Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2019, 08:24:04 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 [256] 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 ... 858 »
5101  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What would be bitcoin's final obituary? on: March 29, 2017, 12:57:19 PM
final obituary will read:

bitcoin passed on its love and desire to its sidechain siblings, staying in their chained hearts forever.
though bitcoin locks are always there with us,
we must remember that life goes on and although node users will not feel or touch bitcoin ever again,
there will always have a memory of their bitcoin LTXO.
5102  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 29, 2017, 12:46:10 PM
to add to Alex.btc point.

does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to disarm themselves by using segwit keypairs.. nope they wont
does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to lock into a channel just to spam offchain.. nope they wont.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block.. then forget segwit tx's mitigating that because if a segwit cant get its tx data into the baseblock it cant get its signature sat outside the baseblock.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block..then a LN channel cant gt its deposit/close channel tx into the baseblock.

segwit and LN do not kill spammers. they only move innocent volunteers data away from the baseblock partially or fully.

Most of the FukWit shills don't even know how FukWit works themselves, because that piece of shit is 50000 lines long, changes everything and haven't even been fucking tested in the real world yet.

yep.
analogy:
much like them saying ethereum has been "tested thoroughly" for  years on its own networks
but try dropping ethereum keypairs and ethereum block formations and new scripts into bitcoin by november.
along with the TIER network of upstream filter node..goodluck

oh and trying to get 46mill UTXO's to spend and move funds to segwit keys just to try getting the "fixes".. but as i said malicious spammers wont us segwit keys = quadratics/malleation not solved on the network. only solved by the volunteers that choose to use disarmed keypairs. who still have to fight for room amungst the armed native spammers
5103  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: luke jr's solution: make the blocks smaller on: March 29, 2017, 12:21:19 PM
Change the Block speed to 5 minutes instead of 10 , you double the transaction capacity without touching the blocksize.

to change the 'blockspeed'. is not just a few lines of code..it requires:
changing the reward per block
difficulty formulae
retarget period
block halving schedule
etc.

it effects many other things, like:
propagations times
tweaking reward unsettles peoples minds of the rarity/fixed release of new coins. not being as fixed as first thought.
and of course 5minutes is no better than 10minutes in reality of the "waiting at a grocery checkout aisle"

and still requires a full NODE and pool consensus. so its not going to be any less hassle of a consensus achieving event, it will actually be more hassle

however just moving the blocksize alone is less issues.
5104  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 29, 2017, 12:10:44 PM
to add to Alex.btc point.

does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to disarm themselves by using segwit keypairs.. nope they wont
does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to lock into a channel just to spam offchain.. nope they wont.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block.. then forget segwit tx's mitigating that because if a segwit cant get its tx data into the baseblock it cant get its signature sat outside the baseblock.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block..then a LN channel cant gt its deposit/close channel tx into the baseblock.

segwit and LN do not kill spammers. they only move innocent volunteers data away from the baseblock partially or fully.
5105  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale on: March 29, 2017, 11:31:37 AM
2mb blocks = 4000tx~  yep i agree with that..(if it was 2mb baseblock or 2mb of users using segwit keys with a 1mb baseblock ((2mb weight)))
but then the maths gets funky

over a year. (144blocks * 365=52560blocks)
4000tx * 52560 blocks = 210,240,000tx a year

knowing that a channel is 2 party (2 people deposit their funds to co-sign) means to have a channel, 2 deposit tx's and one combined withdrawal tx. thats 3 onchain tx's for 2 people

knowing most users will have ~2 channels+ to be part of the routing system
it is not just 3 onchain tx's for 2 people.. but average 6 onchain tx's used to set up the LN routing

so lets just round it to 3tx's per person just to keep the variables simple

so at 2mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=70,080,000 users
20mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=700,800,000 users
200mb blocks with a 1 year locktime thats=7,008,000,000 users

the funky things to think about.
who would be able to survive a year by instead going with just rusty russels LN's pre-set ~$60 allowable suggested deposit.
-end result people close and open more channels per year to refresh their deposits.
or
who would willingly lock in their whole hoard for a year just to avoid the fortnightly utility of ~$60
-end result people close and open more channels per year to refresh their deposits.

