Bitcoin Forum
August 19, 2019, 09:12:01 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 ... 824 »
2421  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bulls are back on: May 07, 2018, 12:51:38 PM
Thankfully, that we can agree on. Hahaha.

At any rate, it is precisely why I keep telling everyone to buy the dip in preparation for the next halving on 2020. The miners' rewards will be cut in half, and it would be crazy of them if they sell it on anything below $10,000.

Buy now while it is under $10,000. It will not go below that again by 2020.

mhm
price drops is never panic day.. its discount day
i still get shocked that people panic sell on discount days when they should actually be buying more while its cheap

EG $15k->$20k
silly fools say "nah im not gonna sell, i think i might buy more. its heading to infinity"
EG $20k->$6k
silly fools say "i should sell. so i dont lose" ... sold.. "OMG I MADE A LOSS, how is that possible"

vs

EG $15k->$20k
smart traders say "i should sell. so i make profit and not lose when it crashes" ... sold.. "OMG I MADE profit.. PARTY"
EG $20k->$6k
smart traders say "nah im not gonna sell, i think i might buy more. averages my coins to a lower price to then be more profitable on the next rise"
2422  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bulls are back on: May 07, 2018, 12:44:50 PM
many trend anals just look at price history. and draw triangles based on mythical numbers of xday average that can vary as they please to create a triangle of any angle they please to make a prediction of anything they please.

but when looking at what actually caused the spikes and dumps there is actually a correlation related to mining cost.
and we are still not out of the forrest where the bears live in regards to the support line caused by mining cost. so we are not quite in the open fields where the bulls graze.

if you want to check out why the october 2013 rise occured check out what month the first ASICS came online. and remember a pool will not sell a coin at a loss.
EG a gold miner if it cost him over $1000 an ounce to mine. wont sell their gold ounces for $1
EG a gold miner if it cost him only $1 an ounce to mine. would sell their gold ounces for $1 and that would mak gold only be around $1

just make a chart of the markets. and then overlay it with the mining costs. and you will see the fleld edge between bull and bear. you will see where the "speculative bubble" (over priced) area's are. and you will see where the main support line is


I see your point, and definitely agree over the long term, miners will only want to sell at prices that are profitable - though they may have made a lot already during the boom, perhaps enough to ride out the time spent in the forests. But mining costs have only risen in the months since the drop from $20k, while it didn't exactly rise so sharply to have helped explain the ride to $20k.

And after halving in 2 years, with even fewer coins to mint, should we expect prices to then skyrocket? I doubt it, everything will be priced in along the way.

the $20k was what is known as a BUBBLE period. where the price went so wildly out of field of value. the bulls went on a rampage. the correction down to $8k in the new year was the bulls being brought back into the fields of value. and then there was a nasty U shape bear run where the forrest bears were ripping up the support trees (prices went below cost of mining)

usually the safest place is the edge of the field that meets the edge of the forrest, which is where true value lays. but running into the bull fields leads you to bubble mountain which then explodes (floor is lava) and everyone runs back to safety.  
2423  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 07, 2018, 12:36:30 PM
Great post, so refrained and elegant yet you highlighted the issues with Bitcoin Cash and its inherent reliance on Ver (taking nothing away from Wu and Zhuoer in this process too)

actually the core fanboys are desparetly trying to point fingres at mouthpiece ver(a theymos mirror-counterpart) as if bitcoin cash is relient on ver. much like sayng bitcoin core is relient on theymos. all to istract the truth that bitcoin cash exists due to bloq

read the 10 pages of this topic and see how many core fans attack jgarzic.. you wont find any. because core fanboys love jgarzic. and deep down they know that its all one big masqurade to point fingers at people that never coded a node, as the person to blame for everything. so that a team that code a node can centralise a network
2424  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 07, 2018, 12:25:04 PM
Quote
just look at the mirror
adam back | craig wright (both scamming to say they invented "bitcoin")

Adam Back never claimed that he was Satoshi Nakamoto. Craig Wright did. That makes Craig Wright a scammer.
i agree CW is a scammer.
but adam back was saying he was part of bitcoins creation too.. yet he wrote no code in 2008-2009 to have created it.

