Bitcoin Forum
July 19, 2019, 03:52:30 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 ... 823 »
1581  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: China Influences Cryptos, Like It or Not! on: October 13, 2018, 03:17:31 AM
china is one person.. didnt you know?
....
oh wait china is billions of people all with their own brain.

so even if "china"(sarcasm of: one entity) did own the hashpower(which they dont). we can still rip apart that "china" is a single brain

..

so to all those with the typical racial mindsets that sound like they love to read reddit and watch fox news ill say this.

when you look into the sky and see these machines in the sky with a tail of vapour behind them. they are not chemtrail dispersing machines. they are called this thing known as an aeroplane. yea surprising right. people get on aeroplanes and actually leave a country. oh and there are over 200 countries. i know you have the belief there is only usa, mexico, russia and china and they all hate each other and people should avoid leaving america and instead need a wall. but if you get on a aeroplane you can travel AROUND the world. yes the world is also round, which i know surprises you also.

in short. try experiencing the diversity of the world and stop being narrow minded and spoonfed racial finger pointing crap
(p.s im white british.. in case your narrow mind auto-rages to want to declare that i must be chinese to point out racism against china)
1582  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin falls below $ 6300 on: October 12, 2018, 11:09:54 PM
5800 11 month strong support
6100 3 month strong support

5800=low tide
6100=high tide

6100-20k = temporary waves above the tide (for those with confidence to surf the waves, have fun)

as for the tide over years (climate change)
2016: above $300
2017: above $900
2018: above $5800
expect the tide to rise slowly and expect there to be waves ontop
1583  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Senate Struggles to Understand Bitcoin A Scam or Genuine Innovation? on: October 12, 2018, 10:51:42 PM
senators, and the SEC and even american courts have no clue

US courts said bitcoin is a commodity.. again lets laugh
a commodity is a raw MATERIAL used to create other produce. EG oil=plastics/fuel.. beef=burgers/steak.. wheat=cereal/bread
bitcoin is actually an asset. not a commodity.
1584  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: China Influences Cryptos, Like It or Not! on: October 12, 2018, 09:46:34 PM
here we go again with a racial social drama that is normally only seen by reddit and fox news dramatists

let take antpool.
did you know they have multiple facitilities. multiple managements and work in multipl countries..
OMG SHOCK..

take the block rewards of all the blocks tagged as "antpool". you will see that there is not total random address per reward. nor is it a single address for al rewards. but instead a half dozen known addresses that scoop up the rewards.

each address depicts a different facility in a different location run by different management.
you can tell there are different management as some of the addresses are bech32 and some are legacy addresses. meaning each facility gets independence to choose to support a certain feature.. or not.

ill give you a tip. most facilities are just set up and then leased out. they are not controled by or managed by asians. the asians involvement is usually just to accept rent from whoever does manage the pools. and as said above those in control of what transactions get collated into a block and who pays the electric/rent bill is most of the time not even asian

here is another example take slushpool. which many have deemed as asian.. well thats actually not "china".. because its thailand managed

f2pool is an open pool for miners around the world. so although the main stratum ip is deemed as chinese they also have other stratums. and as i said the users are from around the world.

btcc.. well lets just laugh. they dropped from double digits to now below 1% of network hashrate. no need to waste too much time on them

the real funny part is that for years altcoin GPU farmers have been screaming how asics are evil due to asia... yet guess where ATI(AMD) GPU's come from..

many scream about the pools being asian.. yet iceland georgia, mongolia, ukraine, thailand, america never get mentioned as being the actual facility locations of pools tagged as asian.. because that destroys the narrative of the trump/fox news/reddit mindset kind of people who like to racially point fingers at china

if people could actually stop just copying and pasting badly wrote scripts of out dated propaganda. and actually use their fingers to search out the sources. it would shock them how easily they are led into such social drama
1585  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it possible to use bitcoin as a medium for collateral? on: October 12, 2018, 07:15:12 PM
this has been done before already, just using bitcoin.
many have
its kind of the bases of ETF.. btc funds are locked up and then people play with the ownership colateral(shares) to initially give fiat to the ETF and then on receipt of the share ownership sell the shares to others

its also been controversy of some doing it but not doing it right. by pretending to have BTC to scam others into giving them fiat.
(craig wright)