its suggested a 2 week lock for $60 average safe spend. thus countering debates of
whole hoards for a year locked into permissioned 'accounts'
or
whole year with only $60 locked into permissioned 'accounts'
(remember you need other party to co-sign, so dont pretend its permissionless)

meaning 200mb blocks(year) *26(fortnight) = 5.2gb blocks for 2week locktimes for 7bill people
or at this years ~2mb per fortnight = 2,695,384 users



this is why even LN is not the "visa by midnight" solution.
because 2week locks=2.6m users at 2mb blocks or 7bill users at 5.2gb blocks
because 1year locks=70m users at 2mb blocks or 7bill users at 200mb blocks


this is where once segwit is activated and people see not everyone is using segwit keys to achieve the 4000-4500tx estimate
(which actually makes the LN numbers worse than the numbers i emboldened)
where LN wont achieve more than 2.6mill users for 2mb blocks with a 2week locktime..

those cough decision makers cough
next will be promoting sidechains(altcoins) as the real "visa" by midnight.
where peoples hoards are permanently moved and locked into a sidechain of 1:1 value so they never need to open close on bitcoins mainnet.
because they will be opening and closing on other altcoins (sidechains)

P.S people wont lock funds into LN because it is (sorry to burst bubble) permissioned (required counter party online/active to co-sign)

thus leading to... yep hyper ledger..of multiple chains, making bitcoin useless by being blocked by all the locking tx's moving funds to other altcoins.
and the excessive weight of UTXO of 7billion people making it undesirable to be a node for bitcoin. especially if your not using bitcoin because your on a altcoin(sidechain)





5106  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 02:42:28 AM
How can you sue if the people making the changes have 0 control over what the users choose to use going forward?

Sounds like someone is worried about their business model going forward. Who can blame them...but threatening to sue on those grounds is going to be one of a kind.

if luke just made a gun.. fine.. random people buy and gun and do what they want with it. or just dont use a gun.. luke cant be held responsible.

but if luke made a gun
whereby luke made it target only .. lets say children.
and luke publicly announced he wanted kids to die
and luke publicly announced a deadline of when the gun should be used by...

then luke becomes accountable
5107  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 02:32:36 AM
I am surprised at the guys commenting on this asinine thread.  You all know that the PoW will never be changed.  So why argue such a stupid hypothetical?  You guys bored with the BU segwit debate?
...
so bored of trying to argue with the redditors who make 20 bitcointalk user names to hide behind just to repeat the same scripts that an implementation that has been plodding away without threats for 2 years is suddenly the threat.. ...

I hope you aren't referring to me Franky, that is pretty cheap and not very gentlemanly.
I do not post or go to reddit and any mod (go get theymos), to check how many accounts
I have that I post from. The answer is one, this one.

Since you are accusing me of such an action, I assume that is what you yourself is doing here.

lol actually agentofcoin in many ways i admire you for sticking to one name
i actually see that you are open minded to learn.

the bit about the "20 bitcointalk user names to hide behind" are the usual BTU is an alt trolls that pop up. that cannot actually rebuttle simple debates or lack desire to learn

though we disagree on things. i dont see you as the "usual BTU is an alt" trolls that make endless names
5108  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 02:26:19 AM
No.
If Luke has "intent to destroy bitfury" and a flashmob triggered it does it, that does not prove
in a Court of Law that Luke committed the act of "destroying bitfury". Claiming he is
an "accessory" does not work in Courts in these types of situations.
FTFY
by luke providing the reason, and the weapon.. the yes luke is involved..
much like hiring a hitman.. its not just the hitmans fault. its who orchestrated it

This isn't a bank robbery and Luke is driving the car with knowledge of the crime.

You are now arguing that Satoshi is a criminal for releasing Bitcoin, even though we
choose to use it and build a community around it. You would bring Satoshi to trial.

satoshi has nothing to do with the PoW change. thats like blaming the car..