Quote
gmaxwell | Jgarzic (both saying they made the main nodes of the network)

Gregory Maxwell did not try to work with Jihan Wu, Barry Silbert and the NYA to hard fork to S2X. The "scaling debate" was a red herring. It was a political move to take over development and save Bitmain's covert AsicBoost capabilities in their miners.
so Gmax didnt try getting the network to bilateral split? is that what your saying
so gmax didnt employ samson mow to UASF

oh and by the way.. ver and Wu didnt cause the bilateral split.. but hey i understand your too indocrinated by all the reddit propaganda
again BLOQ and BLOCKSTREAM (core team) instigated the bilateral split.
here is gmax literally begging the core opposition to bilateral split, but the opposition wanted a proper consensus. which greg hated as it lwould have left core stuck at 35% if the bilateral split did not occur.. hense why he insisted the only option was BLOQ as a silent partnr to force a bilateral split

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

Quote
theymos | ver (both saying they own and moderate the main information portals)
But Roger Ver's portal is confusing the public that BCH = BTC.

actually roger ver is not claiming bch is btc
roger is claiming cash is "bitcoin"
what you said is like saying RV claims AUD is USD (makes no rational sense)

theymos is claiming core is the only "bitcoin".. check out bitcoin.org.
again the hypocrisy of arguing about team B applies to team A

but hey. instead of talking about "bitcoin" decentralisation you seem to only want to defend core team members

you need to learn both teams are paid by barry silbert. and it is just kardashian drama to get people to argue about if they love Kylie or khloe. pretending its all a fight of 2 surnames and which surname desrves the kardashian brand. all so that they can claim ownership and prevent the other 7billion people from using the brand because they want the name trademarked into the family...
dont you get it no one should own the name.. not team a or b.. but those funding both teams want the sheep fighting about both teams they own to make the community choose one team as the centralist. and thus the funders win either way.

BIG PICTURE THINKING REQUIRED. not core defense small minds
no one should own "bitcoin"

not ver.. not theymos
no one one team should say they are the only node software for the networks not bloq not core
no one scammer manager should pretend they were involved at day one making bitcoin. not C.wright not A.back

but hey.. seems youll defend core till its fiat2.0 and just let it centralise until its time for you to run back to fiat1.0 with your profits. as thats what most core fanboys only care about. making fiat profits. not caring one bit about bitcoins decentralisation
2425  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mining pool political parties? on: May 07, 2018, 04:09:52 AM
there WAS politics. in the form of consensus, which was a feature built by satoshi to allow on-network voting to allow competing idea's to find a compromise that would suite the whole community and if the high majority of the community agreed then the network upgrades to that new feature.

however. core team assured that they had veto power and methods to avoid politics.
last year at the bilateral split. where bitcoin core political party(fanboys) went in the direction of segwit/ln/offchain. and the opposition were thrown in the other direction.

democratic consensus was not used to activate segwit. this is because the core political party only had 35% of the vote(prior to the bilatral split(civil war)). so instead of accepting they did not get their rule set into bitcoin law, they decided to go to civil war by making 2 opposing states so that all the core political fans went to one state and the others went to another state. thus in the core state, it would "appear" that core got its 95% vote. but the only voters allowed to vote after the bilateral split were core friendly.. thus the fair consensus mechanism was abused.

meaning anyone that loves cores political statement (the roadmap) can stay in there boys club and anyone who ever opposes core or decides later to change their loyalty away from being core loyal to not being core loyal will be thrown out.

this is why core has centralised the core network. where by things like Fibre ensure the only blocks that get broadcast to the general public are the core following rules. this is why the general public do not see any orphans being passed around
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=1year
because everyone on the core network is sheep followin the exact rules or will get banned from the network if they ever tried to use democratic consensus feature built by satoshi that meant to allow on-network competition offering an different option for people to vote for or against..