to do it properly. is to have coins in an address and to sign a FRESH message that truly proves you own the coin. then honourably people will trust you and its not a CWscam
1586  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: How to increase bitcoin without trading? on: October 12, 2018, 06:58:09 PM
sell your skills for a payment in bitcoin
- get a job
- start a business
- help a friend and ask for btc instead of a beer/coffee as thanks

sell products for bitcoin
- research drop shipping where they handle the warehousing delivery and you just find people to buy the products you advertise
- make your own products
- buy products and resale them

sell your other asset
- have a car? sell it for btc
- have a house, gold, jewels, a working tv? sell it for btc

in heritance
- ask relatives to purchase BTC thats intrusted in a will to be given to you should they pass
1587  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? on: October 12, 2018, 06:26:52 PM

the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017

By.  The.  Users.


users didnt get a vote
only 35% of nodes were segwit. only 35% of blocks were segwit
users didnt have to change anything. they were told everything was "backward compaitble" which if you unwash the word twist is that old clients will blindly accept segwit without upgrading because segwit nodes treat the old nodes as second class(bridged/filtered nodes) the which dont 100% validate because how segwit mutates the data to strip it to a thing that blindly passes old node tests)

old nodes were not rjecting segwit. not because they loved segwit but because segwit passed them striped data to BYPASS rejection.

the actual vote was for merchants and miners
FIBRE stripped out what it didnt like before anyone got a chance to "vote"

any proper nodes that could reject core/segwit nodes would end up just getting manipulated blocks that were stripped to appear as regular old blocks with transactions that blindly pass segwit transactions in the block. or get banned off the network

meaning users had no chance

as for any pools that made blocks that would dilute cores required version flag. core via FIbre and other stuff could reject them easily... meaning the users wouldnt get them to build ontop off to cause some orphan drama... meanwhile what you think are "users" would accept anything either way due to how core BYPASSED it with the stripped block data and threats to miners/merchants


LEARN ABOUT THE BYPASS
(gmax buzzword downstream nodes..... lukeJR buzzword filtered nodes)

you need to read the wishy washy herpa durp code.. they even drew a picture to show it actually happened
..
seriously doomad you can spend forever just crying wrong because wrong. but it seems you need to read some code first and become shocked at the coercion that occured

you can keep on trying to turn a we need diversity into a franky vs doomad all you like... or you can learn about what actually happened from the source. i know you dont want to learn from me so i only offered subtle hints thus not appear as spoonfeeding you.
the data, stats, code, documentation is there. but its for you to do your research.

if not, no point you wasting your time being so defensive against diversity
i do find it funny how entangled you have become in having an opposing mindset to it while pretending you dont. but all you are doing is meandering this topic into a comedy.

........
as for the proposal scenario of EC... again your mindset is "fork core off".. thats YOU saying that
the level playing field would have had oppertinity of having enough node selection/freedom/choice where people select it. it NATURALLY achieves consensus. and nothing gets forked off
again your obsessed with things having to get forked off as the only option
(facepalm)
whomever told you its the only option. i think thats the problem you have been learning from those that are telling you a story
the reality is. if there was no true consensus. no activation would occur. if ther was true consensus. the it activates and life continues on. any node in the small minority doesnt auto fork into a new altcoin. they just get stuck unsynced at a block height lower then the rest. and treated as second class nodes

but yea in a scenario of EC getting consensus would be where core actually listened to the community and maybe done a
core v0.12.a - support EC
core v0.12.b - dont support EC

and for EC to get consensus people that love core and trust core would run v0.12.a thus EC would get consensus and still get the core dev team as their supplier
if a community didnt have consensus for EC. then EC simply wouldnt activate.
remember no other teams but the core roadmap team instigated mandatory dates and bypasses.

i know you were trying to poke a bear to set up a scenario of where EC supports would mandate activation.
 but using real consensus of a real level playing field the separate teams would come to a CONSENSUS by communicating and contributing to a whole network community of to find the middle ground where all teams find that happy g-spot where all teams can happily find pleasure from. without having to rape the network via coercion
1588  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? on: October 12, 2018, 11:11:30 AM
And now we've reached the stage where I honestly can't tell if you're trying to deliberately twist what I'm saying, of if it's just a matter of you being too simple to understand it.

