|
1. when people buy bitcoin with fiat. the fiat is not burned. it just moves from one account holder to another. in short banks do not lose anything.
2. banks forex trades are not done at 'consumer level' . banks make their profits in the back offices trading on wall street. most bank 'consumers' use commercial services like bureau de change at airports or even some supermarket retailer do foreign exchange for the consumer level stuff
3. banks do make 'profits'. but they spend it on bonuses, dividends, and hidden gratuities to their board/share holders before tax day to then show no 'profit' to then pay no/little tax. while the top employees and board members have upgraded their houses and cars
|
|
|
|
|
funy part is
when people start using the segwit on altcoin price arguments
what i have seen this month..
when vert is up litecoin is down
when vert is down litecoin is up
so when litecoin moves up segwit fanboys look for any positive blockstream segwit news they can... if they find it they mention its up bcause of segwit. if they cant find any. they dont mention litecoin. but then talk about vertcoins drop and then find negative news from non-blockstream and blame verts drop on non-blockstream.
same goes the other way
so when vertcoin moves up segwit fanboys look for any positive blockstream segwit news they can... if they find it they mention its up because of segwit. if they cant find any. they dont mention vertcoin. but then talk about litecoins drop and then find negative news from non-blockstream and blame lites drop on non-blockstream.
creating their own narrative.
but overall.. the price moves de to nature of trading and low liquidity.
in short it just goes up and down for multiple reasons and doesnt take much to cause a change. anyone can spin any narrative for any coin
trying to use the market price as a indicator is an empty argument.
market price is just temporary drama
|
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks Core is to blame for blocking Segwit is ether a shill or a fool.
segwit 2merkle soft. is just a half baked gesture that does not live upto promise. segwit still allows qadratics. native key users can still quadratic spam the base block and cause hassle for everyone. infact segwit makes it worse by allowing a tx to have 16,000 sigops instead of 4000 the EASIEST solution is to have sigops per tx limited BELOW 4k and ALWAYS kept below 4k no matter what the blocksize/weight or whatever become core just dont want proper onchain scaling via diverse nodes and dynamics. so are happy to waste years delaying crap.. yep even up until the end of 2018 http://www.uasf.co/Can BIP148 be cancelled?
Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018. dont expect blockstream to give up and finally listen to the community if the result is no by november.. they will just push delay push again. not change to a different solution that can unite the community |
|
|
|
Wrigth in the UK and the Aust passport he has means that they COULD get him. There is no fled, they can grab him if they want to - they just cant.,
lol finance = CIVIL the aussie government thing has not yet got to the point of criminal yet, to invoke extradition |
|
|
|
Roger ver is blocking exactly that since we need segwit for LN to work at full steam.
LN can function WITHOUT segwit. blockstreams LN wants segwit because THEIR LN is pre-programmed to work with segwit. but multi-sig is not broke and has no issues with malleability or quadratics. its just that blockstream want their LN compatible with their segwit. lightning is not quadratic risk because its only a 2in-2 out.. thus no quadratic delay risks (its not thousands of inputs in simple terms) lightning is not malleable risk because it requires other party to sign off/refuse.. thus other party see's and know what has been signed to counter malleability risk |
|
|
|
You have plenty to do with the centralization attempt by BTU.
centralisation attempt by BTU? your just mad that many implementations are not kissing blockstream ass, by not following blockstreams lead. so you deem them as not bitcoin. which is so lame. you actually think that blockstream is bitcoin and bitcoin is only blockstream wake up. to all the REKT campaigns BU is just one implementation amungst many. its blockstream that want sole control. even you have the mindset of thinking only blockstream should be the sole controller, and you know that you think only blockstream should have that control if you want something from greg about how he wants to split the network and get sole control What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
the non blockstreamers want a single network of diverse implementations all working on the same single network using real consensus only blockstream are the ones that have made slit threats only blockstream are the ones that have made deadlines only blockstream are the ones that have made pool orphaning threats (samson mow (UASF hat wearer) works for blockstream |
|
|
|
Wrigth had planned a move BEFORE the raid. The raid was AFTER he left and they were too late. The tax ppl wanted to get him but just misswed when they figured it out
craig recieved legal documents of demands from AU gov about going court/repaying, with deadlines and dates and such.. well well BEFORE the raid craig then emailed gizmodo to spark the rumours of him being satoshi before the raid because he knew that not dealing with the legal actions would result in a raid it was not a one day he was not in trouble and then suddenly a unprovoked raid where suddenly the raid was the only contact craig had from aussie government. craig was in trouble for months before the raid. he knew it the government dont just snd the cops in without making demands for court/repayment first. they do a raid when the courts/repayment demands are ignored and the raid is last resort.. not first option he planned his escape and all the drama of trying to find ways to get out of having to repay aussie gov |
|
|
|
lol more empty "thats speculation" when its your comments that are propaganda you are soo deep defending blockstream that you cannot see bitcoin as a diverse network of many varieties of software actually running on the network for years without making demands or threats. you only see blockstream being bitcoin and even when blockstream threaten other non blockstream implementations you defend blockstream wake up |
|
|
|
seems your account was created purely to reply about wright drama.. anyway hotwire was about tax refund demorgan was about "credit" for advanced R&D for certain industries where the industry gets 45% of their research spending. for instance. the difference is, like UK law a tax refund is where you pay X tax.. but you can claim certain things off your tax like having to obtain, replace and wash work uniform and get a refund at the end of the year. this is a tax rebate separately no matter what tax you pay. or your bills or expenses.. you can get tax "credit" just for having a kid the hotwire was a rebate - couple million the demorgan was a credit - 54million |
|
|
|
Some of those people are either actively harming Bitcoin (see Ver), sold themselves to the CIA (see Gavin), sold themselves to the banks (see Hearn), etc. Their latest 'evil' pretty much terminated most of their 'good' (if they ever had any).