yep cor ensured that its their rule or get banned
2426  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Checking the market Share Graph "other" basically in unstoppablen rise on: May 07, 2018, 01:41:11 AM
market cap stats are meaningless

i could make a coin tomorrow with 5 trillion coins. and sell just 1.. yes 1 coin for $5 and instantly my coin would have a market cap of $5trillion and suddenly jump to the top of the list of market caps.. all for the price of $5

the sooner people dont speculate based on market cap. and instead speculate on price per coin or some other more meaningful metric. the better.
in short
stop giving a crap about market cap
2427  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: why are proof of work (pow) coins better than the coins of icos? on: May 07, 2018, 01:20:20 AM
reason one security
because no one spends alot of funds/time to create the ICO's, no one cares if the system breaks. no one cares about a real 5 -500 year future. and so these coins have no strength/power backing them up. if a hacker group really wanted to waste their time on an ICO they could find many bugs and holes to mess with that system.
but with POW coins. many hackers for years have tried to find ways around POW, but cant break it

take some POS coins
som coins are so buggy that anyone can start at block zero and quicky sign their own blocks containing tx data of their own choosing and quickly create a chain that out paces the chain other people have. making some coin holders then accept the newly created chain and divert away from the old chain (yea some chains dont have mile stone locks to preserve certain chain with a certain hash history)

many ico's spring up so quickly that investors dont even bother reading the source code to check for bugs or do due dilegance to see if the ICO wallet is a real coin wallet or just a trojan filled with key loggers and coin wallet stealing functionality. they simply run first cry later

reason two. value
gold costs somthing becaus see it costs something to make it
air does not cost anything to make

proof of work is proof of labour. knowing it costs x to make 1btc, makes people know that pools wont sell below x. and as time goes on and historic puchases of cheaper coins get sol, the new buyers wont sell below their price and so a minimumm(bottom) price emergs and over time increases.

but other ICO's that just make coins out of no where with no cost of creation. have no bottom value. no costs that need to be covered and so thy can be sold at any price and so they will not have the same long term price incline as POW

..
now imagine if it didnt require large excavators and sluce machines to mine gold, costing over $1k a ounce. imagine gold could be found with a simple magnet for $1.. the price of gold would be only a few dollars right now. even without messing with the supply/demand/utility. just messing with the cost of production would effect the end value.

imagine bitcoin didnt need an average of xx exahash to mine a bitcoin. but was made by 2 people in a garage spending just $1 a day in electric. they would be selling bitcoin to cover their electric and bitcoin would not be as high as it is now.

check out the price data for around autumn 2013. (october).. then check out events.. like the hashrate of that period. yep. ASICS were first launched publicly in october 2013, which is where the first major price rise began
2428  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash Dilemia on: May 06, 2018, 03:21:49 PM
bitcoin is owned by no one

bitcoin.com talks about cash
bitcoin.org talks about core

both sides need to clarify that they are
bitcoin core
bitcoin cash

much like the analogy of "dollar"
america talks about U.S dollar
australia talks about A.U dollar

both sides need to clarify that they are
U.S dollar
A.U dollar

again no one should own "bitcoin"
if you are going to rebut to say that the network with the core rules, the core bips, the core roadmap, and the team that have paid devs from blockstream who are also making segwit and lightning.. should be and own bitcoin.. then you have said goodbye to decentralisation.

which is what they want. they want decentralisation to die and to only have distribution (their buzzword: distributed ledger technology (DLT))

so any argument you can have against ver also applies to theymos (both promote a team as being "the bitcoin")
so any argument you can have against jgarzic also applies to PWuille(both coded a node that maintains the rules and introduces new rules)
any argument you have against craig wright also applies to adam back (both falsely proclaim they invented bitcoin but neither coded anything in 2008-2009)

because if you take a few steps back.. you will realise the whole bilateral split event was designed to fake democracy, purely to activate a bip that had 35% vote. by distracting the opposition into another coin which. in actual fact is maintained, created and activated by the same group funding the core team.

so by saying X deserves it or Y deserves it. is the same as saying "someone" deserves it.
NO ONE DESERVES IT.

the bilateral split was not just a random altcoin event. it was a bi-directional split of equal direction change. both sides became an alt that is now different to the old chain. no side has claim over being the one and only.

if you intend to play the game that if someone hates core they must love cash.. is just playing th sheep game of fake choice.
look beyond the tactics of the only choice being team A or team B and bickering over which..

bitcoin should be ownd by no teams and so no one should defend core and no one should defend cash
.
now take a few steps back,, take off any team defense caps off.. take a few deep breaths and think about decentralised bitcoin.
2429  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 06, 2018, 09:56:15 AM

even funnier part is because i dont like cores centralisation you think the opposers to centralisation should be pigeon holed into another team..
that there is the mindset of someone who deep down thinks centralisation is the only way things function.
'if your not team X you must be team Y'

you have become so indocrinated that your even using their words "big blockers", like you have been handed a script.

