Bitcoin Forum
July 19, 2019, 11:19:10 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 ... 823 »
1521  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I received today 0.00000888 BTC sent to my "MTGOX Receive" address. Why??? on: October 24, 2018, 03:05:28 AM
nah
many spambots look through the blockchain and find old addresses and randomly splashes some dust amounts to random people.
many spammers do it purely because its more costly to move/spend the dust than how much the dust is worth
(4sat/byte tx will eat up all that 888sat)
thus making people irritated when they now have extra dust that gets picked up when they next transact. costing them more in fees

as for mtgox civil suit
from what i believe of the MTGox civil rehabilitation scheme. is that all mtgox balances will be converting any btc balance to a fiat balance of the final day of mtgox operations (under $250/btc) and then send of cheques/wire transfers in fiat.(minus 'costs')

do not expect whatever coin you put into mtgox to get out at any fair recent market value
do not expect whatever coin you put into mtgox to get out as coin
do not expect even the market value of 2014. (after lawyers and advocates take their fee's)

expect pennys on the dollar and expect it in fiat form not btc form
1522  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 24, 2018, 02:00:53 AM
what you both have yet to research is that the august event was not a level playing field consensus vote
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..

segwit was a soft fork. soft forks are compatible with the current consensus since they merely add compatible rules. at the node level, you can't "vote no" on a soft fork because your node already considers it compatible (assuming miners are enforcing it).

that's why older versions are completely compatible with segwit. it's a matter of network protocol, not "voting". as such, it makes no sense to view legacy nodes as "no votes". legacy nodes are opted into the consensus already, and segwit was compatible with the consensus.

also, about this "voting" shit: consensus is not democratic. it's not a "voting" system. you either opt in to the consensus by running a node, or you opt out of the consensus by shutting down your node and leaving the network. running an incompatible node = opting out. you can fix your node to reject segwit blocks. but you'll be opting out of the consensus. Wink

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

old nodes are handed stripped data to BYPASS a consensus mechanism that would otherwise have gotten segwit blocks rejected
thats why luke JR done what he done. it was not a softfork in a sense of consensus. it was a bypass to avoid a consensus event. luke JR even said so himself that it bypasses the requirement of a consensus

but the funny part is. because they didnt get 95% through the "compatibility" trick.. and for months they only sat at 35-40% they needed to then do a mandatory threat eviction trick to FAKE getting 95% by literally ignoring/rejecting opposers.
that is like apartheid. not giving the whole community a vote and ignoring a certain side of the community and only counting those that agree..

the fair, level playing field solution would have been to realise they were not getting it. and then recode a bip that included what the whole community would have been happier with. and thus not need to mandate anything

anyway
if you actually look at the data a old node gets. and that it no longer fully validates all data but just blindly passes things.. you will see the shoddy crap. if it was compatible then old nodes would be on par and same level.. you know still relaying full data and validating full data

old nodes dont get full data. they dont get the now full true blockchain. trying to say they are "compatible" is downplaying how old nodes are not actually full validating/archiving nodes of full true data. if you truly think old nodes are compatible and same level playing field then you need to do some serious research. and not just from buddies who just repeat the same story. but actually get the data and look at it

dang all these core defenders cant be assed to even look at code or data and just wanna protect a dev.. even if its at the cost of just letting the network not excel..(facepalm)
its becoming funny how you lot are protecting certain devs, even if you have not read or understood what the devs you protect have actually admitted to. which adds more proof you lack research and are just trying to cause social drama for entertainment.

maybe its time you lot spend more time understanding and reading data, statistics and researching what actually happened and care more about the effects it has on the network. and less time just chatting about what you think the dev you protect wants.
care about the network. not a person and especially not a person you have not researched to even know what they actually said

anyway. your meanders to turn topics into 'protect a dev' are foolish. so spend some time researching. and maybe one day you will actually start to care less about devs and care more about the network
1523  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are people's thoughts on Bakkt? on: October 23, 2018, 11:32:12 PM
I think BAKKT has a very good development, being a part of the platform to pay for a coffee from Starbucks is a good thing.

