Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2019, 03:18:28 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 ... 858 »
5141  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 05:05:49 PM


Your weird theories are a distraction from discussing the real issues.  Everyone on both sides of the debates wants more capacity in one form or another.  I'm putting you on ignore and suggest others do the same.  Sorry.


My theory that arguments need to be scientifically founded to have validity? Not everyone wants more capacity, there are a few rational players that are fine with status quo, Maxwell even recently said something to this regard.

because gmaxwell is NOT thinking about or caring about the more transactions = more utility value onchain
he is thinking with the less transactions = less utility value onchain = more utility value offchain = more economics value for himself to get greedy fee's by blockstream and DCG running LN hubs to repay their millions of debt value

he values repaying the $70m+ debt he is contracted to repay as part founder of blockstream, more so then BITCOINS network value
5142  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Unlimited vs Segwit information on: March 26, 2017, 04:54:48 PM
a fork is when there are 2 or more blocks of different content/rule/origin. fighting to become the dominant block
what happens next could be it is rejected in 3 seconds and gets thrown away like an orphan, survives for a few blocks then orphans causing some drama. or splits the chains into 2 surviving chains

these blocks can be competing because the pools are pushing the differences.
these blocks can be competing because the node are accepting rejecting the differences or a combination of pools and nodes

now,.. what happens can be many things.
many propaganda people take the atleast 6 different possible scenarios.. to try to constrict them down into 2 possible scenarios to fit their rhetoric by choosing the best case scenario for their own purpose and the worse case scenario for the opposition.. however once you know that its not a 2 option result. you start to see the propaganda

for clarity

soft and hard is simply:
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote

below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

go check out cores bip9 orphaning blocks and node to get their 95%=100%.. oh and they can lower the trigger below 95%. (soft split can happen)
go check out cores UASF(S stands for soft) orphaning blocks and node to get their 100%.. oh and they can lower the trigger at any level (soft split can happen)
go chck out cores PoW algo change.. chain splitting can happen)
5143  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: It could be worse than this SegWit/Unlimited cold war ..! on: March 26, 2017, 08:03:07 AM
dead or alive.. all thats going to happen is, if satoshi was to move his coins.. the core devs will proclaim that its some doomsday D-wave machine that has hacked the satoshi keys. and core will get pools to not accept the tx's into blocks and instead core will enable their satoshi stash prunning event.

5144  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BUgcoin strikes back on: March 26, 2017, 07:53:34 AM
you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

blah waffle


you have no clue.

i get the feeling your agenda is to make people think its ok to not care about running a full node. as if you want to brain wash people into thinking they have no way of controlling changes to bitcoin.

if you think nodes do nothing. then go be a centralist running a lite node. and let the ones that have been around longer and actually read and understood the code and consensus run a full node because we know what a full node actually does.

you spend too long trying to stroke sheep to sleep saying its ok for them to not be full nodes because core want to be dictators.
you have become too obvious with your endless rhetoric trying to suggest nodes are meaningless. so go play with a litenode if it means so much to you
5145  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 07:31:58 AM
-snip-
For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.
This is factually wrong. It was F2Pool who broke the agreement, effectively making it void. There was no explicit mention of a 2 MB block size increase, rather a HF proposal with a HF proposal. Luke-jr ended up delivering such a proposal, even after the agreement was void. Your bullshit story about previously supporting Core, but now you're dissapointed/don't is bullshit. BTU people are really desperate with these stunts.
lauda go research better. lukes proposal wasnt a meaningful one. it was a drop of the blocksize and then only slowly climb to take YEARS to get to 2mb.
you can twist you crap all day but the truth is luke gave an empty gesture, not something of real utility


The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?
Random passengers with the IQ of a baboon want to be the ones deciding how the plane's engine is going to be built. Roll Eyes The limits are technological.
the 1mb was not about technological limit. it was set as a easy number that was several times above the utility at the time (under 250k/block.. even back then satoshi knew that 2mb would be ok in 2011...
even in 2015 they knew 8mb was "safe" but the compromise was 2mb of REAL BASE BLOCK NATIVE TX UTILITY.. and 2 years on... core is still fighting against it even when technology has moved on. even the great china firewall debate has moved soo much that china's internet within china is faster than the average speed of the rest of the world now.
oh and china use solar and wind now.. no longer in rice paddy fields using coal furnaces..
as for the intellect of people:
random people who cant even tell the difference between java and C++.. but think they can read bitcoin...
or the random people that have short attention spans


I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.
-snip-
Here it is, you reveal your true colors; either you're: 1) Completely uneducated and ignorant; 2) Paid shill by Ver company (or other).

let me guess anyone not kissing lord gmaxwell ass must be paid by someone else. seriously only in your world are people paid to have an opinion, kind of a shame you have wasted the last year not even learning bitcoin.


brilliant post Alex, thank you.