you are still stuck in the 2 sided battle mindset that you cant see the big picture

i explained it many times..
bloq who made cash is paid by the same investors as blockstream who make core



its a massive kardashian drama distraction to cause people who hate core(kim fanclub) to be pushed into one of the other sisters fanclub.. simply to get core(kims) fans to not see the opposers, allowing core(kim) to do what she likes, while trying to get the opposers indocrinated into being deceived back into centralisation by making them favour another of the same family(DCG) member

its like sheep herding. where the farmer(dcg) has a field. he sends his sheep dogs(blockstream/bloq) to scare some sheep into a neighbouring field. the sheep think they are freeing themselves by running through the open gate into another field. but they dont realise the farmer owns that field too

just look at the mirror
adam back | craig wright (both scamming to say they invented "bitcoin")
gmaxwell | Jgarzic (both saying they made the main nodes of the network)
theymos | ver (both saying they own and moderate the main information portals)

people who beleive in real decentralisation should be saying
NO TEAM owns "bitcoin". the bilateral split seen to that
both sides can use "bitcoin" but must clarify if its the bilateral fork made by cores rules or by cash's rules
bitcoin.org also needs to be less biased about core if you think that bitcoin.com needs to be less biased about cash.

if you disagree then you really are stuck in the core monarchy defense camp
it makes it real obvious that most already want core centralisation. because they refuse to pretend decentralisation exists, because if they wer decentralists they would attack jgarzic
jgarzic has not been attacked FOR MAKING cash. because the core fanboys know he is one of their own monarchs

i tried to keep the whole british manarchy/commonwealth/empire comparison short by only using the modern analogy of "dollar" just to keep it ELI-5 but it seems too many are too stuck in a centralist mindset to see it.
so to americans. who think they all speak english, just like canada and australia. you can pretend you speak english and that english is your language you own. but its not. you speak american. its pot8o not pot@o.

so to australians. who think they all speak english, just like canada and america. you can pretend you speak english and that english is your language you own. but its not. you speak australiann. its good day not ga'day.

you must clarify that you are american when dealing in international communications and clarify that your currency is american dollar as oppose to australian dollar.and that you can use the term "dollar" but do not own "dollar" brand.  

but im guessing most will just continue reading the scripts of reddit(cores church/bible) and preach the word of core religion
so just if you cannot get out of the religion. atleast be honest and preach
"decentralisation is dead, long live distribution"

have a nice enclosed life and enjoy fiat2.0 of banker managed hubs, if your not gonna bother seeing the big picture to fight for real decentralisation
2430  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 05, 2018, 05:55:43 PM
it seems theymos and core fanboys trying very hard to try to substitute bitcoin core into bitcoin so try to buy some assets and a website called bitcoin.org and used to inform bitcoin core. it's sad if new users make a mistake when buying.

all arguments about bitcoin cash can be made about bitcoin core
all arguments about bitcoin.com can be made about bitcoin.org

the reality is NEITHER are "the one and only sole bitcoin" the bilateral split seen to that

but it makes the situation alot clearer if you can be smart enough to take an unbiased step back (300 steps back for some) and then translate the crypto buzzwords into the dollar buzzwords. to then see it in a ELI-5 plain english average joe understanding

i still cant beleive that after atleast 10 topics of atleast half a dozen pages per topic that people ignore the bilateral split and instead do all they can to defend core as "the one and only bitcoin" maintainers.

to those that want to scream there is only one bitcoin and its the one that contains the code rules and bips and roadmap maintained by core.. just o one thing
just proclaim this
"decentralisation is dead long live distrubution" and stop pretending that core can own the brand yet prtend its all still decentralised

so just proclaim "decentralisation is dead.. long live distribution" and move on living in your monarchy and you kissing a kings ass and liv in your centralist world.
2431  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 05, 2018, 05:18:25 PM
Wrong.  I'm saying consensus decides what is and isn't Bitcoin.  Individual dev teams don't even enter into the equation.  

the bilateral split was not consensus.
if blockstream/bloq did not do the bilateral split. then core would still be at 35%

thats the whole point..