If Luke decides to release a client version that hardforks the minority chain to a new
PoW, what is the damage?
if luke was the minority and wanted to take himself to the sidelines and make his own minority creation SHA3 then he can..

but nuking a majority simply because of spite.. that the difference.

If no one join him on this new fork, there is no damage.
The damage only occurs when individual users decided to use this new client. Luke
basically gave those users a choice to go to a new chain the same way that BU gives
users a choice at a new chain, they are equivalent under the law. if Luke's hardfork is
bad and there is liability, then the BU chain and devs is equally bad and liable under
the same legal interpretation.

you are kind of starting to grasp it.
all thats needed is to ban connecting/communicating to avoid the orphan/connection/consensus drama of 2 coins fighting..
.. but orchestrating bankrupting a business is a whole different thing
5109  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 02:04:26 AM
I am surprised at the guys commenting on this asinine thread.  You all know that the PoW will never be changed.  So why argue such a stupid hypothetical?  You guys bored with the BU segwit debate?

yep because BU has no deadlines, made no threats, so bored of trying to argue with the redditors who make 20 bitcointalk user names to hide behind just to repeat the same scripts that an implementation that has been plodding away without threats for 2 years is suddenly the threat.. and that segwit that has not even made a segwit block with a segwit tx yet, nor been running for even a year.. is the victim.. even when segwit has all the high ban scores, deadlines threats, blackmails and pointing fingers in every direction but their own.

i agree the PoW change SHOULDNT happen.
but looking at the mandatory activation code core want to put into segwit. FORCING it to activate even without consensus.. it actually shows that core devs like Luke, have the means, opportunity and motive.. and could actually trojan horse the code in softly. so it is possible
5110  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 01:59:05 AM
blah blah blah

.. my rebuttle
bot-net trojans.

hackers cant use the "well people downloaded it, blame them" defense

Listen Franky, this is one time I can ensure you that you are incorrect.
If I am wrong then all open-source software developers are liable.

You are arguing that if BU becomes the main Bitcoin protocol and it somehow fails big
time and people lose money, we will need to roll back the chain, which breaks the immunity,
or else the BU devs will be subject to the same form of liability as your are now describing.
I am telling you that whichever developer team takes over, both are protected from the
actions you are advocating.

nope
dynamics is not intending to destroy an economy. other implementations ar not intending to either.
but its public knowledge of Luk Jrs intent.

EG men have penises.. their is a chance that rapes can happen. STI's pregnancy.. etc,
but without intent to be malicious. nothing can be done.

this PoW has intent.. very clear and obvious intent/purpose

if you dont understand. some countries call it MOTIVE.

EG it makes the difference between self defence and murder.. even if the weapon or people involved dont change.
5111  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 01:46:33 AM
blah blah blah

.. my rebuttle
bot-net trojans.

hackers cant use the "well people downloaded it, blame them" defence

even if the bot-net trojan amassed a million users computers to ddos a company..
the writer and implementer of the code is responsible. not the million users that were not fully informed

anyone who was informed to allow a destructive code that had clear intents of the purpose and result of such code becomes responsible.

5112  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 01:35:45 AM

You can't sue Core developers who have no control over what the Bitcoin community chooses to use  
I happen to live in America where you can sue anyone, for any reason, at any time.  Tongue

Actually, that is called a frivolous lawsuit and the opposition attorneys can be awarded fees
and expenses for that. Your statement that "In America you can sue for anything. etc", is
actually not true when you get into the Court room.

its frivolous to just name for instance.. bitcoin as the perpetrator for bitfury loses

but to name luke Jr and others as accomplices/ accessories, is not frivolous

oh and Luke Jr cannot just say "but its up to the community to download it for the SHAPoW nuke to activate".. as a defence.

just like a botnet trojan creator cannot say "but its up to the community to download it for the botnet to function".. as a defence.
luke JR have to defend against why include such destructive code in the first place

things like lukes computer will get siezed and luke having to hand over any and all documentation in regards to his employer..(blockstream)
many many things can happen from that.

all while the intent of a PoW change not being about 'good for the community' becomes easy to show/demonstate. and thus making it harder for people like luke to defend against allowing such code in.