so, I predict that BAKKT will have many features to serve every customer's needs, and open every business partnership.

its nt just going to be to pay for coffee.. thats just an example
thats like saying applepay is just used to pay for itunes(facepalm)

sorry but starbucks involvement would become like a 'coffeepay' or 'starpay' where you can use it elsewhere too.. like applepay does
same goes for microsoft. it wont be used just for microsoft products
though starbucks/microsoft will first use/test it on their own marketplaces first before expanding to general retailers (like apple did)
1524  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 23, 2018, 11:28:00 PM
So which developers have highlighted the issue that they've put a hold on innovation?  Because that sounds like something you're making up.  Stick to highlighting things that are actually true and I won't call you out on them.  It's really not that difficult to understand.  If you don't spread misinformation, I'll have no need to correct it.  And since you failed to answer last time, I'll ask again:
 

lukejr pulling out of the 2015 x2
gmax pulling out of the 2015 x2
both stating that onchain scaling is broke and other networks of non blockchains are the future
. and how it can be done without consensus

devs doing the UASF of again not wanting onchain scaling but instead just wanting transaction format changes that are compatible with another network thats not blockchain

3 years on and they are still saying that onchain scaling aint needed
Luke JR actually went on to say blockchain needs to DECREASE blockscaling to make blocks tx fees higher..(facepalm)

now go learn the history of BITCOIN from actual research. and not just auto defend core. its getting real funny that you are defending devs more then the network.
anyway.. all you seem to want to do is meander topics away from what bitcoin was,is and should be. just to defend what core are mutating bitcoin to be.. a stagnant expensive blockchain in the hopes people use managed accounts network that require counterpart authorisation... (facepalm)
1525  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 23, 2018, 11:10:40 PM
now those poking the bear meanderers should hopefully be busy and quiet while they do their own research outside their cabin fever of core defense

lets get back on topic
satoshi idea was not a capitalist bank take over. it was a open diverse alternative to the capitalist banker model.
something that would help should another banker crises occur where people can use something else and not be reliant on one system

years before 2009 the cypherpunks were always looking for an alternative. but it was satoshi that patched together lots of idea's into the unique model we now know as bitcoin. satoshis personal reason for getting involved can be seen in the quote in the genesis block

1526  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 23, 2018, 11:02:53 PM
the truth is, your feelings aren't shared by the market. since bitcoin is an opt-in, voluntary network, it's up to the actual users to reject core and pursue an alternative. if bitcoin users were opposed to core's development process, they'd run alternative/incompatible versions. a few actually do that, but the vast majority of node operators don't. your issue is with them, not core developers.

Thank you for stating it in a far more eloquent fashion than I can normally manage.  I've been saying something along those lines (admittedly with more insults included) to franky1 for weeks now.  I don't know if it's just willful ignorance on his part, or if his brain just isn't wired up in a way that allows him to comprehend it.  Bitcoin is working as intended.  There's no conspiracy.  There isn't an all-powerful entity pulling the strings behind the scenes.  It's just people freely choosing to run code that does what they want it to do.  I'm pretty sure that was Satoshi's original idea, so all is well.

what you both have yet to research is that the august event was not a level playing field consensus vote
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..

the nodes and pools that actually did object adding code that would ban segwit blocks. cores code just ignored the vote (reject block and ban ip nodes) to make it appear that core got 95%

READ THE DANG CODE!! not your friends PR

the laugh of the "voluntary opt-in".. is funny
but you forget to mention there was no consensus veto to prevent.
it was a mandatory tactic not a consensus tactic

now try ignoring your friends PR stuff and do some independant research.. like i have told ya to try. i even done so nicely without insults
1527  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 23, 2018, 10:55:25 PM

Hahaha. I knew this would push some buttons. But if I was Bob wanting to send Alice some Bitcoins, doesn't Lightning require a user to open a channel to another peer and literally makes users send Bitcoins from one peer to another? Alice to Bob. Peer to peer. Cool

Plus he was laughing because he got it.