it was not a consensus challenge
it was a contentious bilateral FORK where both sides went separate ways

again you are still pretending that core are the original and sole holder of "bitcoin" brand by saying what you are saying

It's not about Core you belligerent tit.  How many more times do I have to say it?  And yes, both sides did go their separate ways, but one of those sides was much bigger.  If BCH had attracted a majority hashrate and a majority economy, I'd be here right now making the argument that BCH is Bitcoin.  But I can't make that argument because they didn't attract a majority hashrate and a majority economy.  Ergo, they are an altcoin and BTC is Bitcoin.  It really is that simple.  The numbers weren't on their side, so they don't get to be Bitcoin.  They're something else and they need to get comfortable with that.  So do you, it seems.

You can claim you think BCH is better than Bitcoin.  You can assert that BCH is closer to Satoshi's vision.  You can lavish whatever praise you want on BCH and their chosen direction.  All of that is fine.  
But it isn't Bitcoin.  End of.

btc moved away from the single empire just as much as bch moved away from the single empire.
their is now no single empire. no one owns the empire or the branding.
not cores codebase of segwit and the roadmap that makes up BTC
not cashs codebase that makes up Bch

stop pretending cores protocol cores codebase, cores rules, cores features that make up btc own "bitcoin"
the bilateral split seen to that.

put it this way
if there was not a august 2017 bilateral split. and instead a consensus vote of a SINGLE network upgrade. then that single empire would retain the brand and all the opposing nodes would continue to run on the single network as a single nation

but the civil war/bilateral split. showed they both surrendered to walk in different directions. they both equally lost the battle of being a single network being "the bitcoin"

you want to prtend your not defending core by saying "btc" owns "bitcoin" solely and fully..
anyway i could take it one step further and we could argue all day about why should core even own the term BTC.

the network of CORE rules has no rights of ownership to the brand.. if you disagree and think the network of core rules should own the brand then you are just saying core own the network. because they are the maintainers and rule setters of that network.

if you still cannot see the loyalist spech you are making that cores rules should own "bitcoin" then you are too close to kissing cores ass..
take a few steps back..
if you cant see it still.. take a few more steps back

again you cant just say america gets to own brand dolar due to america having larger population.. thats the weakest defence of all and belongs as a punch line on a stand up comedy night..
it would be the case in a concensus situation.. but a consensus situation did not occur. so is meaningless

the reason its funny. because after a bilateral split.. you are saying if lets say it became extremely profitable to mine bitcoin xyz(random made up) and suddenly that random fork over powered core in hash rate.. would you then claim bitcoin xyz(random made up) is now the sole and only bitcoin

or would you still say bitcoin core(btc) was the real and only bitcoin
2432  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bulls are back on: May 05, 2018, 04:56:21 PM
many trend anals just look at price history. and draw triangles based on mythical numbers of xday average that can vary as they please to create a triangle of any angle they please to make a prediction of anything they please.

but when looking at what actually caused the spikes and dumps there is actually a correlation related to mining cost.
and we are still not out of the forrest where the bears live in regards to the support line caused by mining cost. so we are not quite in the open fields where the bulls graze.

if you want to check out why the october 2013 rise occured check out what month the first ASICS came online. and remember a pool will not sell a coin at a loss.
EG a gold miner if it cost him over $1000 an ounce to mine. wont sell their gold ounces for $1
EG a gold miner if it cost him only $1 an ounce to mine. would sell their gold ounces for $1 and that would mak gold only be around $1

just make a chart of the markets. and then overlay it with the mining costs. and you will see the fleld edge between bull and bear. you will see where the "speculative bubble" (over priced) area's are. and you will see where the main support line is
2433  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 05, 2018, 04:40:12 PM
Wrong.  I'm saying consensus decides what is and isn't Bitcoin.  Individual dev teams don't even enter into the equation.  

the bilateral split was not consensus.
if blockstream/bloq did not do the bilateral split. then core would still be at 35%

thats the whole point..

it was not a consensus challenge
it was a contentious bilateral FORK where both sides went separate ways

again you are still pretending that core are the original and sole holder of "bitcoin" brand by saying what you are saying
2434  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 05, 2018, 04:28:55 PM
I am not sure this propaganda is the best way forward but theymos really should think about ethics and morals and he should use bitcoin.org domain in a clearer manner