luke cannot even pretend to be independent because he has been very public about calling any non blockstream sanctioned implementation an altcoin.
5113  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 12:36:29 AM
You can not blame or find parties responsible for damages unless you prove it.
Since Bitcoin is a voluntary system with no responsible authority who grants user or etc any
rights, the proposed suit would be a hard case to prove and would be a waste of money.

bitcoin...is not core.

if core have a piece of code thats only intent is to bankrupt businesses.. then CORE are responsible.

and like any piece of software with a trojan in it where the users do not fully understant the ramifications of using the software. yes the users cannot be blamed for using it.
but the code writer who implanted the trojan can.

its not about fair competition its about of an open market choice. its about pure intent and clear desire to do something drastic that does not help security but just acts maliciously.

bitcoin has many implementations. but the lawsuit would not be against diverse bitcoin. but against those specifically involved.

there are only a few that have that privilege.

and its easy to show intent by looking at their actions of trashing other bips while promoting others.

so bitfury can find people to prosecute easily.

..

what i personally find funny is how you think core are independent.
what i personally find funny is how you think core cannot be held to account while also for months having core themselves screaming blue murder that they are the centre and control/reference of bitcoin and any other implementation is an alt.
that alone is them defining themselves as a target organisation. by actually pretending to own bitcoin they are actually admitting they are passengers of a drive-by. not bystanders.. but actual accessories. they are defining their own fait

by them kissing each others ass putting themselves into a cabin .. they have put a target on their back.

gmaxwell handed the BIP management to luke JR and blockstream are ready to throw Luke JR under the bus for all the code, contributions to a PoW  algo change..

bitfury is involved with barry silbert (DCG) which is partners with blockstream so bitfury know more than you think about the behind the scenes stuff


lastly while its obvious Luke JR will be atleast an accessory, if not the perpetrator..
you have to think beyond the drama.

what would it actually achieve.
by luke releasing code for a new proposal.. bitmain can draw up blueprints(probably already have blueprints for SHA3) and be making a new pool/syndicate and new ASIC that will rip any new algo out of the hands of solo mining at home wishful thinkers before its activated.

so while Luke and his gang are in legal battles and other things.. the empty gesture of pretending its 'for the best' will be seen as the empty gesture it is and wont be used as a defence, because its too obvious that its a fake excuse to deploy a PoW algo change in the first place.. the intent will be seen as malicious and nothing more
5114  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 29, 2017, 12:05:22 AM
You can't sue Core developers who have no control over what the bitcoin community chooses to use
as a new client to cause a PoW change, in the event of an attack from miners on a minority chain.
If anything, the purposeful attack on the minority chain could be argued to be a form of torturous
interference for the exchanges and users who choose to still conduct business on it. So, the only
true legal liability here is against mining businesses who choose to participate in a chain attack.

If the miners choose to split off onto their own chain, and then choose to attack the minority chain,
that would be seen as very malicious action by the Court systems. There is no legal justification to
destroy the old chain. The Court will determine that to be a form of financial theft. If the miners let
the minority chain die on its own, there is to problem.

Miners should be aware of the laws within different countries before they declare legal action that
would ultimately be seen as frivolous. They will need to also name all the new client node operators
who chose to run this PoW change software as defendants.


thinking core cannot be blamed is like thinking a passenger in a drive-by cannot be an accessory..

its easy to spot who allows and disallows bips/issues to be active or thrown out without a second thought. it certainly isnt "the community"
its easy to spot who implements the commits.
its easy to spot who ACK's the commits

its easy to spot.

then there are the obvious blockstream employed devs and all thier connections.
why do you think gmaxwell handed over the reigns of the Bip moderation to Luke..
why matt corrallo jumped ship to chaincode.

they know they are screwed and trying to pre-empt themselves to try playing the victim card. when they are the perpetrators


come on face it.
throw out dynamic proposals because it might cause some orphan drama or a split... but include security breaking nuke in the form of a PoW algo change..

even logic see's the stupidity of that
5115  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 28, 2017, 11:38:50 PM
core want to dominate bitcoin and centralise it.