you forgot to mention gmax sold himself to the banks too... i wonder why you left him off the list. research: blockstream-> hyperledger i now await the usual "dont troll me", "your wrong but cant explain why your wrong, but your wrong" empty replies. sometimes i laugh at the hypocritical comments you make |
|
|
|
Because Segwit effs up the block architecture at such a low level...
The incompatiblity is by no means unique to segwit, the vast majority of proposed protocol improvements run into exactly the same issue. Commited UTXO, Commited Address index, Commited Bloom filters, Fraud proofs, -- just to name a few more. So what you meant to say was that covert asicboost 'effs' up the block architecture. it doesnt F up the block architecture. you just have to find a different way of doing things. you took a short cut using the backdoor luke highlighted in 2015. and last month you realised you hit a wall where the shortcut was a deadend in future dont wast 1.5 years which shortcuts when doing a proper community desiring node+pool approach would get everything everyone wants without delay, debate and frustration in less time EG if you want to mess around with no witness, prunned, etc.. just make that a new brand. call it core lite, let the multibit/electrum guys play with that as a dev project then YOU could concentrate on a network of proper full node network, not ways to dilute the full node count with all the going soft pretense of "aww its ok to waste 2 years for a messy 2 level (upstream tier nodes) and down stream filtered/stripped/pruned topology." think about it if in late 2015 you just done a release that would have been a proper NODE consensus of a single merkle design 4mb block. you would have had more than 80% acceptance of nodes by now. and a community that would have been happy. and no drama and no asic boost blaming for why segwit soft attempt has issues. (because there wouldnt have been a 2merkle approach) |
|
|
|
|
satoshi was not david K
david K was all about investigating and ID/forensics checking and finding things.. the opposite of satoshi
the david K thing was that craig wright wanted to have a backdoor by saying david created the trust and had the keys initially(both lies). so worse comes to worse craig wright could play the victim card and blame a dead guy by saying craig was fooled into believing he partnered with a fraud.
(truly sickened me when i was reviewing craig wrights story behind the story(reading the narrative behind the words))
|
|
|
|
|
paying anything above say 2% makes it not really beneficial for people/merchants.
- this is because the effort to actually getting bitcoin is one hurdle, then finding a merchant (300k out of 200mill merchants) is another hurdle. so then paying 2%+ to use bitcoin starts to erode all utility.
the only utility then is that the funds are 100% yours, you can send them out without someone elses need to agree to send it or accept it. this is known as a push payment.
- however by removing the push payment utility to openly pay anyone, and turn it into a 'just fund xapo' or 'lock it into an LN channel' removes the permissionless push utility and now funds need a counter party to sign off/agree to the movement of funds
thus now removing the other main utility of bitcoin.
so now the utility has become much like fiat. all we are left with is people that are just looking at the FIAT price daily hoping to get rich quick just to return back to fiat.
leading to the only thing that people will talk about bitcoin being "you can be FIAT rich one day"
|
|
|
|
Weird thing for him to use a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. A full node is any node that keeps a copy of the blockchain.
nope a full node should ALSO validate what it receives. EG just grabbing data from a bittorrent seed. but never independently revalidating the entire blockchain data. may contain bad data somewhere in that download but now we are getting into the personal semantics .. afterall would u say a prunned node is a full node afterall would u say a stripped(no witness) node is a full node |
|
|
|
So what you are saying is that, he potentially is a scam artist who tried to fool the non saavy. What a clown really, if true.
