Bitcoin Forum
July 20, 2019, 02:50:01 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 ... 823 »
1501  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now? on: October 25, 2018, 12:14:27 PM
Yes, that is why I mentioned "newly minted coins" - whoever mints them, has the hashpower, and if someone has 51% of it then the situation can be bad. It happened before with one of the pools having more than 51% and nothing bad happened.

all pools can do is decide to include or exclude particular transactions.
if they even dared to submit a block that doesnt fit the rules. that block gets rejected in 2 seconds.
pools are not rule setters. they are followers. and it doesnt matter how much electric/hashpower they have.. a rule break is a rul break no matter what
1502  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now? on: October 25, 2018, 11:57:47 AM
now with all that said...
i am not worried about "government". its the corporate elite that are corrupt. EG wall street caused 2007 not government
wall street strong armed government for bail out.. the government didnt plan to screw people

(P.S i am not a fan of government but open minded to stand back and see the big picture then step forward to point out the real flaw)

so its corporate/capitalist control thats more of a concern than govrnment (people still drank beer in prohibition, so dont worry about government)

we have seen its corporations that raise fee's and get greedy.

..
it doesnt actually require hoarding most coins to control things. it actually involves controlling people. (merchants and devs)
the code acceptance deciders

pools and users are not deciders. they are followers.
pools have to make blocks that fit the rules. and the rules(devs) have to fit the needs of the main group that will accept payment and offer products and services(merchants)
1503  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now? on: October 25, 2018, 11:48:53 AM
now after showing the math that the IRS could easily accumilate alot of % of hoard.
there ar also things like lightning factories, which USERS put in X and as the funder circle around in circled from factory to channel, get spent(user holds less) and settled back to factory with users having less.. and repeat repeat repeat

to a point where general public only hoard 10% left overs
the end result is that although alot of coin is now hoarded.. the network CODE has not changed.

the main thing would be the devs changing the CODE to benefit the IRS/LN factory merchants who have most of the spend ability decisions.

EG if 20 main merchants/exchanges said no to a new CODE change. then the code change shouldnt happen. because pools wont use a code that means they cant spend their coins with the top merchants.
users wont spend their coins using a code change which doesnt allow them access to merchants.

so what you will find is users and pools usually follow the money and follow the main merchants decision that allows the users/miners to be able to continue using their coins..
there no point accepting code which stops your spending habits. and no point denying code which merchants do adopt, again preventing spending if you oppose the merchants

so the oligarch would get merchants on their side and then get bitcoin code changes implemented that benefit the oligarchy and main merchants
1504  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now? on: October 25, 2018, 11:32:18 AM
some think it is not a possibility. but think about it
imagine a merchant has $1m. and pays 20%  business tax  ..... IRS now has $200k
imagine the merchant then pays out salaries
the 800k goes to staff.. those staff then pay their income tax of 20%(160k)..... IRS now has $360k
staff spend the left over $640k to merchants


imagine merchants has $640k. and pays 20%  business tax($128k)  ..... IRS now has $488k
imagine the merchant then pays out salaries
the 512k goes to staff.. those staff then pay their income tax of 20%(124k)..... IRS now has $612k
staff spend the left over $388k to merchants

repeat repeat

.. now imagine the foolish notion of paying taxes in bitcoin. to give bitcoin to the IRS
1505  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 25, 2018, 09:40:14 AM
Is Bitcoin still the bitcoin that Satoshi envisioned? Perhaps Satoshi’s Bitcoin concept has indeed succeeded, but unfortunately, the power of capital always not to be underestimated, interfering with and manipulating this market.

bitcoin is not th bitcoin satoshi envisioned any more..(bitcoins ethos and original idea started getting twisted as soon as he left but most notably since 2013-14) when diverse decentralisation became more so central referenced but distributed.. they even emphasised that decentralisation was diminishing by calling themselves the "CORE"(center) team

the core devs are now in control and mandate their own roadmap plan. even when the community cant agree core still push their agenda through by bypassing consensus.