blockstream want bitcoin to die they are in the hyperledger bankers pockets. blockstream dont care about bitcoin being weaker if they move away from PoW. they just want to dominate to dismantle it.

they even admit that segwit is a trojan by going soft and saying by having segwit allows more changes to be made by going soft. thus avoiding consensus to slide in changes the community and pools cannot veto

pools who do veto it will either get ban hammerd off, get algo changed off, or just get bip9/UASF mandatory activation off ..

segwit was an altcoin and has not made a single segwit block with a single segwit tx on bitcoin mainnet...
segwit requires people to move their native funds to the alt keypair of segwit to even do anything.

if blockstream think the community is all onboard they would not have gone soft.

if they think hard is a worry due to splitting the network.. then why go soft and then threaten to split the network and blackmail nodes and pools.

blockstream are insane.
all because blockstream are IN DEBT and need to start repaying their $70m debt.

yes folks blockstream have not got $70m+ of funds to give jobs to the 100+ loyal spell checkers hoping for a job. blockstream are out of cash.

Matt Corallo has jumped ship to avoid the legal drama about to unfold.. and soon the other devs will too.
blockstream have their exit strategy ready they just need a few more months to do as much damage as they can
5116  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current statistics Core vs. BU on: March 28, 2017, 10:18:07 PM
I will give you this franky1, your shilling is as STRONG as your hate for Blockstream  Grin

More power to you brother, keep hope alive!

P.S im not a BU guy.. im a realist.
i support decentralised and diverse open bitcoin PEER network, definitely not blockstreams desires for a TIER network

that means many implementations.
this is why blockstreamists have failed to REKT me in any camp, because i dont belong to any.

the real issue people have with me is i am just frank about what i say and i kiss no asses.. thats the problem im not kissing any ass. especially not lord gmaxwell CTO and founder of blockstream.

devs come and go. once people realise that devs are only temporary and people start caring more about bitcoin rather than a dev.. those people will wake up too

if you think this is just a ass kissing event of which cheeks deserves love more.. you are only failing yourself
5117  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: luke jr's solution: make the blocks smaller on: March 28, 2017, 09:55:39 PM
wonder why full nodes are under 85%

1. core invent prunned mode
2. core tell the comunity its fine to use

3. core then complain its diluting the node count..

its called shooting self in the foot with "its ok"

same is happening with cores "its ok to be a downstream bottom tier of cores segwit network
same with
its ok to be a no witness


hey luke(if ur reading this). no matter what size you make the blocks.. bigger or smaller.. if you then add a feature to prune/no witness the full node even further.. ur still going to end up with a cesspool of nodes that cant be used as syncing seeds or full blockchain validators.

yep make the blocks just 50kb and people will still enable features to crapout the node count.. because core allow it.




.. hey core.. leave the prunned non-archival, lite wallet crap for things like armory and electrum to invent.


P.S i made this complaint nearly a year ago...

Why is that , are you talking the new version ? what changed exactly because I read the changelog and I honestly didn't understand much , too much technical stuff .
The new Bitcoin Core version (0.12.0) enables you to run a wallet in pruned mode. This means that you can use it without storing the whole blockchain. Essentially it can cut down the usage from around 60 GB of data to around ~2 GB. You only store the last X amount of blocks.

thats not what the original version of what prune mode was envisioned.

the original vision was to no longer keep spent data. but keep every unspent

now all of a sudden 2500 people who regularly upgrade are no longer going to hold full data should they enable lite node(which core wrongly calls prune)..
it should be called trim mode.. any gardener can explain the difference
pruning only cutting off the dead parts that are not needed.
trimming cutting off larger areas to improve asthetics and space for growth

but just keeping recent relay data is like cutting off the tree and only keeping the ripe fruit.. good old blockstream adding features to dilute the population of REAL FULL nodes. and leaving the community with a patch work of litenodes and compatible nodes.