1. that can be done without LN
2. the purpose of LN is routing (multiparty hops that need to be online and sign before even getting to destination)
3. the locking in and unlocking.. if you stay uptodate with concepts is factories(fortknox analogy)

may i wish you well in your independant research
hint: multisig, factories, watch towers, routing, being online(notpush)

if you only ever want to just pay 1 person repeatedly. you dont need LN.
thousands of users have been doing it for years without LN

have a nice day
1528  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are people's thoughts on Bakkt? on: October 23, 2018, 10:44:11 PM
bakkt is not like etf
an etf is where all people get to own is a share/certificate/contract

bakkt is a hybrid exchange like a coinbase/NYSE scheme. but where you can actually get coins out.
yes its like coinbase but with more to offer.
no its not like LN

bakkt offers many trade options. not just futures... but like i said "if it does as it says" then it will make things more open with different options than coinbase offers.

what else is on offer besides futures contracts? that's all i've read about, and i'm pretty sure it's the only thing planned for the december launch. that's generally what the intercontinental exchange offers: futures, options, derivative contracts.

yes, you can actually get coins out. but with bakkt, fractional reserve practices are not only possible but likely, as pointed out above.

that's the #1 reason it's "not like LN": it requires custodial trust and allows fractional reserve. bakkt will probably bring the worst of wall street to the bitcoin markets.

there are different types of "futures". some exchanges are just gambling sites where people gamble on future prices and they just get +/- fiat out if they were right or wrong. (futures derivatives contracts) where no actual asset was purchased.
but. in bakkts case the futures contract actually has to buy the bitcoin, hold it. and give it to the contractee at the end date.

as for trying to compare it to LN. that is a mega laugh.. they are 2 different kettles of fish
LN is about locking YOUR funds into a fortknox. and then play around with 12 decimal IOU promissory notes that are meant to represent what got locked. you are then suppose to spend your IOU or let others loop through you and they spend some of your IOU in one of your exit accounts(channels). and at the end of it. you can request(requiring someone elses signature) to get whatever remains out of the fortknox and back in your 100% sole possession.
remember. 99% of people are consumers not producers(merchants) so 99% of people leave LN with less than they put in

think about it like the current banking system, you put your salary in. but end up spending it and having less when days/weeks later.
LN is just a banking system for consumers to spend

BAKKT is a way to invest more easily that having to need brokers and portfolio managers.
yes its not a decentralised exchange. no one denies that. but its aimed at allowing normal average joe access to investing that is normally (in etf cases) reserved for only accredited market traders

me personally though. im happy just hoarding my coins on legacy bitcoin addresses
1529  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin & Electricity: Threat or Blessings on: October 23, 2018, 10:27:05 PM
here we ago again the lies of wasting electric

so here goes
bitcoin mining farms (the smart ones) are not wasting electric.
power companies dont just produce to demand. they produce with EXCESS so that there is a buffer so that when homes turn on lights or cook something. the sudden change of electric draw doesnt cause brown outs

many big mining farms buy up some of this excess in a year long contract. because the excess cant be re-used/stored. so would go to waste otherwise.

by actually using the excess and having funds come from it allows power companies to expand and upgrade their facilities faster to be ready for future demands.

the math some have reported as being atleast 1% of world usage is a fallacy. the real numbers are around 10x less than that. (under 0.1%)
the article that reported the 1% were using 2015-6 hardware but with 2018 hashrate stats. which is like saying it takes an hour to get 3 miles because they base it on the speed of walking and not realise current tech is cars, trains, planes which are faster.

take the s9 antminer. 14thash using as much electric as 2 gaming PC's but producing as much hash power as double digit thousands of gaming machines

1530  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Limit number of coins in circulation limited by the 64 bit storage? on: October 23, 2018, 09:47:15 AM
satoshi liked maths and the Fibonacci sequence

its well documented
ill show you just 2 numbers found in the Fibonacci sequence and leave you to see how often they appear