these team think blockchains are broke and cant scale. yet its their own code that has the limit which they refuse to move(starve your kid so you can eat on another network then blame your kid for not growing)

the other network the team desire so much is not a blockchain. its not even locked to only serve bitcoin. its a separate network for multiple coins and bitcoin has been manipulated to fit that network, rather than that network getting manipulated to fit bitcoin

things have changed since this team took over in 2013-14. and all it is doing is having them impose restrictions on bitcoin utility while they promote a totally separate network as the future of electronic payments.
.. but as you can read by the meandered topic of that teams defence social group. they dont like it if people talk about how bitcoin has changed to suit the corporate roadmap
1506  Other / Off-topic / Re: random topic about eltoo factories, LN and cores lack of bitcoin care on: October 25, 2018, 08:34:44 AM
ok further down the rabbit hole. this can lead to 2 debates.
1, about how the team i detest so much self imposed restrictions to then self inflict that it cant scale...(facepalm)
2. discussing eltoo

so quick point about 1
the links in previous post start with the standard mantra of onchain cant scale.. yet blockchains actually have no technical limit. the only limit is that of what devs impose on a blockchain for their personal reasons.
in an day and age where data storage of 256gb is smaller than a postage stamp. and that there are multiple techniques of blockchain validation that dont actually need entire communities to validate one strand of chain(regional chains/sidechains) there are many ways to expand onchain. literally thousands of ways. but to say blockchains cant. and instead resort to non community consensus auditing entirely.. is the foolish notion

as for point 2.
once funds are locked into a factory. a 12decimal 'micropayment' is created. this in short is no longer a standard 'bitcoin' understandable tx as it has 12 decimals. and so becomes its own separate 'token' network. and because its not settled under the terms of bitcoin consensus. its not a bitcoin. its just a promise that A owes B and B owes A. with the factory managing it (as you read please do try reading with an unbiased bitcoin care hat on. and not a core defense league hat on)

you will read that they propose the factory (ill hearby refer to as fortknox and continue using bank analogies to simply the understand) is run by 20 users who collaberate.
Quote
Funds are committed to a group of other users instead of a single partner and can be moved between channels with just a few messages inside this collaborating group, which reduces the risk, as
an unprofitable connection can be quickly dissolved to form a better connection
with another partner. By hiding the channels from the blockchain, a reduction
in blockchain space usage and thus the cost of channels is achieved. For a group
of 20 nodes
with 100 channels in between them,

the 20 node group (fortknox).. well its written above no need to repeat myself

the 100 channels. think of them as regional banks(hubs) which then like a tree. or as we call it in the UK banking terms then split off to bank branches. before then splitting into individual accounts(channels)..
the link to the burchart pdf calls it "sub channels" instead of regional banks.. but you get the idea.. if not.. ill highlight
Quote
3.5  Higher Order Systems
With larger groups, the coordination work required to sign a new allocation
rises, but it is advantageous to create large groups to save blockchain space and
have more partners for subchannels. It is possible to extend the system to more
layers,
each layer having less parties per shared account,

notice how they talk about this group from a TOP-down topology rather than a bottom up
EG bank institution group splitting out to local bankers who split out to users level channels.

rather than user channel level creating a fixed route and then forming a hub to reduce channels of a route
1507  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 25, 2018, 08:15:57 AM
windfury ill give you a little more respect than doomad as you dont always sling as much mud(insult) as much as him and others like lauda, carlton and the other club members i have seen you converse with.
but to put an end to the meandering
go here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5056910.0
1508  Other / Off-topic / random topic about eltoo factories, LN and cores lack of bitcoin care on: October 25, 2018, 08:13:30 AM
im writing this here because eltoo is not a bitcoin feature. its not even an blockchain so doesnt belong in the bitcoin or altcoin section. its a feature for a separate non blockchain network that will be used for multiple coins offchain.

i also going to moderate it purely to delete any anal people that just want to sling mud(insult) because of whatever PR bias they have to defend a social group, rather than actually talk about the topic.
but dont fear. if you actually reply to talk about the issue. without slinging insults you'll be fine

personal note
windfury ill give you a bit more respect than doomad as you dont sling insults in every post for drama entertainment
as for research. try google, not the boys club i see you keep conversing and echo chambering in. after all. if you havnt learned about eltoo yet, it seems they are not teaching you

now lets begin
first step down the factory rabbit hole
https://blockstream.com/2018/04/30/eltoo-next-lightning.html
"
Quote
Beyond Lightning
One such multiparty off-chain contract is the channel factories presented by Burchert et al. as a scalable way to fund any number of payment channels on top of a single on-chain transaction and to rebalance or reallocate them dynamically without ever touching the blockchain.
"

this is where it is saying that its adding another layer away from the onchain transaction
EG you dont fund a channel direct. you fund a factory onchain... then OFFCHAIN(emphasis) the factory funds a channel. and the channels settlement does not close back onchain. but the settlement returns funds back to a factory.