I'm not saying you have to follow Core.  You are a total moron if that's the conclusion you somehow manage to draw from my words.  Developers do not decide what the consensus is.  Stop telling people to "learn consensus" if you believe developers get to choose what that is.  Users determine consensus.  USERS.  Do you need it written in brightly coloured crayon or something?

The users who secure the network either by validating transaction with full node software or by mining  decide what consensus is.  Your software needs to conform to the wishes of the users.  If you do not conform to the wishes of the users, you can be forked off.

But no, keep telling those fairytales about "bypassing consensus".  Some gullible noob is bound to fall for it sooner or later.   Roll Eyes

Bitcoin is decentralised.  You're free to run alternative clients if you remain compatible with the code other users run.  Bitcoin has a level playing field.  Consensus cannot be bypassed.  Either accept it for what it is, or continue to have zero credibility while you've got your tinfoil hat on.  It's not a conspiracy, the users just don't agree with you.

bitcoin should be decentralised. but that requires users having choice. without fair open choice, its not decentralisation. its distribution
and dont cry that the choice of stay on network or F**K off is a fair choice. that is not fair choice thats the tyranny of apartheid, the tyranny of nazi, the tyranny of any corrupt unethical system

the implementations were following core
the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017
are you now denying the whole august 1st event even occurred?

now do you think random users got to decide. no. they could only follow because there is no alternative level playingfleid full node that would have survived the roadmap plan of REKTness that occurred with things like UASF and NYA bait and switch

do you even understand the word coercion
USAF: follow cores roadmap or node/blocks get ignored
NYA: follow cores roadmap or your transactions wont be seen on the network by list xx of merchants
swx2: follow cores roadmap and we (will fake) also giving 2mb after
anyone else that just didnt change to a core opposer node. just got their node defaulted to being outdated and not a full validation node thus not be able to object to the roadmap. they just became blind to it (dev buzzwords, bridged, downstream nodes)

core only had 35% desire for segwit before the coercion and code tricks.
even now the utility of segwit is low. yea even the then big miners that advocated for cores roadmap are still afraid to use segwit for thier own funds when they get block rewards
consensus can and was bypassed because people were blinding following one group. so that group got to control what consensus should be. they even went as far as lowering the threshold and doing the apartheid tactics of threatening to kick nodes/blocks out the network if they didnt obide by the rule of the roadmap

its literally wrote in the blockchain. you can actually see the version numbers in the blocks and the how things change
you can see it in forum posts, twitter where certain faces promote the tricks to by pass it
you can read it in he code of the bips and in the code for the supposed 'alternatives'

for there actually to be a fair consensus mechanism there needs to actually be diversity/fair choice

even the devs admit their actions. yea they cal it buzzwords.. some call it a unilateral upgrade (i laugh as thats a buzzword of centralism) some call it bilateral split some call it bypassing consensus some call it a controversial fork some call it by many names but by using mandated dates and threats that if you dont follow cores roadmap ur f**ked is saying core controlled the network as all roads led to cor because everyone FOLLOWED core..

users dont control consensus because they just download core because they would get REKT if they didnt.

the stats are there the data is their there. but you can scream it never happened all you like


anyway i know your trying too hard to turn  decentralisation debate into a "someones attacking doomad" social distraction. but the events are what the events are. history can be seen without your cries that it didnt happen.. the stats exist the data exists and even the devs talk about it using their own chosen buzzwords.. i am just simplifying it all that we need to get back to a level playing field of multiple choice of nodes and not just blindly follow cores roadmap
im not sure what your trying to defend but it aint a dcentralised network. you seem too core positive and obsessed with what core should do rather than what a open network should do
1589  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Recently reduced transaction fee on: October 12, 2018, 10:47:53 AM
Hmmm....this is really great

How sweet could it be if it will be and continue like this.
Yesterday i wanted to send 200$ to my trading wallet and i saw just 0.27$ as the transaction fee.

