Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2019, 01:03:29 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 822 »
181  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are your unfashionable Bitcoin opinions? on: May 21, 2019, 09:16:51 PM
I agree with you. There will still be lapses with Lightning network but we can't deny the fact that lots of users are trusting it and switching to Bitcoin as a mode of payment.
There's a huge increase in adoption and implementation so I also believe that Bitcoin is never far from being the second yet the best currency so far.

call me unfashionable but LN is not bitcoin. LN is a separate network. hint is in what the N stands for.
the unit of measure in LN is Msats which are played around with. and separately those Msats are converted/pegged to represent a bitcoin balance. but could also represent a balance of other coins too.

btc is only btc on the btc blockchain. they never leave.
the unconfirmed playing around/unsettled payments are not confirmed btc ownership. they are just temporary private agreements of possible future ownership (an iou in simple terms)

LN is not bitcoin.
182  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto - Evidence Here on: May 21, 2019, 09:06:01 PM
random dude called Ronald 3 years ago.

your ronald example was registering a name and got it rubber stamped to some EQUITY thing that sounds like bitcoin.
its not the same situation as saying categorically the bitcoin whitepaper

if the ronald dude registered the whitepaper then craig did, then ronald could mess with craig.
but ronald registered for a "equity based peer to peer currency"

all your point is making is that i could register for a "asset based peer to peer currency"
all your point is making is that someone else could register for a "debt based peer to peer currency"
all your point is making is that someone else could register for a "scurity based peer to peer currency"

the ronald example has no point relating to the bitcoin whitepaper

maybe a point to make is if some american paid the $35 and got the name changed to:
satoshi and 'everyone under open licence'
rather than craig and see how easy it is to change that record to remove craigs name
183  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto - Evidence Here on: May 21, 2019, 08:55:40 PM
-snip-
That's great and all, but you are completely missing the point.

The point is that anyone who wishes to can fill in a form for a copyright claim, and it will be registered, as was done so by a random dude called Ronald 3 years ago. Everyone in this forum could fill in the form and we would all have bitcoin registered as our own. It means nothing.

The "Date of Creation" and "Date of Publication" that you are circling are irrelevant. There is a box (3a and 3b) on the form you submit (viewable here: https://www.copyright.gov/forms/formtx.pdf) which the claimant fills in the year of creation and publication. Those entries you have circled simply mimic whatever was entered in those boxes. They says nothing about those data being truthful or verified.

The entire stunt, just like everything to do with CSW, is pathetically laughable.

point is the REGISTRATION was in april.
no one contested it. thus no investigation/no verification process was needed. thus automatic rubber stamp changed
thus in may the C.O changed ownership from an anonymous pseudonym to a guy with a birth certificate.

now that certificate can be used to make many more false claim court cases and hope the defendants 'settle' early just to avoid having to prove its a false claim

lets word it another way.
it cost craig $35 to do this. but would cost someone else alot more now to contest it
184  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Craig Wright, BTC USA Copy Rights/Patent Troll: What is his 'Endgame'? on: May 21, 2019, 08:49:16 PM
no one outside of craigs circle jerk ponzi club cares about bitcoinsv. its just a pump and dump coin.
dont give bitcoinsv another thought.
all that should be thought about is how craig can mess with btc
185  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Craig Wright recognised by US Govt as Satoshi, author of white paper on: May 21, 2019, 08:39:34 PM
The code was released under MIT license. Hilariously, Wright seems very confused about how this works in practice:

but craig with his name on a certificate in relation to the 2008 whitepaper could claim that he created bitcoin under closed source in 2008 and that MIT infringed him. thus try suing MIT, as well as suing whoever he pleases.
yea theres chances he cant win. but in may cases the people getting sued end up 'settling' just to save money.
thats how the world works these days. fake a claim get them to pay you a % early on to just make you go away
186  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are your unfashionable Bitcoin opinions? on: May 21, 2019, 08:22:14 PM
unit bias: agree. mainstream cant concieve of 0.00000100 they prefer 1bit or 100 sat units
currency: partly: as a daily spend/disposable income currency bitcoins deflationary nature makes people 'hodl' not spend
                         as a investment asset currency bitcoins deflationary nature is great
                         howevr to be a asset currency you need to actually have things to buy with it. so one needs the other