you can imagine it like funding fortknox with gold. and locking gold to fortknox. and then let fortknox hand out paper promissory notes (offchain tx) to individual channels (accounts).. then the accounts dont close by handing gold to the user, but handing the prommissory note back to the factory. where by the factory then gives new promissory notes to new channels(accounts) to avoid broadcasting back to the blockchain

the link to Burchert et al goes into more detail. but the funny part is the first opening paragraph. is the obvious bitcoin is broke cant scale wont scale mantra.. but if you actually care about bitcoin the network instead of core the monarchy. you will know why it cant scale. because core halted scaling onchain. (halting onchain to make lightning, to then have lightning supporters say the halted scaling means lightning is needed more(thats like starving your kid so you can eat then blaming your kid for not growing))

also i am providing links from the side i detest for good reason, just to show it the information is theirs and not some information gleamed from some social drama group. or a group that some people call the core opposer's.. that way it cant be said that i am linking information that is just biased against the eltoo/core crowd
(if it comes from the horses mouth. you cant say 'nah ignore it its just an ass(donkey) talking)
1509  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Problems That Exist In Blockchain And How They Are Being Solved on: October 25, 2018, 12:47:27 AM
stable coins.. (laugh)
tether pegged to dollar 1:1 (double laugh)

when a bank account receives funds. and a certain group of people get to 'magic' up new tokens to match the bank balance.. guess what. that coin becomes no better than fiat

if you can 'magic' up new tokens at no cost. then it dooesnt take much for the magicians greed, morals to one day 'magic' up an imbalance (fractional reserve).. as shown by tether thats no longer openly audited nor pegged1:1
1510  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 25, 2018, 12:33:16 AM
old nodes are not compatible. they are handed a pidgeon english translation.. theres a difference
its why even the devs clearly pointed out that old nodes become downstream/filtered(their buzzwords) nodes instead of part of the main relay network. they even drew a picture to make it easy to understand.

old nodes do not relay blocks to segwit nodes nor relay segwit transactions. they only receive a stripped down block and then sit on the edge of the network

If older nodes aren't compatible with Segwit, why can I send Segwit outputs to legacy addresses? Why can I receive payments from legacy addresses to my Segwit wallet? Why do older nodes accept Segwit transactions and blocks as valid?
firstly your talking about transactions. not nodes. (nice meander by the way..(facepalm))
learn about the network topology.
also older nodes do not accept segwit transactions as valid. the full validation check of a segwit transaction gets bypassed and is auto deemed as accepted. (not valid(there is a difference)) OLD NODES DO NOT SIGNATURE VERIFY A SEGWIT TX)
without choice to reject a segwit block (countering doomads endless belief thats it was an opt-in event. and counters the doomad belief that it was a consensus event)

when a old node gets a block and sees that a transaction paying thir legacy address was funded via a segwit input.. the node does not validate the signature of the segwit input.
the premiss(flaw) is that the devs are saying that for it to get into a block a segwit pool node would have validated it. and also the segwit cluster of relay nodes would have validated and relayed it. so by the time a legacy node gets the stripped version. that bypasses the validation check of the segwit transaction.. the node is suppose to just accept it as valid

(making the whole bip for the segwit adoption break the whole principle of people wanting to run a full validation node in a consensus network)
segwit should have only activated with a real 95% segwit verifying node adoption.. which it did not

now this raises the point doomad circles around but never grasps

imagine your a fully validating node. but you dont want to OPT-IN. you dont download the latest version to opt-in. thus you would think that you are a part of consensus giving a no to the vote.
the reality is you never got a vote. the event you would have thought was a consensus event where the community got a choice...that was actually bypassed.

if you reconfigured your node to actually reject segwit blocks. in the hopes of actually giving a real 'NO' vote.
you would have got banned off the network even before segwit blocks were made.