Unbelievable!!!

blocks on average are only 80% full.. fe's should be a penny
2015 fe's were a few penny and devs said they would do things to bring costs down to a penny/sub penny..

and yet 3 years later, even without blocks being full people are paying 27cents. 5x more than the fee war began

i kinda laugh that people call 27cents a good price. and yet in the many countries that can actually benefit from bitcoin (third world countries) the tx fee of 27cents can work out to be over 5 hours of minimum wage labour.

yes 27cents is better then th few dollars the INTENTIONAL fee war eclipsed to. but that was the plan.. inflate the price to sending spam. make it look like a feature is needed. activate the feature, then stop spamming . and then say the feature caused the decline. .. yet the truth is the feature has done the opposite of helping and it was just the intentional spam that distracted reality of what benefits the network and users

lets just hope the devs sort out the crappy witness scale factor and all the minrelayfee crap so that fee's and transaction per byte and transactions per 4mb can actually be really utilised
1590  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin will go up like last year? on: October 12, 2018, 10:21:49 AM
the 2013 spike occurred due to a massive jump in mining costs due to the swap from GPU to ASIC
this caused alot of hobbyists who could not afford to buy the gear to calculate its cheaper to just buy coin instead of mine it. so they did

the 2017 spike occurred due to a a certain group of paid devs and merchants having a VC contract to implement a certain feature by november 2017.. they achieved that goal so the VC's had to buy up a load of coin as that was the desired payment method to the dev team

there is no big event to cause a massive buy up. and buy ups dont just happen because they happened previously (the facepalm of trend anals)

as for things like ETF. the companies that have already applied for ETF's have already bought up their reserves. as for any new applications upcoming. most are waiting for first success, so that they can then clone the first success to save time and money of not having to do trial and error attempts. so they are waiting.
along with the main VC funds coming from usa and countries with end of december financial year end deadline. are happy to declare a loss for 2018 to get a tax deduction. and start at instant profit for 2019. so all signs are to not expect much from "whales" before 2019.
however piranha (small fish that bite) could bite their way up the price. but thats going to be a slower process
1591  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: HOW BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USED TO PREVENT FAKE FIAT CURRENCIES? on: October 11, 2018, 10:42:22 AM
blockchain and crypto are only great at proving coins are real when the amounts are clear to see and the source of the amounts are clear to trace back

some altcoins (and bitcoin proposals) are having systems implimented where coin amounts are not clear, and this can invite fake coins being created.

these "privacy" tools instead of having
in:  
1 btc
1 btc
out:
0.8btc
1.2btc

instead look like
in
+6
-6
out
+9
-9

where all people can see is the in's calculate to result in 0 and the outs result in 0 to show the ins and outs balance out, and that would be the network rule. that numbers have to balance out to 0 (cancel each other out) but not reveal the real amounts hidden.
many people say that it all works out because those trading get to see the hidden math of turning a in from +-6 to 2btc and the +-9 to be 2btc.

by the network not being able to know what the amounts are breaks the fundimental point of validating value. and it just becomes a bunch of people aggregating data that could be anything.
the person who moves the +-9 to the next person knows the hidden privacy maths of the +-6 but the new person does not.
and the network does not know the math of the +-6 or the +-9  so the person making a transaction using the +- balance to a new person can manipulate things so that the +-9 is actually 6btc total and there is no way in the network of proving otherwise.
this is simply because if the network knows the math of the privacy tool. there is no point having the privacy tool because everyone can see the amounts by using the math.
because the privacy tool math is unique per transaction anyone can alter the math to show the new recipient any amount the tweaker wanted

imagine a 'commitment' that had this
in A =true amount *6
in B =true amount -7
out A =true amount +8.2
out B =true amount -10.2

you could decode that and see the in as being 1btc, 1btc and out as 0.8, 1.2
but only the next recipient gets to see this. all the network does is have a rule that A and B have to cancel each other out to 0
so while the network is happy to set a transaction thats only validation is A cancels b
the user can make a malicious commitment of
in A =true amount *2        (making the value 3btc but still encodes to +6)
in B =true amount -9        (making the value 3btc but still encodes to -6)
out A =true amount +8.2  (making the value still 0.8 and still encodes to +9)
out B =true amount -14.2 (making the value still 5.2 and still encodes to -9)

and no one else on the network can tell the difference or audit it. as all they see is +-6 +-9 so the receiver just has to take the word of the commitment they got is what it is

like i said. if a math commitment was to be fixed so that someone could use that same exact math on every previous transaction to validate it all right back to the source minted coin years before. then privacy is broken and everyone could use that maths to rebuild data of true values clearly displayed.