reason being is without ever having any PRIVATE keys. he simply copied a load of early PUBLIC KEYS which he knew would not move funds because they were the satoshi stash that had not moved in the couple years before he copied them. he got a friend to set up a trust. and notorise the PUBLIC keys as the "proof" of collateral (first fraud) he then insured that trust (second fraud) for a large valuation to 'legitimise' the trust. then he used that trust to get MILLIONS from the australian government (third fraud) then he used the new valuation of the trust + australian tax grants to grab further investments (fourth fraud(and now playing a shell / ponzi game)) .. in 2015 the auzzie government smelled a rat and chased him. he fled the country and ended up in england. he thought he can save himself by trying to convince media that he was satoshi to then use media stories as 'proof of identity' (fifth fraud) to hope it would make the auzzie government to back down.. it failed because within hours of showing: MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4= people recognised it was old public accessible data now he is trying to create and apply for patents to try making new collateral to fill the void of old collateral(fraud1-2) hoping it will be enough to sell the new collateral to cover all the legal costs and debt/civil fines and reimbursments he will have to pay the aussie government if ever extradited back to australia .. now you should be upto date with all the drama |
|
|
|
nope he is not nope the evidence was not convincing it was a signature that links to a known satoshi address Take the signature being “verified” as proof in the blog post: MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4= Convert to hex: 3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce Find it in Satoshi's 2009 transaction: https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?format=hexhttps://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe - Input Scripts the thing is. ANYONE in the last 8 years can copy it, its public information. so although it does say that it validates to a satoshi known address. does not mean that craig wright is satoshi
as for the 'social' evidence emails posts and communications have been logged publicly so its easy to read, rehearse and revise them until you memorise them i would have questioned anyone that did know the finer details of things said 6 years earlier. because they know too much for someone that might have said things on a whim to remember so clearly without 'preparing'/rehearsing. after all if you registered a domain 6 years ago.. would you know off the top of your head the exact time/date you registered it. without preparing by checking out the info |
|
|
|
so you dont really agree with Ver, then?
I somewhat agree with you but its such an edge case that its almost irrelevant.
without knowing the context of the tweet. its hard to tell. afterall if you have P - n - n - n -p 3 nodes between a pool (or lets say 6000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus) vs P - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - p 10 nodes between a pool (or lets say 20000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus) the propagation time of getting the data to all entities of the network takes longer, even if your using the '6( 8 ) degree of separation' network connectivity from other hand is harder to DDOS 10 000 nodes than 5 pools  so having a lot nodes allso helps. And in time of uncertainty you can use own node to validate blocks to not get on BTU trap if they fork accidentally. agreed. hense why i was questioning the context of his tweet.. the context might be. "based on the bitcoin network of 2009, not 2017 what is a full node" being a question asked to him elsewhere, but then the question got deleted... but no one can guess the context without finding the source for WHY he make the tweet |
|
|
|
so you dont really agree with Ver, then?
I somewhat agree with you but its such an edge case that its almost irrelevant.
without knowing the context of the tweet. its hard to tell. afterall if you have P - n - n - n -p 3 nodes between a pool (or lets say 6000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus) vs P - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - p 10 nodes between a pool (or lets say 20000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus) the propagation time of getting the data to all entities of the network takes longer, even if your using the '6( 8 ) degree of separation' network connectivity |
|
|
|
You could run 100 full nodes but still you'll need miners to confirm and include your transaction in blocks.
Nodes are agents of miners delivering them TXs and handing out their found blocks to rest of the network.
you could have a pool with a billion exahash, but if the block didnt follow the rules nodes have.. the block is rejected in 3 seconds. its a symbiotic relationship of many elements |
|
|
|
Only a node that is mining is a true full node. The rest are just slowing down the propagation of blocks between the real full nodes. This doesn't make any sense  Full node = all servers that have blockchain ledger Isn't mining completely different than nodes? yes things like asics (miners) dont have any node function/hard drive they just hash a hash. technically a full node is one that does everything, that means validates competitions blocks and makes its own .. like how things were in pre 2013 but since 2013 things have changed and the community have re-termed things.. an 'economic' validation nodes are ones users and businesses use (we socially call them full nodes) there are the lite nodes like electrum / multibit which dont do much more then just create transactions. pool nodes can be full(economic) or lite (spv) now an economic node, a pool node and an asic miner are all separate entities which is good for decentralisation, but still ALL work symbiotically together and spread out to be more diverse and decentralised |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