21
144
1531  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens to the Bitcoin Blockchain if a Extreme Solar Storm hits Earth? on: October 23, 2018, 05:18:57 AM
if earth was to be hit by a large enough solar storm to knock out all electronics

1. "no house electric, no tv to watch, no internet, no phone, ... hmm maybe i should go get something to eat"

2. "SH*T my car wont start i cant drive to the grocery store, ok ill walk"
....... goes for a walk
3. "SH*T the grocery store doors wont open as they are on electronic controls"
....... goes to see if the grocery store were smart enough to use their old fashioned rear fire door as a new entrance
4. "SH*T they were smart enough but they have a sign 'all produce 5000% as stock is low and deliveries wont start up for atleast a month.. and theres a queue half a mile long of desparate people "

5. "SH*T there is gonna be a riot, better prepare for police/state/marshal law conditions"

6. "wait. i got meat in my freezer but no electric to keep it frozen.. hmm.. lets have a local wood fire barbecue and just eat and drink what will go to waste by tomorrow and let everyone else just fight"

7. "beer in my hand(kinda warm now but oh well... ) and as for the blockchain. whoever got zapped woulda been zapped in the day (side of earth facing the sun) so um pretty sure theres a few computer on the dark side of earth(night time at event time) that will survive. and i have my private key/seed safe on non PC format. so.. who wants a warm bear and a drift wood barbequed chicken leg.

8. month(s) later when electronics are repaird/replaced. the electric start returning to homes, peoples repaired computers and cars get returned to peoples homes. people start trying to settle back to normal life. the internet returns..
"oh no the kardashians are still posing for paperazzi". turn on bitcoin node. network starts syncing and we start getting back to normality
1532  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Make running a full node easier for a noob. on: October 23, 2018, 05:01:29 AM
things can be sped up.

core could easily add just a bit of code and request spv data or just some UTXO set data
(request UTXO of tx's of the wallets addresspool / wallet.dat)
just to let users sign their own transactions upfront and instantly.. ofcourse if a tx they broadcast is using an out of date UTXO input the network rejects it so no harm.
but atleast being able to see balance and be able to do something upfront. and thus downloading the full blockchain then becomes a background activity.


The OP wants to run a full node. A full node is a part of the network, receiving and relaying transactions and blocks, validating them. The "node" that you propose is not a part of the network's validation process. It is a "leech".

having a full node that initially just says gimme UTXO data for lets say 100 addresspool/wallet addresses. is not a leach. its well under 20kb. just to allow users to see their uptodate balance and instantly be able to make transactions. without waiting....
AND THEN(seconds later) downloading(syncing and relaying) occurs AS STANDARD
but from a human experience point of view is felt like a background activity and not a sat their twiddling fingers activity..
waiting for the whole chain before being able to do anything

what i said was not about turning off syncing. not turning off relaying. its just adding a user convenience few commands at step one that can be processed in 2 seconds to skip the hours/days twiddling fingers. its more for user experience of first launching..

syncing and relaying still happens. but its not as noticeable because users can get to play around while waiting. instead of waiting before getting to play around
1533  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are people's thoughts on Bakkt? on: October 23, 2018, 02:33:33 AM
bakkt is not like etf
an etf is where all people get to own is a share/certificate/contract

bakkt is a hybrid exchange like a coinbase/NYSE scheme. but where you can actually get coins out.
yes its like coinbase but with more to offer.
no its not like LN

bakkt offers many trade options. not just futures... but like i said "if it does as it says" then it will make things more open with different options than coinbase offers.

bakkt is actually offering real bitcoin.
how futures work is imagine bitcoin is now $6400 but you cant afford to buy 10btc this month. but know in 12 months you could have $70k but worry the price per btc would be $12k in 12 months($120k for 10btc).
you put in a futures offer of $70k for 10btc in 12 months.
thus locking in your order to get 10btc in 12 months time no matter happens in 12 months.
you then pay in $70k before the close. and bam. you get out your 10btc

