Bitcoin Forum
September 19, 2019, 09:21:57 AM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 ... 827 »
3101  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am against Bitcoin Cash and here is why on: July 28, 2017, 03:47:45 PM
Dude, bitcoin is not a charity, the protocol doesn't exist to help 'the poor', this is a technical issue and should be treated as such and solved amongst the experts, which are the Bitcoin Core developers.

^ mindsets like this is where you give over your free will to dictators because you "trust" them purely because they MIGHT be better than a sheep.
its not about 'helping the poor' its about not letting certain cartel from restricting/ignoring/avoiding and prohibiting the poor from using it
3102  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is NOT mathematically limited to twenty one million bitcoins on: July 28, 2017, 02:18:59 PM
dont be a fool.

first of all.. at code level there are no "21million coins"

its all based in satoshis as the units of measure

EG
125000000sats per block reward right now, which mathematically gets to be ~21 quadrillion units of measure once 'rewards' have gone through all thir halvings.

[certain cartel] have already been salivating at the idea of changing
125000000units of measure per block(at code level).. to become
125000000000units of measure per block reward.. to be stupidly compatible with the [certain cartel]:LN code - (research millisats)

so think long and hard about the effect it has
..( v their lame excuse v )
 the way the code has been written in satoshis.. there will be a issue in 8 halvings time not 29 more as some thought.
.) 1250000000
1.) 625000000
2.) 312500000
3.) 156250000
4.) 78125000
5.) 39062500
6.) 19531250
7.) 9765625
8.) 4882812.5
..

so something has to change to avoid rounding errors.. and then again in 12 halvings from now(if they went with the 1000 multiplication of units of measure) another alteration would be needed

12.) 305175.78125

some people think its good to add on more units of measure. but that just extends the 'reward' mining for a few years

changing the units of measure is something to think about when needed to change things in 32 years time+.. but doing it now and then keep doing it is just ruining some aspects of bitcoin that made it better than fiat.. just ends up being done just to let people be greedy rather than as a fix for an issue thats not an issue right now

..
in short
although the GUI will incorrectly pretend there are only 21mill bitcoins. the number of shareable units will carry on increasing


please note my post contents of the maths is correct but i had to remove some of the comments about a certain cartel to avoid censorship deletions of my posts, so i apologise that the context does not flow
3103  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Is BitcoinCash a joke? on: July 27, 2017, 11:37:12 PM
from what i have read bitcoincash meant to be a bilateral split (an accepted and obvious altcoin)

so with that said. it just seems like drama

gmax loves to decline being part of any code when things go wrong, so why care.
its open source decentralised so anyone is free to copy and use it anyway.

i would laugh if they did put gmax's company name into the code...
but then ofcourse everyone would see gmax cry and scream to get it taken away because he does not want to be seen as part of their project.

gmax would scream blue murder that he does not endorse or promote the code. and would then scream to not trust the code anyway because in his eyes its not been peer reviewed by his company. nor is it gmax's code due to all the "551 files changed, 54096 insertions(+), 47943 deletions(-)" changes which makes it no longer his companies code.

.
in short gmax is creating drama where attributed or not gmax will complain either way

in very short
gmax is a drama queen

to gmax
how about stop being a corporate economist and go back to being a programmer.
how about actually work on a tx fee priority formulae, instead of shouting "just pay more" and then finding ways to bloat the blockchain with your "ct pedersen commitments"

and then
if you really wanna be anal about attributions then write cores 'copyrights' list with EVERY contributor. meaning comment every line of code with a tribute to who wrote it.

or
how about realise that bitcoin should be owned by no single party/team

and stop trying to be a controlfreak, emphasis on control...though im sure your drama queen qualities will take issue with the freak mention
3104  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Educate me: What are the dangers of a block size increase? on: July 26, 2017, 03:34:30 PM
and to clarify and demystify the fud