in short
my examples are very simplified for easy demo and miss out many point.. but the point being:
in a system where everyone uses the same commitment math to decode and validate true value.. there is no point having a privacy tool because everyone can decode it anyway
and if the privacy tool math differs per user transaction. a malicious user can tweak the individual math to fake new value and make the next person think they are getting more or less than what the true value should be. and the new user has no blockchain network audit to tell them any different

so transparency of true value trumps privacy in finance if you want a system of true un-manipulable finance network. whereby the only privacy people should rely on is that their name, and personal life story is not embedded into a blockchain
as soon as a blockchain stores stupid things like numbers that dont represent the true value beneath, and users cannot validate the true value beneath as a network. its no longer a financial blockchain. its just a chain of random data that can be manipulated to the whims of the individual making the commitment(maliciously)

a blockchain is only as good as the data a network of users can separately validate and know for sure thee actual data is true. if users cannot validate true data, they might as well not validate. and thus there is no point of a blockchain. and instead it just becomes a distributed database that is not audited
1592  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who does the bitcoin accounting? on: October 11, 2018, 09:29:54 AM
every person above is completely wrong

there is no accounting of the market cap
there is no actual bank accounts holding the market cap dollar
there is no complicated algo

the market cap is simply the latest price a bitcoin was sold for multiplied by the number of coins in circulation
and that is it.

the market cap is not anything special
i can make a coin tomorrow with 1 trillion coin circulation and sell 1 coin(yes just one coin, ever) for $5 and instantly the market cap of a coin i could make would become $5trillion.

again there is no bank account hoards backing up bitcoins market cap. when someone sells a coin, the buyer puts their money in and a seller takes their money out. exchanges only hold value traders have temporarily until they withdraw it

the exchanges only hold temporarily the dollar of the buy and seller.
not all 17m coins are on the market to sell
and not 17million coins worth of bitcoin buyers on the market at anyone time

the volumes(separate category from market cap) do not indicate how many buyers/sellers.
the volumes are just about how many trades are done that day, and done over the multiple exchanges and added up.

but those volumes could be just a few traders buying at X and selling at X+y% to make a small y% and if the price moves down enough the seller buys again at X and if the price moves up sells at X+y% and just repeats.

sometimes the volumes appear higher but are just made up of a few people repeat buying and selling over and over again using arbitrage EG buy at X sell at X+y then see price is still X on another exchange so buy at X move it to an exchange that is selling at X+y then repeat

volumes are not an indicator of population interest or of how many unique coins are being sold.

again the 17mill coins in circulation are not all in exchanges so the market cap is a meaningless total
and the volume could be a small amount of traders just arbitraging over exchanges and not unique investor demand
1593  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? on: October 10, 2018, 11:10:14 PM
And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?
who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it.

Exactly.  There are currently ~37 nodes that support EC whilst still managing to follow the current consensus rules.  It's actually not that hard to do.  Notice that, as we have this conversation, they aren't being "thrown off the network".  There are no "mandatory activation dates" affecting them.  There is absolutely nothing standing in your way.  If you follow the current consensus rules, you don't remove yourself from the network.  After all these years, it shouldn't be such a difficult concept for you to grasp.  For all your talk of "social drama", a sizeable proportion of it appears to emanate from you.  It is a level playing field, people just don't like your ideas enough.  You're losing.  It's as simple as that.  If people actually gave a shit about EC, they'd be using it.  Hell, even BCH users can't agree on that crap.  What hope do you think it has of thriving here?  It's laughable.

here you go again about the "follow"

yawn
now again show me some node dev teams that have their own BIP proposals that are not "followers"
again your definition of core is that people should "follow"

its not about my idea. its about decentralisation.
you think core being the sole BIP promoter and moderator is decentralised. and that just having followers is decentralised.
you think being a follower is a level playing field(triple facepalm)

wake up to the conversation. please learn consensus
you're concentrating too much on things like EC. as if its the only option thats not cores roadmap. there are many more. the point is not about segwit vs EC.. the point is we need more node teams that have their own proposals platforms so we dont have to jump through cores hoops of core roadmap or F**K off