scaling: agree. too many people think scaling is about large jumps to rediculous amount. scaling is progresssive.
                      we had scaling in 2009-2015, 0.25mb 2009->2013. 0.5mb2013->2014. 0.75mb 2014-2015. 1mb2015+
                      what we should remember though is offchain/sidechains are ALTERNATIVE NETWORKS
                      saying bitcoin cant scale to advertise a different network and get users to move off bitcoin. doesnt help
                      stifling bitcoins scaling just to promote other networks is ludicrous
                      and yes i agre even these pegged alt networks need bitcoins network to scale just to make the alts work

now my unfashionable opinion

bitcoin is distributed, not decentralised.
bitcoin is not AI, it does not self code. it does not any longer only change due to community opt-in. there is a central dev team that are now too empowered with decisions and they can implement their decisions without community opt-in(consensus)

187  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Craig Wright, BTC USA Copy Rights/Patent Troll: What is his 'Endgame'? on: May 21, 2019, 08:04:36 PM
1) no, he had nothing to do with bitcoin 2008-2011

2) yes, he is doing it to fake his way to privelidge without actually owning the bitcoin collateral
one reason is to get money from others like any ponzi guy would
one reason is he still has the aussie government on his back so is trying literally anything to fake his claims to try getting them off his back

either way. he does not own the satoshi stash of coins that made up his 'tulip trust' so civil courts will still pursue him.
he just hopes to get rich enough to pay them off, inclding other investors he duped.

but putting aside his personal legal issues. by putting his name to claims of patenting the bitcoin whitepaper can lead to him filing new patents and making it a lil harder for others to contest his claims even when its obvious he is a fake. which could lead to him using patents to then sue people frivolously(for nonsense reasons) and mess with the bitcoin community, which could cause alot of negatives and affect peoples utility of bitcoin through official institutions and legit businesses

188  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin HAS intrinsic value. Easy explanation. on: May 21, 2019, 07:50:51 PM
^ opposite of real intrinsic value or physical value, it actually is wasting intrinsic/physical value atm.

When people say intrinsic value, they mean actual physical value.
wrong..... TANGEABLE!
because it's a physical object and will exist almost forever.
wrong..... TANGEABLE!

intrinsic means its backed by something beyond speculation.

bitcoin DOES have intrinsic value because PoW COSTS something to create the coin. just like it costs somthing to mould a brick or excavate gold.

PoS has no COST because people dont put in value that is lost for its creation. PoS coins just temporarily hold someones value and later release the value of the 'stake' thus no loss/cost.

put aside golds UTILITY value (able to make circuits/jewellery) and imagine that anyman and his dog could easily grab a kitchen spoon and a coffee filter, walk into their own back yard and dig up their own gold at the cost of pennies. gold would not be worth $1k because people can get it for pennies.

same for bitcoin. when in october 2018 it became cheaper to mine bitcoin(drop from ~$6k-$3500), by the time november came those able to make profit at $3500 were happily selling at $3500 and thus that was what people valued it at. now it costs more to mine it, people are bying it for more. right now the lowest/luckiest/cheapest mining cost is ~$5k

people need to realise assets are multilayered.
theres the underlying acquisition cost (asics: bitcoin... excavators:gold)
theres the utility value(what can be done with the asset)
then theres the speculation value(the hype/volitile/FOMO/bubble/correction)

things like PoS coins have no bottomline support for acquisition costs,
same with fiat. thy both are created with just a signature

things like PoS coins may have utility value but thats the difference between a crapcoin(useless) and a viable coin. (has use)
same with fiat. there are laws like minimum wage and taxes. but some fiats die out when useless (zimbabwee dollar)

things like PoS coins have speculative value.. but this can just be the pump and dump temporary hype,
same with fiat. the forex markets speculate on if a nation is prospering and how much one nation is in debt to another

when it comes to PoW coins. if the utility value is high. then the desire to acquire it is higher so the underlying cost to create it gets more value. which is why PoW coins like bitcoin will be more superior than PoS coins

189  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: 2FV for site registrations on: May 21, 2019, 05:46:35 PM
Trust me,your phone number isn't such a sensitive and valuable private information.

until they ping your phone and follow your location data of the number and see everywhere you go
190  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Craig Wright recognised by US Govt as Satoshi, author of white paper on: May 21, 2019, 04:55:05 PM
having looked a little deeper than just the clickbait layer

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=15&ti=1,15&Search_Arg=bitcoin&Search_Code=FT%2A&CNT=25&PID=nzoD_881lnuCunVeTvIfD742gwJ8&SEQ=20190521081301&SID=1

seems he registered on the 11th of April 2019 and the copyright office responded by changing the records author on the 20th May 2019

because no one contested the authorship within the month. the C.O didnt do any investigation/verification and just changed it uncontested.