A hard fork requires waiting for sufficient consensus.- true: with consensus the risks are minimal to nill
    Risk of catastrophic consensus failure - should be reworded: risk of failure without consensus
    An emergency hard fork that can achieve consensus can be deployed on a short time period if needed.importance is achieving consensus
    Orphan rate amplification, more reorgs and double-spends due to slower propagation speeds only if blocks increment to a large magnitude instead of small increments
    European/American pools at more of a disadvantage compared to the Chinese pools - then set up a pool in any 200 countries if america has issues
    "Congestion" concerns can be solved with mempool improvements including transaction eviction - but still doesnt solve the need for more capacity
    No amount of max block size would support all the world's future transactions on the main blockchain - no one needs world domination by midnight, chill!!
(various types of off-chain transactions are the only long-term solution) - nope offchain solutions are just the corporate desire to get back to 'managed funds'
    Fast block propagation is either not clearly viable, or (eg, IBLT) creates centralised controls.- it is viable if you think logically and rational, not exagerated and beyond rational

Damage to decentralization

    Larger blocks make full nodes more expensive to operate.- it is viable if you think logically and rational, not exagerated and beyond rational[/color]
    Therefore, larger blocks lead to less hashers running full nodes, - hashers dont even run nodes. unscrew a asic you wont find a hard drive
which leads to centralized entities having more power, which makes Bitcoin require more trust, which weakens Bitcoins value proposition. - pure fud
    Bitcoin is only useful if it is decentralized because centralization requires trust. Bitcoins value proposition is trustlessness. - which is why offchain is not the solution
    The larger the hash-rate a single miner controls, - hashrate and blocksize are 2 separate entities and have no impact on each other
the more centralized Bitcoin becomes and the more trust using Bitcoin requires. risk of centralisation is lower compared to centralising via offchain
    Running your own full node while mining rather than giving another entity the right to your hash-power decreases the hash-rate of large miners.
- asics(hashers) have been around for 4 years, and have not had a hard drive/node/blockchain in a "hasher" since..
Those who have hash-power are able to control their own hash power if and only if they run a full node. - again 4 years out of date fud.
    Less individuals who control hash-power will run full nodes if running one becomes more expensive[4]. - incremental growth naturally and logically and rationally is not a problem



if you see people cry about "gigabyte blocks" or "visa comparison" .. just tell them thats the 20+ year plan... not the 6 month-year plan. then tell them to stop scaring off small increments every 6 months-year purely because of pretending the 20 year goal has to happen now

20 years AGO people were using floppy disks only holding 1.4mb but physically larger than post-it notes, now its 256 GB the size of a fingernail
20 years AGO people were using 56k dial up... now its Fibre and 5G

so the future has much capability.. once you think logically instead of exagerating
3105  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The real battle and the dark future of bitcoin on: July 24, 2017, 03:18:17 AM
If fiat currency is traceable then why can't this so called banks can't track thr robbers that stole from the bank. Everyday there are reported hacks or data breach from this centralized banks but only few of this cases has been resolve. Clearly you dont even know how bitcoin works yes it's secured cause it has a pseudoanonymous function but it that doesn't mean that it's completely untraceable. The reason people prefer using bitcoin is they dont want governments to always in control with their transactions and to prevent third party services like paypal, Andro pay from stalking you and charging from unreasonable fees.

remember what you say here. because with LN you have to join your funds with another party. and that other party can decide not to sign their half unless you pay X. they can blackmail you into wanting to exit the contract by you broadcasting a tx, which they can then broadcast their revoke and take it back (much like chargebacks). so dont think of LN as a solution, it is simply joint bank accounting where the other party can affect you..

plus the way the LN 'routes' are found via LN dns seeds means that in many cases the DNS owners will prefer to send peoples channels via the dns seed owners prefered hub to generate more fee's for that group.