Try learning reality.  If you get forked off, it's because your software was not following the current consensus rules.  Keep crying about "bypassing consensus" even though that isn't a real thing.  I just performed two forum searches.  One for the phrase "bypassing consensus" and another for "bypassed consensus".  Notice how all the results are either your posts or someone quoting your posts.  Why is no one else talking about "bypassing consensus" if it's something that actually happened?  Why is it just you who chooses to believe this total bullshit?  Let me guess, it's another conspiracy, right?   Roll Eyes

not true
1. other groups wanting other consensus didnt mandatory activate their proposals.. they never caused their own fork. EG only the core roadmap had devs that done a august 1st mandatory activation with threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks to bypass consensus even before the NETWORKS rules changed

2.you keep saying "current consensus".. well even before the segwit code actually activated the core devs and buddies mandated opposers should be kicked off.. WEEKS BEFORE activation.. to fake a vote to get an activation
this was not consensus. nor level playing field

the consensus weeks before activation was rules other nodes and pools would still function and accept.. but the REKT campaign of UASF were not going to let nodes that oppose cores future from opposing cores future. and that at a time where the consensus was still the same.. where having a network split BEFORE consensus changed!!
try checking the code, look at blockchain dates. oh and it was not core opposers that decided to make their own network first. as it was the core/USAF that were being biased. other nodes finally made blocks on a different network hours later. because core buddies didnt want them on the network. even demanding they change their code from the pre august code to make the core opposers become different.
again core making demands and acting like a monarchy.. WEEKS BEFORE CONSENSUS RULES ACTUALLY CHANGED

3. again you say nodes cant get kicked off if they follow CURRENT CONSENSUS
again check the block data and code... nodes were pushed off weeks before rules changed.

4. as for "bypassing consensus" well search out bilateral split. you will see gmaxwell and others talk about it. different buzzword, same event/meaning.
as for "mandatory activation" well search out UASF.. you will see loads of stuff. again different buzzword, same event/meaning

im sorry that i dont use other peoples buzzwords. i use common words that reveal the meaning more clearly
EG i dont call a lightning revocation. a "revocation".. i call it a chargeback. as its a more common word people can commonly resonate to as to what it means. if i said "revocation" people would wonder what it meant. which then becomes a whole meandered conversation in itself trying to explain it

EG i dont call a heart attack. a "mio-cardial infarction". i call it a heart attack, yea doctors may only use the word Mio cardial infarction. but that does not mean there is no debate about heart attacks or that only im concerned about heart attacks because a search shows i only use that term. i just dont be a jargon spouting elitist to convolute a conversation with buzzwords common people cant understand, just to avoid common people from getting involved in a debate

5. in real consensus event you are still on the network. you just have data rejected in a couple seconds. its then up to you to push acceptable data. or remain on the network but stuck behind.
seems you have been misled by thinking there are only 2 options are follow core or make a altcoin..
again it seems you want only core to control the rules...

..
anyway. i do enjoy your comedy moments of trying to distract a decentralisation debate to take thee emphasis of decentralisation becoming lost since 2013 and just becoming distributed code followers but centralised change to code
and also the trying to make it a social drama of "franky1 vs core"
but the reality is the rules are controlled by one group and only distributed to people who only FOLLOW the rules of cores roadmap because those that dont want to just be followers but also offer their own innovations separate from core get REKT

you can spend all century trying to meander the conversation into a personal attack. but that does not change the data or history found on the blockchain and within nodes. that show that there are no other teams offering proposals separate from the core roadmap sheep follower hierarchy. nor are there any data that disproves that UASF was not a thing.

also i can find many posts where you are the one that has said if people dont like whats happened to go make an altcoin or go play with another network. typical BS response

1594  Economy / Speculation / Re: Signs That The Bitcoin Bulls Are Ready To Break Out on: October 10, 2018, 09:09:37 PM
"comeback to $20k value"
"sky rocket".
 is the term for everyone waiting around where it appears nothing is happening. and then suddenly at t-minus 1 theres a sudden blast and then a second later atmosphere breaking heights are reached.

the reality is that those events end in at somepoint things landing back at ground/sea level

however
my imagination is of the waterlevels rising, people enjoying the waves of speculation above the water line but climate change raising the waterline beneath. yea there maybe a tsunami every few years, but generally everyone can see the sea levels and plan when they have to resettle and live at a higher safe level

i dont live ontop mountains or on the moon looking down wondering when other explorers will stand beside me.
i stand at the bottom looking up planning when i need to resettle my life at a new height.

anyway
i would say once the main countries tax year deadlines are over and everyone has done their tax deductables, taking advantage of their 'losses' then 2019 will be the year of profits. so its financially foolish to ignite a rocket of profit while planning to cut down on tax by declaring a loss
1595  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? on: October 10, 2018, 08:01:15 PM
Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff.