if people dont have full history of unspents. then they cannot validate that a transaction is authentic.
why oh why do people think that making full node clients into crippled versions is a good thing. because fundamentally its not. if you want lite clients then download a lite client

stop trying to advertise that running in lite mode is better then sliced bread. if you want to say your a full node then dont cripple yourself or believe your still a full node after enabling such features

if your going to run (better to call it trim/lite) mode atleast accept your just a relay node and not a full archival node

now core are blaming others yet its actually a core feature which they thought was "ok" to add to their full node..
5118  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: is BU an attack on Bitcoin? on: March 28, 2017, 04:40:41 PM
16 users..

also
"We consider that any “neutral” or “absentee” stance on the hard fork is by default in opposition to the hard fork."

meaning less than that 16..
oh and they can post a statement to 5 million companies and by not getting a reply they can lie and say 5million oppose anything not core..
=fake stats are easy to achieve just by not having a return address on their request to ensure they get no response.

Quote
We encourage the development and use of alternative implementations of Bitcoin (e.g. bcoin, libbitcoin, bitcore, bitcoin knots) as long as they are compliant with the current consensus rules as defined in the Bitcoin Core reference implementation.

funny how they only want gmaxwell sanctioned implementations.. lol
=centralisation by subsidiary rebranding of blockstream(core) to pretend and fake independance.
also core 0.14 dont have consensus. node/pool/ or userbase.

so that means no one should be following 0.14 because 0.14 doesnt have consensus.

so far the rules of 0.12 have consensus.. not anything else.
5119  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Alt shilling increase when Bitcoin is under attack on: March 28, 2017, 03:41:03 PM
core cry when the price moves up and down and try making it sound important
meanwhile exchange move from $935 $933 by a user with just $302(324mbtc)
meanwhile exchange move from $933 $935 by a user with just $50(54mbtc)

(note trades measured in mBTC (0.001btc)

less than $302(324mbtc) to drop the price from $935 to $933
yep $302 to make the market cap change by $32,470,200.00

then ~$50(54mbtc) to ramp the price from $933 to $935
yep $50 to make the market cap change by 32,470,200.00

price movements are not a sign of any "community consensus".. but due to low funds being used and also the high increments per orderline causing the volatility($1 gap per increment)... making it easy to make the market volatile without needing large community/whales
5120  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitFury signals it's FIRST SegWit Block.. on: March 28, 2017, 03:08:41 PM
The explanation is rather simple: Buggy Unlimited jeopardizes the entire system with incompetent developers.

BU is just one of many implementations that took CORES 0.12, and made tweaks.
now knowing a few of them bugs didnt get fixed until core made 0.13. so ofcourse the core devs didnt think to also include them by patching their own older repo's to match.

EG core didnt fix 0.12, they called it dead and just put patch into 0.13. meaning anyone who uses 0.12 will still have cores bugs.
it wasnt core that fixed BU either. bu fixed a bug. but then core highlighted that not everyone with BU updated to the new version without the bug

but funnier part.. because BU and dynamic implementations believe in PEER diversity.. the bug didnt cause drama.. it just took out a few nodes while the rest of the network continued... you cannot say the same if everyone is FORCED to use the exact same core base code in cores tier network.. if core gets a bug.. expect bigger issues (such as the 2013leveldb update bug)

but the real question is. where are all of these "independent devs".
oh yea, they are dependant on gmaxwells leadership.

if you want true independent diverse decentralised bitcoin.. then dont throw all your dreams, kings and asskissing into one camp.. instead let there be no single camp and let the devs migrate freely without being tarnished by REKT campaigns if they are not in core camp.

remember devs are not immortal. devs do come and go, move onto different projects, get bored. etc. so dont kiss devs asses. just think about bitcoin as a diverse and OPEN decentralised network.

core mindset
"i pretend to be independent but refuse to independently review anything thats not gmaxwell sanctioned"
"i pretend to be independent but argue anything thats not gmaxwell sanctioned has not been independently reviewed"
"i pretend to be independent everyone should only use core"

total hypocracy and mindlessly handing control of the previously open divers peer network over to gmaxwells corporate tier network
Pages: « 1 ... 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 [256] 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 ... 858 »
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!