if you were a pool and didnt signal to opt in. it would not be treated as a 'no' vote. it got treated as you wanting to have your blocks rejected and your node banned off the network.
so after the august 1st date.. that was mandated the nodes that were left on the network were a smaller portion that were a mix of segwit validating nodes. and blind 'acceptance' pigeon english nodes (downstream/filtered nodes)

then a couple weeks later the block data changed format without your consent and you will instead be handed a stripped block that you cannot fully validate every transaction anymore. and you have been thrown down the network topology level to be a downstream/filtered node that only gets pigeon english data that bypasses full validation tests

anyway..
doomad and your chums.. again i do recognise you keep trying to meander the topic.. again and again. and again. funny part is you are trying to argue the history of something thats been discussed at length for atleast a year now.
yet you still have not shown that you have done independent research outside your cabin club of chums

and dont bother replying if all you want to do is insult. that trick doesnt work. all your doing is insulting a username that has no birth certificate so its not even defamation. thus you gain nothing from it. its like you are just insulting a wall of text.

maybe best you guys go do some independent research. and stop just repeating the same empty arguments that have been circling for the last year plus.

if you dont like my comments on the subject. then dont meander other topics to keep discussing it.
again if you dont want the bear to bite about a certain topic. then dont poke it with the certain topic stick
stop meandering the topic and then crying because i reply to talk about your meander
and then dont get emotional and become insulting as it doesnt help you in any way

p.s
opt-in. means you physically have to do something to show agreement of..
if you automatically get thrown in. but treated as second class citizen. thats not opting in
if you automatically get thrown out before anything actually changes.. thats not consensus

1511  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 24, 2018, 07:30:11 PM
I think the tories are loathsome shit-stains and their particular breed of politics is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think we should be reckless when it comes to Bitcoin.  When I say "conservative" I simply mean not being rash, impulsive or imprudent.  I honestly don't know why the tories even call themselves conservatives, because they're incredibly rash and imprudent with their neoclassical economy BS, but that's a discussion for another topic entirely.  

and the mandatory consensus bypass .... you call that conservative approach...
core use "conservative" as their way of saying "nah we wont do that, we will do this".. same as the tories

anyway you meandered this topic enough. and still just ended up with just you spouting insults.
now you admit you dont care. so go to the pub, watch some eastenders. then instead of your endless flood of meandering topics just to cause insult social drama. how about go research REAL STATS

oh. by the way. you may also notice compared to 2016-2017. the number of transactions DECREASED per week.. so although you may think that there are 40%+ using OPTING IN to segwit. there are not.
try reviewing real people / tx count/utxo count,

EG if there were lets say 2500 people buying a banana every week for years. suddenly a Kabana was invented.
now after the event you only see 2000 people buy any type of fruit. but you only see 800 people buy kabana.. even though they also buy banana at same time. does not mean there is a 40% kababa desire and 60% banana desire.
there is actually more than 60% banana desire and you will find that by default some kabanas have been thrown into peoples shopping by default via the fruit supplier
(yea core defaults change addresses to be segwit even if people didnt "opt-in"(your favourite word))
might be worth reading some code now and again, keep yourself upto date on the reality of bitcoin. oh and read about eltoo to keep uptodate about LN. seems your missing some uptodate info about factories

now here is a bit of funny...
do you know that sipa (main segwit guy) uses legacy addresses..
even funnier.
do you know since segwit. the tips/payments sipa gets from people who obviously think that he done a good job so are tipping him.. are not in any majority % at all tipping him in segwit tx format
just goes to show when an inventor does not use his invention and his fans dont tip him using his invention, means that somethings up

but then again. there are many funnies. like the paid dev's chairmen(vc funders) organising a bitcoin event, but you have to buy tickets in only fiat. (comedy gold)
1512  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 24, 2018, 07:24:38 PM
im the one saying bitcoin can scale... and saying it can scale in many ways (emphasis on thebitcoin network. not other networks pretending to be bitcoin layered)

If there was only one single idea I could successfully communicate to you, it's that I'm well past caring what you're saying.   Roll Eyes

Yes, let's check the stats for SegWit.    

if you dont care. then why are you for months now repeating yourself every time i point out a flaw in dvs mindset. if you dont care about devs. you would be at a pub, drinking, or watching eastenders or finding some other british drama to entertain your life.