191  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: 2FV for site registrations on: May 21, 2019, 03:39:14 PM
i find it funny that these sites even use cellphone 2FA

would be better if users register a fresh address for sole use of message signing.
and the site just says "sign: 'franky1login21/5/19' to verify"

then only a signature from the known address can prove ownership control of the login
192  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is loss of bitcoin.com a setback for Bitcoin Core? on: May 21, 2019, 02:54:39 PM
to me btc (core) is like the 'petro'/USD of dollar (the more popular world wide and internationally talked about. but instead of trying to proclaim btc(core) as THE one and only bitcoin. is just as bad as calling bch(cash) THE one and only bitcoin

Roll Eyes

That's very disingenuous of you to drag Bitcoin down in Bitcoin Cash's level. Or maybe you were lifting Bitcoin Cash up to Bitcoin's level?

Newbies, don't let him confuse you. There's only one Bitcoin. The Bitcoin with the highest hashing power, the Bitcoin with the greatest marketcap value, the Bitcoin that has the largest accumulated POW, the Bitcoin that has the "BTC" ticker.

All the other forked Bitcoin coins are altcoins.
put your social drama aside. its got nothing to do with faming up cash or faming down core. its about understanding that there is not one. even your own words 'all other forked bitcoins' shows you deep down beneath the social drama still show linkage of 'bitcoin' towards the forks.
by knowing they are forks of. and yes even segwit is a fork of 'bitcoin' 2009-2017. again you know they are forks. and its not to suggest btc is any less popular. its just saying there is not just one.

yes they are altcoins.
analogy: yes canadian dollar is a alt currency of US dollar. yes australian dollar is an alt currency of us dollar. its not suggesting canadian/australian is any better or worse. its just clarifying that the US is not the sole controller of 'dollar'.

you pretending something doesnt exist/didnt happen may help your core loyalty, but doesnt help the millions of people in the world to understand the complexity of the issue

the simplest analogy is the 'bitcoin/dollar' comparison

things would have been diffrent if core fans and devs didnt institute themselves as the power house years ago, and perform rekt campaigns. if they just listened to the community as a whole and stayed as a united single community of multiple brands all working on the same consensus, then things would have been simpler

core having the mindset of "if u dont like our rules "f**k off" is cores own fault


It was the community. Remember UASF. Cool
"UASF" was just a buzzword and a hat logo. the code/implementation method of it didnt actually need community consensus opt-in to activate it. it was a mandatory activation that used/abused 'compatible nodes' and also controlled features like DNS and Fibre. if you really want to get involved in how things technically happened atleast look into it before assuming.


again the mulit community of bitcoin would be a different scenario if things were as a unified consensus network of keeping the commUNITY together (research byzantine generals theory) whereby real consensus is used by making real commUNITY decisions. rather than social drama of 'if you dont like A's rule proposal heres a mandatory aparthied campaign to kick you out' controversial forks
193  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Master Numbers (11, 22, 33) and Satoshi Nakamoto on: May 20, 2019, 08:54:09 PM
and the bonus number........... 12
december=12
the day=12th
year = 2010 = 21 =12
194  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Kevin O'Leary's Take On Bitcoin! on: May 20, 2019, 06:48:44 PM
same with bitcoin the mining cost is not PoS(free) its PoW(costly) so bitcoin has underlying value based on cost of creation, so saying bitcoin is backed by nothing is hilarious

that doesn't agree with the subjective theory of value. if nobody values above $0.00 what miners are spending electricity on, bitcoins are worth precisely nothing. the fact that miners have sunk costs doesn't create demand nor value. it doesn't create buyers.

you think investors are trying to deduce the average cost of mining and evaluating price based on that? lol.....

investors are not deducing the average cost, the mining/market dynamics is always at play
heres a few points