I almost feel like you are channeling the wisdom of Satoshi (except for maybe the last paragraph lol)

Hope others will chime in with their sentiments on these revelations, because we all want Bitcoin to succeed.
That article is full of lies and bullshit. It is shameful to say that it is brilliant. You are a disgrace to Bitcoin and everything it stands for.
lauda. please spend more time learning C++, reading code, learning bitcoin.
its been a year, please put some effort into it.
lets not see you in 2018 still never having read about bitcoin.
5146  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Core Verses Unlimited on: March 26, 2017, 07:19:40 AM
i'm supporting core no matter what, but unlimited look like will trigger the hard fork first, btw there is no hard fork with core...

i highly doubt the value will fall below $600-700 or even remainign at current level

hard=node and pool vote
soft =only pool vote..

what you dont realise is soft can also cause splits. and hard can also keep the chain united.

for clarity

soft and hard is simply:
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote

below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

go check out cores bip9 orphaning blocks and node to get their 95%=100%.. oh and they can lower the trigger below 95%.
go check out cores UASF orphaning blocks and node to get their 100%.. oh and they can lower the trigger at any level

^ such basic understanding that has been known for over a year and it seems even now some cant grasp it
5147  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BUgcoin strikes back on: March 26, 2017, 06:16:37 AM
Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.

No, really, once you have a cartel of pools, which is unavoidable with a PoW type income lottery, the network topology doesn't really matter, in *reality* you have a server/client system, where the pools are the collective server of block chain because they are the principal source of the data.  The other nodes in the network are nothing else but proxy servers of this data and ultimately, the clients.

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code
5148  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 06:04:03 AM
alex.btc, a nice fresh well wrote post. and to highlight one point you made

You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again.

segwit promises: 2mb-4mb block promise when activated.
segwit reality:at activation.. nothing.. people using standard UTXO (native/legacy tx keypair) will have their data stuck in the base block limit of 1mb (no gain for them). only segwit utxo spenders(users who have funds on segwit tx keypair) will have part of the tx data outside the base block.
meaning it requires people to spend their native utxo and move the funds into segwit keys.. and then when they spend the segwit UTXO then they are helping with the ratio inside and outside the base block.*

segwit promises: malleability fix promise when activated.
segwit reality:at activation.. nothing.. people using standard UTXO (native/legacy tx keypair) will have their data stuck in the base block and can still do malleability. only segwit utxo (segwit tx keypair) will move part of the tx data outside the base block. meaning it requires people spend their native utxo and move the funds into segwit keys.. and then when they spend the segwit UTXO then they are helping with the not malleating because they are disarmed.*

segwit promises: quadratic sigop fix promise when activated.
segwit reality:at activation.. nothing.. people using standard UTXO (native/legacy tx keypair) will have their data stuck in the base block and can still do sigop spam. only segwit utxo (segwit tx keypair) will move part of the tx data outside the base block. meaning it requires people spend their native utxo and move the funds into segwit keys.. and then when they spend the segwit UTXO then they are helping with the not sigop spamming because they are disarmed.*

*the issues:
trying to move 46mill native UTXO.. is a laugh to think will be 100% accomplished, especially in any rational time or ability to achieve
thinking 100% of users will voluntarily use segwit keys and stick to segwit.
thinking that malicious spammers/attacker would voluntarily use segwit keys, voluntarily disarming and de-spamming themselves.. is the opposite of the motives of said malicious spammers.

infact segwit opens up new attack vectors for these spammers. which will make it even harder for people to move funds across. and all this having to move funds just to try disarming themselves will be ADDING to the mempool spam

dont expect to get anywhere near 2mb of 'capacity' just like we didnt get 7tx/s in bitcoin 2009-2017 even when maths estimations suggested it was possible

segwit promises: keeps node costs down
segwit reality: 2mb of data is still 2mb of data for a full node no matter if the signatures are in the middle of a tx or end of a tx.. yea you can claim enabling prunned or no witness mode.. but then your no longer the upstream tier of a full node. and just part of the downstream lower tier cesspools of not full data nodes, thus might aswell just be spv/litenodes. they are not counted/treated as "full nodes"

segwit promises: keeps node counts up
segwit reality: enabling prunned or no witness mode.. they are no longer the upstream tier of a full node network. and just part of the downstream lower tier cesspits of not full data nodes, thus might aswell just be spv/litenodes. they are not counted/treated as "full nodes"
moving non segwit nodes off the network. again drops the full node count.
5149  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Can we start talking about splitting amicably... on: March 26, 2017, 04:48:03 AM
holliday
the BTC.Top statement of:
"We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS."

is in response to cores threat of killing pools ASICS. he is stating he has $100m of funds to fight whatever ALGO CHANGE core nuke the network with.

its a defense not an attack.

as for gavins and Peter R
those too are again if dynamics get consensus and AFTER the grace periods they will do things before pushing the blocksize up. as the best ways to get the other implementations to pull their fingers out of their asses and be part of the PEER network of many diverse nodes.