yea check them stats
a transaction is blindly treated as segwit even if 1 input is a segwit address..
yep even if the rest of the inputs are legacy signed. they can be incorrectly counted as a segwit transaction even though their signatures dont sit in the weight area(the whole point of segwit)

(makes them stats even less reliable...)
.... (you will find the real stats are under 25%.. but yea a year later and less than 40%(i was trying to be nice and use biggr numbers in your favour.. but still proving a point that after a year thers no big segwit uptake)
did you even dare read that topic..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5051985.msg46980487#msg46980487
there is shown admitting that even if legacy has majority inclusion of a tx. its still treated as 100% segwit
so.. next time. if you want to prove me wrong. dont use a stat that actually proves me right. although i do love laughing when you prove me right. i still find it foolish that you have not done th research to have your own independant compelling information for you to make a good rebuttle. as its just wasting your time and mine
please try to do some independent research outside your lil group (year i recognise the regular buddies of yours merit swapping each other and just circle jerking the same mantra)
..

if Core want to remain relevant, it's up to them to make sure that what they're putting out there appeals to enough users.  
this here is the FLAW in YOUR repeated rhetoric
core have proven with the august 2017 event that they dont need community approval.
LUKE JR ADMITTED IT HIMSELF, as did others..
they disregarded 60% of the community with their coded tricks
(and dont you even dare try to poke the bear asking for the names of the tricks.. you tried that many times now.)

bilateral split, consensus bypass, nya agreement uasf, mandatory bypass. call the event whichever one you choose. ..
but you know all about it so no time to play dumb/ignorant. that game of yours is over. you cant play dumb now. you have had a year to learn
1513  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Circle and Coinbase are partnering to improve the stablecoin concept on: October 24, 2018, 07:07:20 PM
I wonder why so many stablecoins appeared lately. Why did they not begin to create them even earlier. I think it looks strange.

when a token is 1:1 pegged to a fiat it was meant to then be treated as fiat(earlyday fear of counterfeit laws and stuff)
EG paypals balance is not bank balance but a database token pegged as same as bank balance. requiring paypal to get lots of regulatory stuff..
now loads of crypto businesses have the regulatory stuff via their fiat exchanging process, they suddenly realise they can make their fiat database balance be a DLT or blockchain token instead
1514  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin & Electricity: Threat or Blessings on: October 24, 2018, 05:10:20 PM
zinzang

do the math research, not the media research
i really have to laugh at the independant newspaper article... how empty of real content
'he said x by 2018'
'he said y by 2020'
final quote
“But the future estimate? That’s quite debatable,” he said.
it made me laugh


bitcoin mining is not eating past the excess as shown before from actual math. bitcoin is not even 1% of china...
china actually produce 13% excess than demand. so its no where near eating into demand.

buying excess does NOT raise prices of the consumer demand. infact it helps lower prices.
imagine you produce 2000 bananas a day. it costs you $1k to grow that allotment.
but you only sell 1800 ono average. meaning you have to sell each banana for over 55cents
now you know 200 banana are going to waste unpaid for.
but tomorrow a vegetarian group that eats alot of banana wants to buy up your 100 of your excess
yay you are now selling 1900 bananas a day meaning you can sell your bananas at 53cents


as for the production. the asic farms are actually investing in their own power plants too thus wont even touch national/public demand in the future

oh and as for PoS. dont let me bring out the comedy moments of that.
currently because blocks on crap coins are not worth much, people dont care to bother untangling a crapcoin blockchain of PoS
but should something such as bitcoin move to PoS. you will see many people untangle and recombine new higher blockheight of bitcoin data and gain from it.
PoS is not safe, its just evaded attack by how little value can be gained by messing with it because crap coins are crap.

oh as for electric
did you know that cutting down trees to make wood for floorboards. so that wooden desks can sit on the floorboards so that paper can sit on the desks actually causes more environmental damage than a electronic tablet would which can store more pages than the desk and floorboards can

think about it.
1515  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin & Electricity: Threat or Blessings on: October 24, 2018, 03:44:30 PM
There is an increase in green energy miners who will help to change the way miners consume energy. Most use solar energy but newer projects are looking at bigger alternatives like geothermal
We can also look at a different angle, not just a solution on the side where we optimize the source of energy. We can improve the efficiency of processors so it would take less energy to solve more complicated mathematical puzzles. It might be harder to achieve, but I think this solution for long term.