VALUE is not PRICE
VALUE is multlayered.
imagine bitcoins $8k
what if i told you:
$0-$5k was the cost/mining value
$5k-$6k was the utility value
$6k-$8k was the FOMO speculative/hype/bubble value

again if you took away the cost/acquisition. but still had utility then the price would not be $8k
same with gold, if people could mine gold using a spoon and a coffee filter, gold would not b at $1k. even if gold still retained the same utility.

saying that bitcoin is just 100% hype/bubble/speculation shows they dont understand basic economics.. even you admit without utility or cost no one would buy it because:
1. if theres no cost, its free
2. if there is no utility, no one will want it

hre is why the value is not just some random number picked out of a hat by 2 people but is based on a few underlying things

what happens is once the hype /fomo corrects down, people then look at the cost they acquired it for and refuse to sell for less, which given enough time reaches a certain equilibrium. for instance winters mining costs were around $3500 and there were months of opertunities for people who previously bought early on below $3500 to sell out.

those new purchasrs bought at over $3500 and so now more people wont want to sell for under $3500 again because they had their chances and now there are more people holding coin valued at over $3500 than before winter

195  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Question about decentralization on: May 20, 2019, 04:39:54 PM
firstly. seems your reading very biased information from lets say 3-4 years ago, and here is why
1. 'china own mining' is a dead rhetoric thats been around along time. if you actually go and check the numbers the hashrate for china is actually low.
pools such as bitmain(the main one people misinform about) have an OFFICE in china. but the actual factories housing the asics are world wide.
other pools like slushpool are deemed as asian too although they are international and managed by someone whos actually in thailand. same with f2pool which is internationally mined physically, but office managed in the asian region

2. 'keep up the damand for transactions'.. bitcoins mining process does NOT get easier or harder based on transaction count.
no matter how many transactions there are, whether it be 2 or 2million. the length of the initial block collation hash is the same 256bit hash length. which this 256bit hash is then sent to asics(miners) who then re-hash another 256bit hash based on a difficulty that has nothing to do with transaction count, but due to asic competitiveness (number of asic machines trying to hash)
ASIC machines contain no hard drives and do not store or view transactions. the mining algo has nothing to do with transaction demand and is just about calculating a hash of the same 256bit length

3. unlike PoS coins which cost literally nothing to 'mine' because there is no expense put in and lost (no large electric/hardware) pos coins are not going to be valued highly. but because there is alot of value in bitcoin. people put alot of investment into mining it. and as such this retains some bottomline value. for bitcoin to return to desktop mining where one person gets X every 10 minutes the value of bitcoin has to drop first to make it not worth using expensive hardware and electric, and then it has to remain at a low value to keep people from being interested in mining it. unless bitcoin becomes completely useless for real world utility, i cant see this happening
196  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Kevin O'Leary's Take On Bitcoin! on: May 20, 2019, 03:35:31 PM

Anthony Pompliano states that
- Goes on to argue that bitcoin is a belief system, just as the US Dollar is
   - for two people who exchange bitcoin, it has value to each of them

Kevin mocks the halving, saying that it is too arbitrary.
-Goes on to denounce BTC further, saying it is “nothing but raw speculation” and is too volatile

Other reporter- “Well the problem is Bitcoin isn’t tied to anything”


seems 3 people have no clue.
firstly we all know gold has utility value. (circuits and jewellery) and ontop of that it actually costs more than 1cent to get it out of the ground.

imagine gold, exact same utility value, but anyone and his dog could mine gold using a cutlery spoon and a coffee filter in their own back yard. i guarantee you gold would be much much cheaper to buy because it only costs pennies to acquire from other means.

same with bitcoin the mining cost is not PoS(free) its PoW(costly) so bitcoin has underlying value based on cost of creation, so saying bitcoin is backed by nothing is hilarious
saying bitcoin is valued by only 2 people agreeing on a random price is hilarious.

seems people dont understand basic economics
197  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: The Lightning Network FAQ on: May 20, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
bit refill go into detail about msats vs sats.. i dare you
by this i also mean the detail of cltv vs htlc.. i dare you

dont blanket over the details. actually explain how LN functions in the process of
locking funds onchain.
how LN as a separate network decides what/when/if a locked funds tx is valid
then explain how the LN part of 'pushing' payment occurs. including what denomination/tokn is used and if that denomination/token is broadcastable.