........
however core is not a wait and let consensus happen and then rock the boat.
core have bypassed node consensus - error 1 they know it but instead of admitting it. they are now crying that its the pools fault
core have set a deadline which if not met is then FORCED on the community (bip9 and UASF)= still no free community choice
and core too have their attack the opposition code, but core want to utilise it before consensus. not after. meaning attack not defence

yet core are not going to back off if the community dont want it. core are happy to wait until November as it helps push tx prices up to get their commercial hubs utility ready. (blockstream are $70m+ in debt afterall)

where as other dynamic nodes set no deadline made no first strike threats to initiate pre activation... and if any diverse/dynamic peer node wanted to split the network without consensus they would have done so already.

core poke the bear hoping bu/dynamic implementations throw the first stone.. just so core can play the victim card.
yet dynamic implementations will wait for consensus before doing anything.... unless core try attacking with pool ASIC killing algo changes.

whats funny though. if core actually did change the algo. all that PoW hardware will happily jump to the side that allows PoW. as theres no point letting good hardware go to waste afterall.. instantly making core super weak with whatever algo they choose.

sorry but core cannot play the victim card by poking the bear
5150  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Can we start talking about splitting amicably... on: March 26, 2017, 03:35:24 AM
core: day one "fear splits they are bad they will destroy bitcoin
core: day two "you shold split off"
core: day three "please amicably split but you have to runoff"

meanwhile for the last two years+ all different diverse nodes that want to keep the decentralised PEER network alive have made no threats and added no nuclear detonation split button.

if core want to split they need to press their button because they are the only ones with them.
5151  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: this is just sad on: March 26, 2017, 02:34:33 AM
Is market cap not the Current value of bitcoins in circulation  X  Current price of bitcoins???
Is it just "Volume" that you are saying??? Because if these numbers are baseless, then what is the base that should be used to calculate the actual worth of Bitcoins' cap???

the answer is simple there is no actual "worth" of bitcoins by measuring the cap vs price...

simply you dont base bitcoins infrastructure and economy on the market cap.
i can make an alt tomorrow with 5trill coins. put just 1 coin on an exchange and sell it to myself for $1.. and suddenly my alt has a $5trillion market cap, all for the cost to myself of 1cent(1% exchange fee of the $1 trade)

you base bitcoins "value" on its UTILITY
but that involves not using stupid todler level maths. but actually look at the bigger things like monetary value of combined asics. the real audited worth of companies actively in bitcoin and other things.
but thats too complex for some people to understand/measure

5152  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 01:55:27 AM
wtv i believe that:
miners will centralize and stop checking each other's blocks in order allow limitless blockspace at no cost.



1. miners make more money by competing and find any excuse they can to reject their competition..to have as many ACCEPTABLE blocks on the chain that the nodes can accept to see the rewards so that pools can spend their 'winnings'.. so following what nodes allow = able to spend winnings
2. pools can build any length height of blocks they want(privately). but if nodes reject them.. then places like coinbase and bitfinex are not accepting those blocks. and so the pools are not going to get paid because the exchange nodes dont see their(rejected) blocks

EG
NODES rejected this block of 1.000250mb in 3seconds.
Code:
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

and just like all other orphans that happen weekly(for many different reasons).. that work done to produce that non accepting block. is not acceptable to nodes. meaning pools wont be able to spend the rewards... once its in the reject/orphan trash.. its gone and forgotton

pools can continue building ontop it all they like(privately).. but if the node network reject it.. then pools cant spend it. pools end up wasting time playing hot-potato privately between themselves and exchanges never have to accept it. so its wasting the pools time for them to play silly games in their own little corner, because once its time to cashout.. they cant
5153  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 01:28:11 AM
Greg has openly called for full blocks and a fee market (which we have right now).