LN is banking/paypal2.0 so please keep your mindset you hav in the quotation above and dont end up being like the other BScartel sheep hoping for LN to be the sole solution for bitcoin

3106  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The real battle and the dark future of bitcoin on: July 24, 2017, 02:38:17 AM
What do you think of the single transactions running into millions of dollars in a single payment and untraceable? Are these like traveller's cheques? Are YOU going to define and enforce such light-weight usage of bitcoins? Why should they use bitcoin for such large payments, instead of using fiat currency? Can you think of reasons behind these "great-minded" ethical bitcoiners?

get your mind out of "gigabytes by midnight"

we dont need to be 7billion people buying chewing gum by tomorrow.. bitcoin was suppose to have bumped up to 2mb by 2011 and then bumped up again a couple times more by now.

w also should not have got into the tx fee war which has pushed out the normal spending utility either. for the same reasons of the last paragraph i just mentioned.

yet even now even with segwit. all that is being promised is the same HOPE of 7tx/s as 8 years ago.(no progress at all)
scare stories of "gigabytes by midnight" are not used to prove 8mb is bad. but used to scare people into thinking anything above 1mb is bad... which is foolish and been debunked.

knowing natural growth of incremental changes over time allows (obviously) natural growth and capability.. is how we should be thinking.
so please dont use extreme circumstances of small or large. and instead think of natural growth over time. then you will see there are no problems

too many people want to scream kill government tonight and get everyone over to bitcoin before sunrise.. which i facepalm.
we need to think grow naturally over time and let people freely move across while governments naturally fail their people and crumble ovr the next few years/decades.
3107  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The real battle and the dark future of bitcoin on: July 24, 2017, 02:26:39 AM
Fiat is a dam waiting to burst.

yep. but allowing people an open option to move away from the dam(fiat) to dry land(bitcoin) while the dam exists...is the easier option..
 as oppose to throwing dynamite at the dam before the dry land can cope ..

let the dam crack and break all by itself over years to decades. rather than trying to break the dam tonight and then cry that bitcoin(dry land) cant cope because the infrastructure has not been built yet
3108  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The real battle and the dark future of bitcoin on: July 24, 2017, 01:38:34 AM
many people think bitcoin has to within 2 years become the "gigabytes by midnight" concept of replacing all fiat/visa transactions of the world.
over throwing governments etc.

the reality should be that bitcoin should remain outside of government jurisdiction and be more of the 'travellers cheques' replacement. where anyone can access and use them in any country freely without all the tax government bureaucracy.

it doesnt require jumping to 7billion people storing their entire lifetimes wealth on bitcoin. but instead treated as a new separate currency working outside/alongside fiat as a optional choice. something that allows people to privately own without control and works across borders
3109  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: how to split forked coins on: July 24, 2017, 12:54:59 AM
to split the network is done by avoiding the consensus mechanism of 2 opposing rules
this is don by banning/ignoring/blacklisting the opposition nodes thus not even getting the oppositions data to orphan and thus strengthening the survival opposing rules without the consensus orphan drama causing issues.

its not simply having one network of opposing rules as that just going to cause orphan drama and services needing to wait further confirms to wait out the drama.

it actually needs the oppositions to avoid each other via banning nodes/blacklisting. which ethereum does by --oppose-dao-fork.
ethereum did not split simply by changing rules. they added in the -oppose-dao-fork code to discommunicate with opposing nodes
3110  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Do the miners need the Bitcoin users? on: July 24, 2017, 12:03:29 AM
OP

your definition of 'miners' is inaccurate/non descript. miners are mainly just those that run ASICS.. asics dont have hard drives. asics dont collate the data, asics dont make transactions they just hash

people can be just 'miners' and not have any nodes or access to exchanges/services.

POOLS that collate the data into blocks are only part of the symbiotic relationship. pools dont need to run asics themselves they can just run a server and let miners(customers) use their server, where the pools takes a cut from the income from serving miners.

this does not mean pools cannot be miners or miners cannot be pools.
this does not mean that miners cannot be node users and node users cannot be miners.

but to presume that the definitions are automatically both(more than their singular real definition) is limited thinking.

once you grasp that "users" can also be a merchant, or and exchange, or a pool, or a miner. or even just a SPV running transaction spender(non-node) then it will make it easier to grasp the complexity of the network.

..
in short you cannot just have asics..
in short you cannot just have pools..
in short you cannot just have users..

..
but say the network was made up of two users, where one user was a pool, a merchant, a exchange and a asic farm.. EG BTCC.. then BTCC is then very centralised and has dominant control of what gets accepted into blocks(pool control) also sets the price of the rewards for the other user to buy at (exchange control) and the exchange rate of buying produce away from the exchange(merchant control)

by separating the 'task' / parts of the network it helps reduce the control BTCC(for this example) has on the network from the economics point of view.