FTFY

the real funny part is most of the sheep dont even realise.. the bilateral split was actually instigated by the core/blockstream/bloq guys that are all funded by the same power house DCG.co
cores roadmap only had 35%.. if it was not for samson mow(blockstream USAF) and jgarzic(bloq bitcoinABC) .. both funded by DCG.co.. to do the bilateral split. thr would not have been a split.

and the funnier part is no one is attacking the blog or blockstream guy for causing it all.

all the sheep seem to be doing is regurgitatiing the chewed up grass fed to them from reddit fields to attack cores opposition simply to give core more centralised power. and yet the sheep cant even see it. they too busy chewing the grass to see the length of the field they are stood in

you are all soo stuck into wanting core to be your monarchy. but then pretend having a monarchy makes you freemen.. (facepalm)
2435  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 05, 2018, 04:12:04 PM
if those owning bitcoin.org are only advertising core and treating bitcoin core as the sole and only bitcoin network. then they are being hypocritical when then trying to argue about other websites

We've been through this.  Chains aren't named after dev teams.  BTC is not the "core chain", so stop trying to claim otherwise.  People aren't going to erroneously start calling it "Bitcoin Core" just because the bitcoin.com website has engaged in dishonest marketing practices.  "Bitcoin Core" is a dev team, a repository and a client.  It is not a chain.  Altcoins can call themselves "Bitcoin Whatever", but "Bitcoin" will continue to be whichever one has the largest economic majority and most accumulated proof of work.  In case you hadn't noticed, that's not BCH.  

btc is maintained by the core team
and if you want to play the population game then youll see why i am comparing it to america in the fiat analogies.. oh look america has the higher population of a country that uses the dollar brand.
but the brand "dollar" is not owned by one country!!

but the brand "bitcoin" is not owned by one team!!

so every argument you can say about australia can also be said about america
so every argument you can say about cash can also be said about core

BTC=USD
BCH=AUD

bitcoin core = U.S dollar
bitcoin cash = A.U dollar

core=america
cash=australia

bitcoin=dollar

yes in a decentralised world core would not own BTC. but the thing is even you think that cores rules and cores protocol and cores bips and cores roadmap that made up the fork that is known as BTC should be the only currency called "bitcoin".
you keep on repeating the scentiment that the network maintained by core is bitcoin and anything else is an attack / alt.

you have to take 2 steps back and realise that
you may not even realise you are doing it, but you are...
you are defending core as the sole maintainer of btc(usd) and wanting the btc(usd) currency to be the only currency that uses bitcoiin(dollar)

again take off the core(america) defence hat. stop pretending that its about attacking the opposition. and think about bitcoin(dollar).. not core(america) not cash(australia). but only think about bitcoin(dollar). not btc(USD) not bch(AUD)..  just open your mind and think about the ownership of bitcoin(dollar)

then and only then will you see the hypocrisy of trying to defend one side(country) as the sole brand owner

btc(usd) and bch(aud) both equally split in different directions. so niether have sole claim of "bitcoin" so if you really truly and honestly want to say core(america) are not "the bitcoin" then you should also be lobbying to get bitcoin.org(dollar.america) to stop promoting btc(USD) and core(america) as the only bitcoin(dollar)

sincerely.. take 3 steps back from your loyalty. have a proper strong cup of coffee and have a real hard deep think about it. and i mean really think about it without defending core(america)
because it really seems all this drama is about is giving "bitcoin" brand to the core(america) team
2436  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 05, 2018, 02:10:14 PM
Since it is bitcoincash.org that came off the back of a fork and is confusing people the onus is on bitcoin cash to stop trying to fool people in to thinking bitcoin cash is bitcoin

you are really stuck in the mindset that core own bitcoin..
lol you got things round the wrong way

and by not making the argument that core too should clarify things. you are being hypocritical.

bitcoincash.com can advertise just bitcoin cash
bitcoincore.com can advertise just bitcoin core..

but bitcoin.org  should not just advertise just core or act like core is the only bitcoin. because thats as hypocritical as the argument you try to make about bitcoin.com

notice bitcoin.com bitcoin.org .. are not specific.
notice bitcoincore.com  bitcoincash.com are specific

again fiat analogy
dollar.org should not just advertise american dollar
dollar.com should not just advertise australian dollar
however
usdollar.org can advertise just american dollar
audollar.com can advertise just australian dollar

do i really need to explain things more simply.. i thought ELI-5 was simple enough..