I'm sorry, but backpedaling just doesn't cut it.  I need to see you retract the statement that Core "should only run current rules"

im not back peddling. i said on many topics for many years "everyone on level playing field"
but YOU took a one time statement about if core want to be a "reference" then thats a refernce of current rules that other teams can refer to and then other teams can separately build on INDEPENDANTLY

the funny part is. people used core as a reference and then core devs actually went out screaming that other people were using them as a reference... (i laughed at the hypocrisy)

their view of reference is not
open source anyone can use and build on.. but
closed club membership, moderation where everyone needs to follow  the club as reference and not build on outside the club


my point was that reference does not mean core get to be the only central point of new innovation. yea core can offer new innovation. we the network should progress away from core to expand the level playing field into decentralised teams so that there is other level playing field teams at play.. thats not restricting core. thats just not empowering them.. theres a difference
they can still make proposals and innovate. but bing the only source of innovation should change.
again not restricting core. just opening up innovation for others(without REKT campaigns and social hierarchy of defending core as a monarchy)

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5

And this is different to 'Emergent Consensus' how, exactly?  

You can already run a client on the BTC network that offers this feature.  What's stopping you from doing that?
who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it. here ill remind you and embolden it
my node can accept 32mb blocks. but i know i wont get a 32mb block because of network effect of consensus and the orphaning mechanism (and also my node has a 32mb hard code. and a variable that can be altered at runtime set to 4mb which i can up if something activates within the network)
 but my node is ready to handle changes when changes happen without me needing to recode my node from scratch again. same goes for everyone else they could code their node the same way.

the thing your missing is that if independent people release publicly the code that does such, end up getting REKT abuse
again you are defending core by asking me to retract a statement against core. (im laughing at that)

the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

We're literally never going to agree on that.  Ever.  
try learning consensus. thats all im going to say
1596  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? on: October 10, 2018, 06:29:59 PM
Core doesn't need defending and I'm not worried about them.  I'm defending decentralisation.  Consider what it is you're actually proposing.  You are (once again) advocating restricting what certain developers can do because you mistakenly believe that's how you achieve decentralisation.  Tell us how you're going to make it so that Core "should only run current rules" and "all the core devs should have their own releases" without introducing centralisation to enforce that.  It's not rationally possible.  No one can force them to do any of those things in a decentralised system.  

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff. you just need to re open decentralisation by having other node dev teams on the network that have their own proposal mechanisms
its not restricting them. its just de-powering cores monarchy and removing centralised leadership
ofcourse core wont then be able to stay ahead if they are not the only brand on th network so de-facto they become the reference of only current rules not future rules because they are no longer the sole source of new features

2. people can still refer to core if they believe only core can provide the cleanest code. but in the same respect they are no longer the only codebase on offer and its for the community to have free choice not sole option

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5
(you cant have 1mb base block unless your node accepts 0.75mb or 0.6 0r 0.5 baseblock)
and so if there is a high majority that is happily with 5 or more then 5mb becomes consensus. and everyone is happier its no longer 4mb because now the baseblock is 1.25mb aswell

and if core become anal and follow lukes desire of 2mb weight 0.5mb base. then people will start seeing luke is being anal and they will avoid using core vLAp (core version with luke anal proposal).

i know your going to cry out that forks will happen.. no. again if a pool chose to make a 8m weight block whil the network ffect is at 4mb/5mb.. the 8mb just gets rejected in under 2 seconds. this has already been seen when a pool made a block bigger than 1mb a couple years ago. it didnt cause a fork/altcoin. it just had its block rejected in under 2 seconds

you do realise that the 20+ pools right now are not all making the exact same block. they are all making 20+ different blocks. its not just a race to the finishline first. its also who fits the rules of consensus