..
as for the technical/ protocol point of view
by separating the 'task' / parts of the network it allows merchants exchanges and users to choose which blocks they accept, which the causes the pools to conform to the rules which the (non-pool nodes) have,
otherwise the rewards cannot be spent, because the pools non-conformity blocks are not recognised in the blockchain the exchanges/merchants decide as being valid.



3111  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The IP addresses of all BTC nodes in the Blacklist on: July 23, 2017, 10:12:07 PM
anyone running software that blocks itself from the network is just creating themselves a small little island for themselves (an altcoin/private network)
the guys running software are not harming the network, they are just cutting themselves away from the network

a far simpler solution to blacklist all bitcoin nodes is just to not go look for bitcoin nodes via known bitcoin dns seeds and instead only accept connections from manually added nodes they do like
3112  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Now we understand why full-nodes are as important as hash rate on: July 22, 2017, 04:49:48 PM
   
   
Miners Right Now

seems chicago has the best understanding of the reality of whats happening with all the drama right now.

that gif explains easily.
now people just need to get passed the drama and actually look at the future REALITY of ACTUAL growth expectations and solutions
3113  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Now we understand why full-nodes are as important as hash rate on: July 22, 2017, 04:43:54 PM
So now that segwit is going in, will you finally leave or

will you finally take just 2 hours to understand segwit after having so long waiting for it. or do you only care about the dev control

Or maybe you will continue
have you even checked the effect of segwit on litecoin.
yep POOLS are not even using segwit keys ..
litecoin explorers havnt even updated their GUI site code to make segwit tx's visually displayable
the fixes are not fixed(malleation/quadratics). people can still spam and quadratic attack litecoin should they choose to


in the altcoin section shilling the latest Roger Ver hardfork?
will you stay here shitposting waiting for segwit to crash until the end of time?
1. i dont use the altcoin section for years, unless some core loving censorship loving sheep decides to move topics to altcoin section that dont deserve to be there,

2. its not shit posting, its just posting the details beyond the utopian dream your dev gods have been preaching.

3. simply you using the words "shilling" and "rogr ver hardfork" shows you know nothing about the reality of whats actually going on..

4.you need to spend less time reading reddit.

What's the plan now for big blockers?
Or since you are smarter than all Core devs, maybe you can come up with your own bitcoin killer? Yeah, that I would like to see.

lol you have no clue, your a sheep. please spend more time researching the code and reality, and stay away from reddit..

go on go check out litecoins utility of segwit. go look at all the pools that supported segwit, and see their coinbase tx's are not even using segwit keypairs. yep, the pools do not trust their block rewards to be held on segwit keypairs.

have a nice day.
3114  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Now we understand why full-nodes are as important as hash rate on: July 22, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
We have seen the power of full validating nodes in action with BIP148/UASF. Is anyone delusional enough to think miners would be signaling 95%+ for segwit if we didn't press them against the edge with BIP148?

BIP148 won, big blockers got blown the fuck off. Now that we have segwit in, let's see how it works for a year, THEN we can plan a 2MB increase, not when some fucking retarded morons think want to in a stupid retarded way. If you don't agree, then fork off and create your altcoin, enjoy the dump.

core will never do it.

they have had segwit code for over a year. you sgwit fanboys have been playing the segwit script of "its been well tested for X years".. so core have had plenty of time to look beyond segwit and start innovating the next block template plan (dynamics) but instead they have given up and just resorted to either waiting around. buying all inclusive weekends for pools. or throwing out propaganda about how LN is the savior.

so dont expect dynamics to be part of cores roadmap.

you can try and call anything not core "moronic" all you like. but it seems the majority of segwit/LN supporters cannot even explain how segwit actually functions all you wish to do is promote the activation dates thinking thats the end of your troubles.