if those owning bitcoin.org are only advertising core and treating bitcoin core as the sole and only bitcoin network. then they are being hypocritical when then trying to argue about other websites
2437  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 05, 2018, 11:40:04 AM
Right now: When people go to bitcoin.ORG they are learning about Bitcoin CORE and downloading Bitcoin CORE wallets. Not enough clarity is given to differentiate between the two. It is confusing for newbies and others.

dont you see the hypocrisy..
dot org is about core and dot com is about cash

again take a step back from defending and implying core own "bitcoin" and you might see the hypocrisy
2438  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What is the cryptocurrency market world division ? on: May 05, 2018, 02:45:57 AM
no way to really know

take for instance some exchanges that say they are HQ'd in a specific country. but their many users are not even residents of that country and do not deposit that countries fiat. they just deposit btc and daytrade/arbitrage different currency pairs and take btc out again. thus they mess up any known figures of proper residents.

secondly. the volumes dont reveal anything either.
say the volume was 100k btc. this does not mean one person holds 100k btc. this could mean 2 people played ping pong and used bots to rapidly make 100k trades of a single 1btc.. again thus they mess up any known figures of proper residents just buying bitcoin.

market caps and market volumes are MEANINGLESS

as i said if exchange(a) volume shows 100,000btc traded in a day and exchange(b) says 90,000btc traded in a day.
does NOT mean
(a) has 100k held
(b) has 90k bitcoins held
so no one can declare (a) as the wealthier/more used exchange

infact
(a) could have 2k coins and those 2k coins were circulated by 5,000 people(0.4btc each)  50 times
(b) could have 10k coins and those 10k coins were circulated by 10,000 people(1btc each)  9 times

where by volumes would appear that (b) only done 90k volume but infact has more btc held and more users registered
2439  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 05, 2018, 02:12:22 AM
There are fake versions of Bitcoin, Litecoin and Monero on the market. If this gets a lawsuit, those should as well.

they dont call themselves fake versions, actually they are just people doing a "me too" cryptocurrency, similar like those companies that imitate kellogs and also create breakfeast fries under a different logo, there was no god telling everyone that bitcoin and sathshi nakamoto is now the worlds cryptocurrency.

bitcoin was the group that dared to make it, as everyone else was scared (illegal no license) or didnt believed doing one was worth it, even nakamoto doubted the success.

to clarify things

if a coin is 99% reused code, but restarts at block zero with a few alterations to average block time and total supply. these are known as shitcoins and should not contain the word "bitcoin" at all as they have no tx history belonging to the chain satoshi himself used (no satoshi to hal tx for instance)

if a coin does contain some historic data that belongs to satoshis genesis block and tx of known bitcoin users. then it could use the "bitcoin" brand
however if they forked without a "bitcoin" event its a unilateral fork. so it could also make its own name (clams for instance)

now the thing with bitcoin core and bitcoin cash specifically is that both bitcoin core and bitcoin cash had a promoted bilateral SPLIT event. yep they both split and both went in different directions to the old chain. so they should use the "bitcoin" name

but remember no dev team should own the brand. yep that includes the bitcoin core team too.

for instance. the "dollar" comparison
originating from british colonies. when countries split from british empire currency they used was "dollar".
very technically. if i was to be anal. satoshi's invention 2009-2013 "bitcoin" would have been the "pound", yea very anal
and then when core took over 2013, core became the "dollar" and thus should not have been called "bitcoin"(pound).. but something else...
.. yes there was discussion to rename it core coin. but in the end they stuck with "bitcoin" because forks and switching names was not a thing then

but thats just going real anal so lets ignore the satoshi-qt to bitcoin core switch(2009-2013)

so lets just start things from the "dollar" perspective that had british colony backstory
so lets just start things from the "bitcoin" perspective of 2013+ that had satoshi genesis and certain amount of satoshi's tx data(2009-2013)

anyway. because certain coins did derive from and includes data of the 2013+ chain so should use the "bitcoin". but just like dollar. its important to inform people if its bitcoin core or bitcoin cash.(U.S or A.U) and to stop treating just one as the one and only "bitcoin" and stop trying to say the other is fraud, fake, non existant.

this means bitcoin.org should not pretend core is the only bitcoin. nor should bitcoin.org pretend bitcoin cash does not exist

yes in local closed door common conversation can people abbreviate bitcoin core or bitcoin cash to "bitcoin" when trading with other like minded community that use the same network. but should never declare to the whole world that only one network team OWN the brand.