dont try skimming and hiding and ignoring the difference between htlc and cltv. dont try to make it sound like only cltv are ever handled.
actually explain it fully.
remember to explain how if there is magic that only permits 6confirm locks to be collateral. how your system breaks the magic to allow 0 confirm collateral, or where users can buy in using coinbase balance/altcoins.
or you can admit there is no magic and that channel partners can agree to whatever they like as the contract/iou is btwen them and only them(no community audit of LN agreement)

too many people only talk about the on-offramp in and out of bitcoin for small case scenario of bitcoin utopian utility in setting up/closing channels. but everyone is missing the point of this topic. which is about LN specifically. not the bitcoin on/offramp


anyway.. for those wondering if windfury even cares about bitcoin. or is just a core kiss ass... here's windfry's opinion on bitcoin
No, Bitcoin is not "superior" to purchase "any goods imaginable". The most efficient way to pay for most goods is simply by fiat, in electronic form like credit/debit cards, or its physical form in the form of cash.
he actually thinks people should stick with fiat (facepalm). let me guess he thinks bitcoin is not digital cash but LN's Msats are? as its very apparent h feels bitcoin is not a viable currency and how only LN's token can do the job
198  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network: 1% Daily Compounded Growth on: May 20, 2019, 08:45:43 AM
bit refill go into detail about msats vs sats.. i dare you
by this i also mean the detail of cltv vs htlc.. i dare you

dont blanket over the details. actually explain how LN functions in the process of
locking funds onchain.
how LN as a separate network decides what/when/if a locked funds tx is valid
then explain how the LN part of 'pushing' payment occurs. including what denomination/tokn is used and if that denomination/token is broadcastable.

dont try skimming and hiding and ignoring the difference between htlc and cltv. dont try to make it sound like only cltv are ever handled.
actually explain it fully.
remember to explain how if there is magic that only permits 6confirm locks to be collateral. how your system breaks the magic to allow 0 confirm collateral, or where users can buy in using coinbase balance/altcoins.
or you can admit there is no magic and that users can agree to whatever they like.
199  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Crypto Expertise Ideas- $100,000,000 into bitcoin for 10 months :) on: May 20, 2019, 08:17:57 AM
pushing the price up is just providing a big gap between the bottomline value and the ATH. you will always be fighting off speculators taking their profits and letting you pump it again for them to just raid you.

the best thing is not to push the speculative ATH up. but to keep the bottom corrections balanced/above a sane level. that way your fighting less people trying to raid you dry and your helping keep value up so that when community speculation returns there is not as much of a jump needed, thus prices remain higher and increase more naturally without needing to pump/get raided as much

EG
summer 2018 value was $5800~ and the price was over $6k. trying to pump the price to $8k thousands of people would have just raided you dry. then when it got cheaper to mine(value drop) to $3500~ in autumn. and price went down to near the same it would have taken much more to get things back up.

however. if you tried to keep value above $3500 in autumn then the community would have got to this months $8k much sooner and without raiding you dry

tl:dr;
dont pump the high's.. pump the lows
200  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: CBS '60 Minutes' 5/19/19 on Bitcoin. Will it cause FOMO or FUD? (Take the Poll!) on: May 20, 2019, 08:05:53 AM
for me the shrem/pizza parts of the show was 'meh', just social drama entertainment.
but when they interviewed the woman who is at a digital currency initiative department of MIT i thought there would be more accurate and deep content. but it seemed she was not very 'MIT' ish

firstly comparing it to fiats 'belief in value, and thats it' (facepalm)

next was the whole describing mining segment involving genesis mining.(facepalm)
ASIC's do not store records(asics have no hard drive).. so saying the mining done by genesis is the location where records are kept can be misguiding people to think genesis mining are 'the bank' and user software just 'watches the numbers and letters'

lastly the MIT woman then has the 50/50 mindset that 'it can flame out and die'. meaning she is on the fense and hasnt really got into understanding the potential

maybe i got this all wrong and the show '60 minutes' is not about 60 minutes of indepth reporting. but 60 minutes of how much effort they put into preparing, researching, interviewing and travelling.(meaning no spare time to double check before publishing)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 822 »
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!