where near 50%

but playing devils advocate. if china did have 50%... pools dont make the rules

threats have showed-up,
and centralized exchanges ruined privacy and anonymity of users and now SEC is drawing lines and enforcing its artificial "law"s by expanding its interpretation of securities.

ill agree that third party services are controlled by authorities now. but thats because they are tied to fiat. years ago people were thinking bitcoins utility should be aimed at buying products with it. thus not rely on fiat gateways(exchanges).. but the ethos has moved away from medium of exchange and is trying to be pushed to just be a FIAT tied investment of "store of value" for fiat lovers to get rich quick

but for bitcoin to remain safe we as a community should not rely on one team to control the code. and have any other team get rekt. as then the single team controlling the code. become corrupt. (as seen the last couple years)
Pages: « 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 ... 823 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!