EG australians in australia can just say dollar. but when talking openly to the world it must be clarified that they are talking about A.U dollar
EG amerians in america can just say dollar. but when talking openly to the world it must be clarified that they are talking about U.S dollar

EG core in core specifc areas can just say bitcoin for abbreviated conversation sake. but when talking openly in open non specific forums must clarify that they are talking about bitcoin core
EG cash in cash specific areas can just say bitcoin for abbreviated conversation sake. but when talking openly in non specific forums must clarify that they are talking about bitcoin cash

other coins which just decided without any "bitcoin" event. to start running a node on a separate network is not a bilatral split.and thus have less prominance to declare they are part of the "bitcoin" family.

again this whole thing could have been avoided IF he core team and their partner bloq did not do a bilateral split. because the reality is that core is not the sole owner of "bitcoin" no matter how much people want to pretend it is. no matter how many lawsuits they want to file core should not have sole ownership of "bitcoin"
2440  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What's the most confirmations a tx has had before being orphaned / dropped? on: May 04, 2018, 11:56:09 PM
the worse case for a BLOCK was about 13 confirms..
this was due to a major bug, rather than normal disagreement consensus

but you asked about a TX confirm. which is more individual and harder to really chart/locate information about
(tx's in opposing blocks normally get accepted in the rule following block asap. so a TX would in most cases been re-accepted in under 13 confirms usually)
(apart from if there was a high backlog of TX's in mempool and the rule following block creator cherry picked different tx's than the orphaned block and left some tx's lingering)
(apart from in double spend activities where a spender decides not to re-broadcast his tx)
.. yea its more complicated

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448/
Quote
the 0.8 chain was 13 blocks longer than 0.7. But that was the furthest that the 0.8 chain would get ahead. By then, the two chains were growing roughly in lockstep, and at about 03:30 the tipping point came. The 0.7 chain quickly caught up to being only 10 blocks behind, then 8 blocks, and at 06:19 both chains converged to the same length at block 225454, leading to nearly all remaining miners abandoning the other.

though most tx's were "confirmed"(eventually) in both chains where a tx would seem confirmed on 0.8, then orphaned then confirmed on 0.7 as the merchants switched and as 0.7 caught up.
there was a chance that some tx's dropped by 0.8 were not picked up by 0.7 and needed a user to rebroadcast, where if a user did not rebroadcast they would just keep the coins. and if lucky would have also have already got their goods or service too when it was initially confirmed on 0.8. thus the merchant loses out and the customer can spend their funds later on elsewhere (this is called double spend) or as you using laymans terms call "reversal".

..
anyway
prior to core becoming the de-facto rule setter last summer and anything else being deemed an enemy. there were a chance of upto 4 orphans happening a day due to normal consensus disagreement. most(nearly all) were of 1 confirm blocks that just got dropped within seconds.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=2years

though now due to cores heavy handedness of litterally banning nodes that do not conform to cores way. the chances of disagrement has dropped
some see it as more confidence to accept tx's with a lower confirm. some see it as core centralised the network that no one can challenge them
where by if core did get a bug, if everyone was also blindly using cores code equally, everyone would have the bug too and so the network would stall or break due to everyone getting affected.

but lets talk about before last summer. and the rationale for 6 confirms
this rationale is that in normal circumstances people should not trust 1 confirm for large amounts as "immutible"
because each day there were up to 4 occurances of 1 confirm orphans(2.8% risk a day).. basically every 36th block a block of 1 confirm may orphan
then the maths increase where once every fortnight a block of 2 confirms may orphan due to normal consensus disagreement
then the maths increase where once every 3 years a block of 3 confirms may orphan due to normal consensus disagreement
and so on
to the extent that at 6 confirms. due to normal consensus disagrement(not a bug) the chance of a 6 confirm orphan happening were centuries
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 ... 824 »
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!