..
yea bakkt bought 10btc at $6,400
yea bakkt done some shorts and longs using the 10btc during the 12 months
yea you cant touch your 10btc in that time.
but in 12 months you got 10btc for $70k and the price of btc in 12 months might actually be $120k for 10btc
1534  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Evaluation of Bitcoin as a store-of-value on: October 23, 2018, 02:14:28 AM
having a store of value thats only function is a store of value is a store of nothing..

the reason gold has a store of value. is because of the cost of acquisition. which stems from the cost of production and the desire/need of it for industry/fashion

for instance its not just about rarity.
i have a dog, it will only do 4000 bowel movements (bags of dog poo) in its life.
may the bidding begin? nope. because rarity/scarcity is not enough

function. features, adoption, desire are needed.
by me just saying a bag of dog poo is $20, doesnt make it $20 and doesnt make it the bottomline

bitcoin moving away from real bitcoin medium of exchange, to just being a 'store' is the foolish narrowminded thoughts of those who dont understand the complexities of finance and asset valuation.
1535  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 23, 2018, 01:53:01 AM
its the developers who code the rules you should be concerned about.

No it isn't.  You just need to stop being paranoid about them.

yea which is why many detest how devs have PURPOSEFULLY put a hold on innovating bitcoin for bitcoins sake.

Many idiots, maybe.  Real innovations don't merely involve tinkering with a few static variables and pretending that's somehow going to solve all the problems.  Surely if innovation was on hold, someone would be able to come up with something better?  If you think there's more innovative code out there, would you care to point us to it?  

i ofcourse expected the usual plan of windfury, doomad, (lauda, carlton and achowe*) to start the usual cabin fever core fan club defense of sling insults and repeat pretending to know nothing.. but thats an old astroturf of 2 years ago..
yea you poke the bear and plead ignorant to the poke until you get a bit and then act like your victims.. but oh well..
*(yet to jump in to protect there buddies)

there has literally been hundreds of proposals. over many years but they never get passed the cabin of core dev moderators that only want to follow their own roadmap, and not actually be open to diverse community consensus.

i know you dislike me highlighting things. but when the developers(people) actually highlight issues themselves. i find it very funny how you defend them(people) as it they are perfect and didnt say what they said, an instead think its the network thats broke and limited itself. as if the network is an AI that chose to become stagnant and capped itself.. and suddenly needs commercial services and other networks to function instead.(inshort i laugh you think devs dont control the code..)

i really hope you have gone and took some time to learn the subtle hints i gave and actually have something substantial to offer. rather that just slinging insults

maybe instead of trying to dismiss history that can be found in the blockchain and in code. to protect devs. actually realise its the devs screaming out these things so they dont need your protection.
you are not helping them or bitcoin. you just seem to end up looking like wanting to cause an argument just for some soap opera entertainment.

go learn about the buzzwords discussed in other topics and learn the source of those concerns. if you have not got the hints in other topics. stop asking. because you seem to not want to be spoonfed
1536  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are people's thoughts on Bakkt? on: October 22, 2018, 11:29:46 PM
What would Bcashes response be? The entire reason that shitcoin was forked was to be able to make tiny purchases like coffee with BTC directly, while nobody is accepting their shitcoin for a coffee anyway.

no clue. ask them
though calling them bcash wont get your answer answered as thats just you poking the bear with a stick just wanting to see them bite.. (old lame tactic of social drama creation) rather than feeding them a question and hoping for them to respond

also they didnt create their altcoin. the whole follow core or else get banned caused bitcoin cash to become a reality.