users can have their nodes set to different acceptable values. but the whole network effect of consensus would sort out the mess, and do so in seconds.
my node can accept 32mb blocks. but i know i wont get a 32mb block because of network effect of consensus and the orphaning mechanism (and also my node has a 32mb hard code. and a variable that can be altered at runtime set to 4mb which i can up if something activates within the network)
 but my node is ready to handle changes when changes happen without me needing to recode my node from scratch again. same goes for everyone else they could code their node the same way. and become less reliant on a dev team to spoon feed changes because the user themselves can change settings.
hopefully we will see that dev teams make software with a "options" tab to allow changes at runtime without needing to download/resync for each and every change

again no one will get 32mb blocks or "gigabyte blocks by midnight". because of network effect. what would happen is if all nodes and pools found that 5mb was a mega majority acceptance. the 5mb gets activated when pools think its safe to risk their time/reward to create a block that the network effect will accept
and they wont just create a 5mb block. they will try a 4.001mb block to see if any bugs pop up (like the berkely leveldb bug)
which if 4.001 doesnt get rejected at network level. then they will try more. again like the climb from below 0.5mb to 1mb.
which history shown

you can learn alot about consensus, if you took time to understand real consensus and not just repeat the same lame "fork" stories that have been debunked years ago. the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus
1597  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain games. Whaaat? on: October 09, 2018, 04:32:43 PM
im just surprised no one has taken the dragon tales bitcoin game
http://www.dragons.tl/
of year ago and re-innovated it to be more like second life where you can buy real goods from within the game
1598  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: 40 Interesting Facts About Bitcoin You Don't Know on: October 09, 2018, 02:40:28 PM
1.   Mining pools in China constitute 70% of all pools in the world.
10.   64% of Bitcoins are never used and will never be used.
18.   17 million Bitcoins is expected to be used in about 10 years.
40.   About 17 million Bitcoins is expected to be used in about 7 years.

1.mining pools are more spread out. take antpool which loads say is "china" fact is they have farms in georgia san fran, iceland.
as for other pools, some are actually in thailand, russia, and other places. seems geography is not OP's strong suit
(you can spot this as antpool uses a separate coin reward address for each facility. if you actually add up the asics and the facilities of their locations. you will see "china" doesnt have as much as you think

10. over 70% of coins moved in the last 2 years (might be worth the OP doing fact checking)

18. & 40  they counter each others points and only 40 is the closest answer.
1599  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? on: October 09, 2018, 02:04:39 PM
You might portray it as an act of hostility because you disagree with it, but it's really an act of freedom.  The users securing this network through both full node validation and mining freely chose to run the code that did all those things.  It was their choice.  That's how consensus works.  You know that's how it works because you literally saw it happen with your own eyes.  Users wanted those things to happen.  So they did.

if it was wanted by consensus. then there would have been no need for a mandatory date. it would have naturally received 95% without USAF with out the bait and switch of NYA and without the REKT campaign.

but nah core only got less than 40% meaning core should have realised their own idea was half baked and gone back to try new ingredients and offer a new cake that the community would want, that would get 95% approval. without any apartheid-esq game play required
1600  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Does Satoshis' absence make bitcoin truly decentralized? on: October 09, 2018, 01:46:04 PM
as shown doomad has no understanding of consensus. all he can see is forks and altcoins as the only option of multiple nodes brands..

(mega big facepalm)

if he thinks the only route is for brands to throw each other off the network because their code is better.. then he has no clue
the "some risks" links are funny. saying a bit of 2 second orphan drama is worse than a whole network shut down, was the best comedy of he week to read. seems those comedians would prefer a whole network shutdown than a nodes log file just referencing a rejected block after 2 seconds.. (facepalm).. i guess they either dont understand consensus or are just trying to fake news what consensus is by saying it involves making altcoins/forks. either way, pure comedy.

anyway. there is no point trying to teach him because i have asked him nicely many many times to learn consensus and he has just cried out that im telling him what to do.. (as the excuse not to actually learn about real consensus mechanism)

so best to let him live in his world of altcoin making and other coin making code, and not live in a world of a community of a network that contribute, compromise, communicate, and cider everyone part of a community.

i think doomad will do well on other networks as he seems happy advocating for other networks
before doomad cries a new variant of social drama: there is no code to kick doomad off bitcoin. there is no demand dooman F**K off. i just said he would be happy should he choose to go play with other network like the other network called lightning
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 ... 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!