If blocks are empty, then when the reward drops to zero how will miners get paid?


miners will allow limitless space at no cost if they are left in charge of blockspace.

miners are not given that power or limitless control
EG.
2009
upper limit 32mb.. lower limit was 250kb
2013
upper limit 1mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 500kb(policy.h)
2015
upper limit 1mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 750kb(policy.h)
2016
upper limit 1mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 999kb(policy.h)

dynamics is for instance (dont knit pick the numbers just see the concept)
2017
upper limit 4mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 1.25mb(policy.h)
2018
upper limit 4mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 1.5mb(policy.h)
2018
upper limit 4mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 1.75mb(policy.h)
then a rethink about the network speed capability
2019
upper limit 8mb(consensus.h).. lower limit was 2mb(policy.h)

policy becomes more fluid and adjustable based on MAJORITY nodes useragent display of their LOWER limit. but consensus.h stays static, pools see where a MAJORITY of nodes prefer their policy limit. and the MINORITY get a message that their policy.h needs changing or will be surpassed due to the minority having too low a policy.

but pools will not surpass the real main consensus.h limit

a few dynamic implementations are actually looking into having speedtests in the node to actually know what the node is actually capable of. to make nodes more self reliant on setting their limits without devs in a different county having to guess whats 'safe'
5154  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit support going up = hemorrage stopped on: March 26, 2017, 12:56:31 AM
Segwit seems to have edged past Unlimited now (last 144 blocks mined).
https://coin.dance/blocks
Segwit supported by 37.5% of blocks, Unlimited supported by 36.8% of blocks.
Overall, a pretty much split society.  Undecided

meanwhile it still means that ~25% are still abstaining either way.

trying to make jihan of 16% be the reason of 62% veto/abstaining against cores segwit. makes me laugh
5155  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 12:35:30 AM
Greg has openly called for full blocks and a fee market (which we have right now).

If blocks are empty, then when the reward drops to zero how will miners get paid?


get your grandchildren to ask again in 100+ years, and tell them to relax.. even then in a century they will still have a couple decades to prepare for the answer
5156  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit support going up = hemorrage stopped on: March 26, 2017, 12:11:02 AM
core cry that splitting the network is bad.. sooo
core propose to split the network

laughing soo much

meanwhile many different dynamic implementations continue plodding along without making threats and just letting real consensus find its way.



core cry that setting deadlines are bad.. sooo
core propose a deadline

laughing soo much

meanwhile many different dynamic implementations continue plodding along without making threats and just letting real consensus find its way.


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" due 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
5157  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit support going up = hemorrage stopped on: March 25, 2017, 11:28:38 PM
core crew gave THEIR votes to pools.

now trying hard to blame others.

so funny.

meanwhile many different implementations continue plodding along without making threats and just letting real consensus find its way.

while core are shooting themselves in the foot and pointing towards the anyone they can see to blame for it. and all finding the excuses they can to launch the nuke which they pretend others will fire first.

 
5158  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 25, 2017, 11:14:11 PM
AntPool = BTC-U supporter of bigger blocks HAHAHAHAHA fuck them those china miners cartel
they need BIGGER BLOCKS ? Why ? They can't even mine constant 1MB....
AntPool = BTC-U supporter of bigger blocks miner control of the network
There, fixed it for you

CK... you should know better
shame on you trying to make scare stories fud and propaganda..

even you know if NODE consensus does not exist, then whatever gets made which does not follow node consensus gets rejected in 3 seconds.
need proof:
Code:
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

try sticking with facts next time
5159  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 25, 2017, 10:25:32 PM
THE MAJORITY is with you 21 million %.


cant even get your numbers right
there are only 16m coins in circulation

and if everyone was kissing his ass it would have been running by christmas
5160  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Dear Bitcoin Miners on: March 25, 2017, 09:55:10 PM
blah blah blah OP just reads reddit doomsdays rhetoric..

..
now to correct him with reality.

pools do not control bitcoin..
pools just collate data.

if they do not collate it in a way that NODES accept.. its rejected in 3 seconds..
need proof?
Code:
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

there... gone in 3 seconds.
need more proof?
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

as for thinking node consensus is not needed.

its core who have bypassed a node vote. remember its just a vote. nothing more.
pools didnt create the vote, pools did not create the code. pools did not beg to bypass node votes.
core and only core done that.

pools are 71% abstaining/vetoing. because nodes are not ready.
infact pools could vote. but pools even with 100% VOTE still would not actually MAKE new blocks unless they knew NODES would accept it. so pools are holding off and waiting unofficially for node consent.

if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options

1. PROVE how backward compatible things are by getting their partner BTCC to make a segwit block with a segwit confirmed tx in it.. worse case rejected in 3 seconds.. best case nothing bad. and it instills confidence.
2. make it dynamic segwit. that way when people realise segwit activation day solved nothing(due to needing users needing to do other things beyond segwit activation).. atleast people are then able to move on with dynamics rather than waiting another 2 years for core to make more excuses
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 ... 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!