but for me personally. i beleive though bakkt may start with btc.. (like coinbase did) they could diverse into other alts. so i could see litecoin, bitcoincash, ethereum trying to jump on the band wagon and bakkt adds other coins later. so things could change for bakkt later and i suppose those in bitcoin cash will just say "give it time"

the reason i dont call bitcoin cash bcash. is i can stand outside all the social kardashian drama and see all the game play occuring. bitcoin cash is a separate network and does not affect/attack btc. so i have no emotion to fear bitcoin cash to need to attack it.
bitcoin cash is just clams 2.0 or nxt.. (just another coin out of thousands). so no need to get emotional about it
1537  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How to create impossible transaction in Bitcoin? on: October 22, 2018, 09:52:38 PM
if you attempt to do this to try ddosing nodes by making them validate transactions deemed to fail. you will fail. nodes are pre programmed to banIP nodes that spam unwanted data, if this data is repeatedly sent.

also your transaction would only reach the peers you are connected to. not the entire network.

the only way to get a tx to spread around the network but not guarantee a confirm is to underfund the tx fee of a valid tx. but thats not a guarantee that it will stay unconfirmed forever.. so again no point
1538  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 22, 2018, 09:41:43 PM
"The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services."

The above quote is perhaps the most believable proof that he was perhaps also worried about the inability of the poor masses to fully adopt the technology because of transaction costs which would bar them from most minimum possible p2p transfers. This indicates that he actually wanted a decentralised global financial tool for the least possible kind of transactions which is really possible for the "underprivileged", giving them complete charge over their own finances.

yea which is why many detest how devs have PURPOSEFULLY put a hold on innovating bitcoin for bitcoins sake. and instead only twisted bitcoin to be compatible for other networks of convenience which would require authorisations and fee's away from the blockchain
1539  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi's original idea... on: October 22, 2018, 09:29:59 PM
eventually, this should discourage mining and difficulty should adjust downwards as miners shut down. the cost of mining would therefore drop as well. that's why it doesn't make much sense to focus on the current cost of mining: it adjusts upwards and downwards based on speculation and profitability.

Except the price has done nothing but go down during 2018, and the mining difficulty has increased several fold. There seems to be very little correlation between the two, at least this year. If anything its been an inverse correlation.
price is not value, value is not price
if you cut the november 2017 march 2018 mountain away. you will think differently about the chicken and egg game
in november 2017 when prices hit the $5800 flatline.
mining was cheaper.. it has taken many many months for mining to catch up.. until the last couple months the majority of 'cheap mining' is not exceeding the bottomline flatline value of $5800 and so now things have shifted. and value will rise now that people will start to see mining is not profitable compared to last year.

this has taken time due to S9 asics moving from near $3k each to $440 each which has kept mining 'cheap' while hashpower rose. but like i said things platoo'd and now switching


Plus to make some people angry. Bitcoin is not peer to peer. It is a broadcast network. Lightning is peer to peer, it literally sends transactions from one peer to another. Cool
Cheesy

yea i laugh too. i was wondering when he and his friends would jump in to advertise the separate network. kind of a shame that he shamelessly promotes it but yet to understand what he promotes, so i under stand why you laugh at him.
typical PR wannabe. saying bitcoin is not bitcoin but this other network that is not even a blockchain is more bitcoin than bitcoin... (facepalm) im kinda waiting for when the penny drops and he learns what chainhash means in context of a not a pure bitcoin feature. and he learns about the 12 decimal transactions to realise its not bitcoin.. but, i tried hinting
now its left for him to just work it out for himself.

may he soon will learn about routing. may he will learn about needing to be online to receive funds. needing watchtowers and factories. needing middle men services to serve cell apps. but im guessing like his friends they will just spend 2 years in cabin fever and just talk amungst themselves to just self promote the little PR stuff they have
1540  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are people's thoughts on Bakkt? on: October 22, 2018, 09:16:57 PM
if indeed it does as it says and offers average joe a easy way to buy/sell ACTUAL BTC and not just contracts/shares ,,,, and also get a cuppa'jo using btc. it will shut up all those "bitcoin is broken because you cant buy coffee with bitcoin" propagandists that just want people to fortknox up btc into LN factories

Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 ... 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!