processing efficiency is already happening.. its called asics
imagine doing 55exahash using CPU

(intel  i5/amd phenom ii)

1cpu =14mhash
1000=14ghash
1m cpu = 14thash

yep 1 ASIC is 1million PC's
so the 4million asics = 4 TRILLION PC's

try to imagine bitcoin if we remained CPU mining. requiring 4 trillion PC's
1516  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 24, 2018, 02:29:07 PM
If the only form of "innovation" you are capable of recoginsing is a blockweight increase, then I can see why this must be so confusing for you.  

you seem to think i am only wanting blockweight increase... seems you have stuck head in sand about many things.. and instead just heard your cabin fever friends suggest im just a big blocker...
(facepalm to the 100th degree)
the echoing accoustics of the cabin you sit with your friends repeating the same story to each other until you all beleive it to be true because its the only story you hear must give you headaches. maybe it really is worth you getting some fresh air and seeing beyond the wall of that cabin
have you yet tried to do some independant research away from your buddies?


Saying that it's not practical to have every single last transaction, no matter how small, recorded on-chain isn't very resource-efficient is not the same as saying that on-chain is "broke".  
shock horror.. im not the one saying its broke
further shock is when you find out who does
im the one saying bitcoin can scale... and saying it can scale in many ways (emphasis on thebitcoin network. not other networks pretending to be bitcoin layered)

Your interpretation is wrong.  As usual, you're taking things to extremes.  You have a clear idea of what you think Bitcoin should be and you can't stand the fact that a large majority of the userbase couldn't care less what you think.
again your arguing as if "bitcoin is broke" is my interpretation.... (facepalm)
nice meander but im just laughing
oh and not even 40% are using segwit now and not even 40 % are using LN.. should you actually want to do some stats checking.. yea even while pushing alot of people off the network or into non full validating nodes.. the actual utility and desire of segwit and LN is low...
heck even sipa still uses legacy transactions instead of his own invention of segwit.. true comedy

Luke JR actually went on to say blockchain needs to DECREASE blockscaling to make blocks tx fees higher..(facepalm)

How many nodes do you see enforcing that proposal?  One last time in case you still haven't grasped it, anyone can propose a change, but that proposal means nothing if people don't run the code to enforce it.

yet luke JR's proposals get to become BIPS.. yet other non core roadmap friendly proposals dont even make it to bip stage...
really shows core have community spirit.. and want to actually be a community REFERENCE.. but oh wait, you stepped over your own toe by admitting core are not a community reference but a team where they decide what should be rejected before even allowing the community to decide

how can a community decide of core close the door on an idea before code is wrote... or REKT a team into an altcoin to avoid community decision

now please please please do some independant research. by this i dont mean ask your buddies opinion.
i have already spotted the many signs that you are just repeating the same gibberish as them when you use certain key buzzwords that group uses
(first time i seen you fell down their buzzword script rabbithole is when you started spouting "conservative")
as a fellow brit. you should know better than to think conservative is a positive.. in bitcoin and british politics. conservative buzzword does not mean what you think it does.
1517  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin holders must remain calm on: October 24, 2018, 02:12:26 PM
if you have a bitcoin exit plan. a desire to go back to fiat at sometime.. your not a bitcoin holder.. your just a fiat investor
if you have bitcoin and have no plan to exit bitcoin. no exit strategy, then your a bitcoin holder

anyone who gets emotional and is worried about how much FIAT they will gain or lose. is not in the mindset of being a bitcoiner
1518  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin & Electricity: Threat or Blessings on: October 24, 2018, 01:55:46 PM
im laughing at the OP's stats
ireland uses 3.2gw a year!!?(seems low)

hmm
3.2million kw
imagine a pc, house lighting. fridges, washing machines.. screw it lets call it 6kwH a day minimal (£1 a day @16p/kwh)
(yea im using a yearly electric bill of £365 which seems low end for most people. but you will see why)

so low end 2190 kw a year per house
so ireland only has 1461 houses at low end or less houses if they used mor than £1 a day of electric..
(simple math anyone can do can see 3.2gw is not irelands entire yearly usage)
ireland uses 3.2gw AN HOUR!!