goodluck on your reliance of devs and your mindless thinking that your ass kissing of certain devs will last you a lifetime.. but here is something to wake you up

devs are human
devs get old/bored and move onto different projects
devs will not hold your hand in the future

we need to concentrate on bitcoin being a decentralised system thats not reliant on certain 'favorite' devs.
if you only trust code because of a dev, without you even bothering to learn how the code works or if it will run as suggested, then you have already lost the battle for a decentralised payment system and you might aswell just use paypal 2.0 aka LN or just go back to fiat.

some of you have gone one step too far in your dev worship and stopped thinking about code/logic/security and only thinking about faith and trust
3115  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Confused: Is BTU coin an option still? on: July 22, 2017, 03:16:32 PM
bitcoin unlimited and other dynamic block concepts do not have a deadline date of august or november.

so even though there is some drama happening now about when segwit activates. does not mean that dynamic style proposals are dead.
they are continuing to do their own thing in the background waiting for consensus.

the funny part is people think august or november are finish point dates where all the problems are solved.
the activation of segwit is not the end of the drama.

after activation. people then need to wait around for actual nodes to support using the keypairs as wallets. and then get the merchants and explorer services to upgrade their software to display the new format of the keypairs.

yep most blockexplorers that display litecoins limited amount of segwit transactions in segwit blocks are not able to display the data clearly. and it seems no on is thinking about the logistics of it. they are too involved in the fud from reddit scripts that promise the world on one side and throw nukes at the other.

thats about as un biased as i can be on the matter.
3116  Economy / Economics / Re: How can we stop Bitcoin from crashing? on: July 22, 2017, 06:27:20 AM
What is the way to stop Bitcoin from being a bear market?

easy way. instead of orderlines being $1 apart. exchanges could make it 1cent apart. then we wont see as many volatile swings. because there would be 100 order lines that need filling to move the price by $1 instead of just 1 orderline.

id prefer this. it will settle the market

it will reduce the drops, but flipping the idea around, for those looking for an exit back to fiat quickly (and foolishly) it wont see spikes as much either.
3117  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How many bitcoins does it cost to rent an apartment in your city? on: July 21, 2017, 05:17:08 AM
Its my bad luck that Bitcoin not supported in my country. its illegal here. no one can said when bitcoin will be available/legal here in my country. even i can't buy any product here using my bitcoin. But I can use my bitcoin for buying online products like games,sowftware, apps,VPN,VPS etc.i hope bitcoin soon will be legal here and I can buy house using my bitcoin as a payment processor.

is it actually illegal. as in a law was passed to prohibit its use?

of is it that your country just doesnt recognise it and has not declared anything in either direction (pro/con)
3118  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. on: July 21, 2017, 04:27:14 AM
the activation is meaningless..

check out litecoin the pools cant even be bothered to use the keys. yep they can still malleate, quadratic spam and everything else.

..
too many people think the activation is the finish line. where everything is solved. lol.. please people atleast read the code. and not reddit scripts.
3119  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How many bitcoins does it cost to rent an apartment in your city? on: July 21, 2017, 02:09:11 AM
standard town in UK

social housing:2btc/year (0.0388btc a week)
private rent: 2.8btc/year (0.0538btc a week)

for a standard 2bedroom average house/flat

can be 10-11btc in central london per year
3120  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Where are the real bitcoiners? Those who wanted to fight against the banksters? on: July 21, 2017, 01:17:59 AM
You are looking at the wrong place. Then again, this forum has become a shithole of spammers and greedy inferior creatures.

^ says the guy that manages some of the main sig spammer campaigns....
if he wants to look at the cause. he should get a mirror

its people like billy and lauda that would happily kiss ass of the corporate devs because they hope if they show loyalty to the corporations that the corps would pay them one day.

people like lauda and billy. are selfish and only think about themselves. lauda would rather take commision for workarounds and exploits than to help fix things. (yep lauda takes a fee for asking people for there wallet.dats, to just hand them their funds back, rather than reporting an issue to devs) billy loves showing off how much he cares about fiat prices.. but neither care about the code, culture or community.

i highly doubt in the towns lauda and billy live in, have even had any bitcoin meetups organised or even tried to get merchants in their town to adopt bitcoin.. lauda and billies main goal is to kiss ass and hope for a payday.

its time they man up and learn bitcoin principles and stop kissing ass
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 ... 827 »
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!