but lets go check how accurate even 3.2 is.. whether yearly or hourly
https://www.worlddata.info/europe/ireland/energy-consumption.php
"The most important measure in the energy balance of Ireland is the total consumption of 23.79 billion kWh of electric energy per year"
(23790gw a year, =65gwh per day,= 2.7gw per hour)
so its 2.7gw a hour....


now lets take bitcoin mining
~55exahash = 3928571 s9 asics (14terra hash. 1.3kwh)
3928571 asics=5107142kw per hour (5.1gw an hour)


yes bitcoin uses more gwh than ireland by a factor of nearly 2x
but a 2 seater car uses more fuel than a 2 seater motorbike by a factor of 3x
(omg shock horror destroy all cars!!!!(sarcasm))

an entire global currency uses more electric than a small island..... thats called twisting facts(comparing an international currency to an island of sheep, fields and.. Guinness)
now lets not twist things to create a propaganda shock drama
compare how much CHINA uses.. seeing as most of the mining propaganda is about "china own bitcoin".

https://www.worlddata.info/asia/china/energy-consumption.php
"The most important measure in the energy balance of China is the total consumption of
5,920.00 billion kWh of electric energy per year."

yep china uses 675gw per hour
but now compare that to the bitcoin mining of 5gw per hour

wait. the china own 51% of mining.. so using the propaganda against the propagandists..
2.4gw per hour mining vs 675gw general usage


.. but hell lets be extreme lets say all bitcoin mining was in china and go back to the 5gw per hour mining
5gw/h mining vs 675gw/h general usage (just for china... not whole world)
yea extreme numbers.. still amounts to bitcoin mining using LESS than 1% of just china
1519  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 24, 2018, 11:45:12 AM
windfury and your cabin fever camp.
in regards to LN
go learn ELTOO
multisig
12decimal transactions
offchain transactions
byzantine generals problem

factories
users pay into a factories address. funds are locked onchain
channels are not funded with the locked balance input
factory makes a OFFCHAIN payment to a channel
channel is funded with a OFFCHAIN IOU from factoriy
channels settlement is not a onchain broadcast, but a OFFCHAIN payment back to the factory with a request that the factory broadcasts a fund unlock onchain, or to re make new paymnt offchain to a new channel.
much like locking gold into fortknox and then playing with paper until you demand fortknow release whatever gold your paper allows you to have back

spend some time learning it in detail, run some scenarios. actually use LN
as for how people can do transactions without LN go learn about multisig, then run some scenarios
maybe think about how with a joint bank account with your spouse, you dont need a special bank tool to then agree with your spouse who gets what. even a post-it note on a fridge will do

oh and when you get to the lightbulb moment of the flaws of a post-it note. you may dawn on the idea of LN's flaw known as the byzantine generals issue(one party can edit their node and no community can validate the new orders/rules the edited node has. and the counterparty using autopilot and new viewing the raw tx data will blindly just follow orders handed to them or get blackmailed into a chargeback(revocation))

in regards to core not being satoshi's idea
go learn consensus
mandatory hard fork(august 1st 2017 contentious hard fork)
trojan soft fork(mid august 2017 consensus bypass using the stripped block data of pidgeon english data)

yea august was comedy gold. performing a mandatory contentious hard fork to just be able to then do a consensus bypass softfork... truly amazing comedy backflipping happened.. all because core didnt get a 95% vote without the circus acts(only 40% vote without circus acts and 3 card trick games)

many people for years have been doing offchain stuff without LN. exchanges have been doing it behind the scenes (research arbitrage reserves). people have even done 2party atomic swaps without LN for years

anyway.. instead of trying to meander topics and just poke the bear
do some research
i have given you hints for months. but you still ask the same questions and then stick fingers in your ears. so just go do some research first this time
1520  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I received today 0.00000888 BTC sent to my "MTGOX Receive" address. Why??? on: October 24, 2018, 03:11:27 AM
There is a possibility that you receive a reward or bonus from MTGOX. Have you participated with MTGOX or have you signed up with them? If yes, then that will be the reason why you receive a transaction with MTGOX.

the op said it was not an address FROM/belonging to mtgox.
its an address the OP owns himself which the OP labeled himself as an address he used to get funds. which he intented to have as the receiving address he would only intend to use to receive funds from mtgox.
but in this case received from some random address... into his own address he labaled
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 ... 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!