Bitcoin Forum
January 19, 2020, 03:57:10 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 ... 873 »
5421  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: R/BTC moderator steps down, announces he is leaving bitcoin for Ethereum on: March 27, 2017, 07:26:14 PM
I'd point out, though, that Segwit does alleviate the immediate TX pressure,

no it doesnt..
its worth you trying to atleast learn how segwit actually works

heres things to think about
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.

5422  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current statistics Core vs. BU on: March 27, 2017, 07:10:31 PM
BU will lead to 100% mining centralization with control of Bitcoin flowing through China or it at least appears that way, with most mining equipment and mining being produced in China. This worries me more than anything else and should worry you too if you believe in a decentralized Bitcoin.

It remains to be seen if Core/SegWit/Blockstream will lead to any centralization like you say. For this to happen Blockstream would have to be the only player allowing off-chain transactions.

Side-chains allow for multiple off-chain implementations for off-chain transactions, which could lead to competing LN type services, not what I would call centralization.

do yourself a big favour..

for bitcoin issues.. stay away from reddit

for real life news.. stay away from FOX news..

instead read the source material read the actual data, stats, and real info that has not ben twisted. and whatever you do. dont base opinion on a human. base it on what it ACTUALLY does beyond the over promised sales pitches of corporate (social) media script writers.

it will help you out in life
all i hear from the core blockstreamists league is to defend king gmaxwell and to be racist against anything not under gmaxwells CTO governance contract

move yourself out of that cabin fever small corner and actually really get to know what bitcoin really is about. emphasis BITCOIN not core

EG
sidechains.. glossy name for altcoins..
as for blockstream if you think that when blockstream have their TIER network they cant get very whitelist/blacklist happy about what they choose to have connected.. you will be wrong

LN can happen now.. but as you can see by all the debate.. people are waiting for segwit and blockstreams version... so if you think its all going to be diverse decentralised. check again.
P.S.. take the blockstreamist defense league hat off and wear a logical critical hat.. and then research.. hint : LN DNS seed.. use logic and critical thinking about how the LN DNS seed can be abused.
5423  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (26.8%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (32.2%) on: March 27, 2017, 10:25:13 AM
But it doesn't look like Segwit is going to be activated.  
Read my post again. I've stated that it will not negatively impact Bitcoin.

Bitcoin unlimited is also taking a long time, I am not convinced that it will fork.
On the other hand, this would negatively impact Bitcoin.

Segwit would be a better solution, I agree completely there, but I think we might end up with BU and BTC, the worst of both worlds!
Correct. While Segwit isn't perfect, it is far superior than the proposal(s) from the others.

For some reasons, It looks like SegWit is making some progress and BU is stable enough for the moment. I still don't understand how miners could continue to support it though, I mean a lot of exchanges and wallet already made statements about not supporting BU as the original BTC, instead it they will support it as an alt or not support at all.
I can think of plenty:
1) Stupidity.
2) Lust for power.
3) Lobbying.

to correct you both
a) lauda for the last year+ have you even bothered to read passed the 30 second elevator pitch and glossy images of what segwit actually does and HOW its suppose to achieve its promises (hint: it has nothing to do with activation day)

b) dynamics may take a long time because they set no agenda, deadlines, have no nuclear red button. they are simply offering an open option of consensus. it is blockstream(core) and the centralist defenders over dramatising it because of fear. eg if there is nothing to fear then why scream that splits are bad and then scream that they should split off.. hypocriticising yourselves in the process.

c) once you have done (a) you will realise that all the promises are half-baked gestures. you realise the complete rewrite is not good nor guaranteed and nor superior. all you are left with as an argument to defend is WHO wrote it not what was wrote. which then leads you later to realise that devs too are temporary. so no point defending devs.

d) if you stop caring about devs and think only about the bitcoin diverse decentralised peer network. and take just half an hour out of your lives to care just about bitcoin, not brands, not devs. but maintaining a diverse decentralised peer network. you start to see that blockstream(core) CODE is turning the network into a TIER network that DOES cause splits and oppositions and centralising the network and more importantly dilutes the full node count far more than any other implementations proposal does.

so take your time. dont hit the reply button straight away. actually take some time to run scenarios. read code, learn consensus learn diverse independent network ethos. really think about it without the "protect the employed dev" hat on. and truly understand bitcoin. without just replying with the empty rebuttles thus far.

and if your rebuttles are 'its been tested'.. well so has litecoin, screw it so has many other alts. far more then segwit has. imagine litecoin code being dropped into bitcoin by november and people not even yet seeing if a litecoin keypair will or wont break bitcoins mainnet or lose peoples funds until after activation
5424  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current statistics Core vs. BU on: March 27, 2017, 09:15:02 AM

Hello franky1, been waiting for you Smiley

My post is Core vs. BU, not SegWit.

Personally, I don't care if SegWit gets support or not, I care that BU dies because it is bad for Bitcoin and bad for my investment. I'm not sure about SegWit but I'm damn sure about BU.

When a better development team comes around with a better plan and coding I'll be the first to sign their praises but until then, I'll stick with Core and whatever shit they come up with because I don't have a reasonable choice atm.

you do realise one thing though.. sorry to burst your bubble

core= TIER network. centralised and god complex

other implementations=PEER network of multiple diverse implementations. decentralised same level playing ground.

core can if they wanted to keep to bitcoins ethos, easily, spite their own ego's and add a few lines of code and be part of the peer network that keeps everything diverse decentralised and no one in control.

or
core can carry on with all their deadline, threats and bip9,uasf and pow algo blackmails. and turn bitcoin into a centralised bank2.0 with their LN endgoal

forget the employee of the month as a reason to support core. think long term about BITCOIN not a team that grabbed onto bitcoin in 2013


remember core did not exist in 2009-2012.. core did not invent bitcoin.
remember the employee of the months excuse to love core is temporary, devs move on.
even matt corrallo who was part founder of blockstream is moving on.
if you cant see the how temporal blockstream devs are once their job is done (fibre ringfencing the network)
then you care less about bitcoin and are betting your house on a few employed devs
5425  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current statistics Core vs. BU on: March 27, 2017, 02:46:10 AM
OP's posts

support levels: many companies dont actually handle bitcoin transactions formally... they do advocacy, education consultancy stuff
EG
bitcoin academy.. are an Bitcoin education, lobbying and advocacy, and not really a node running needed entity.
bitcoin embassy.. are an Bitcoin education, lobbying and advocacy, and not really a node running needed entity.
bitcoin twelve seven.. a facebook group
some others are just deep in the blockstream/DCG pockets. so that poll is not a accurate presentation of anything important.

nodes: 5601.. lol.. um thats not segwit nodes thats all core nodes even the UNDECIDED nodes.. again not representative to the segwit poll
eg
1   /Satoshi:0.14.0/   1683 (24.72%)
2   /Satoshi:0.13.1/   1295 (19.02%)
3   /Satoshi:0.13.2/   990 (14.54%)
=3968
= 1633 incorrect 'votes' on coindance

mining: 8mb are compatible with EC but SW is not compatible with EC or 8mb.. EC is actually higher then you think

5426  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 27, 2017, 01:43:44 AM
Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here,  someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028

You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.

This is what we call 'lying'.


Many of us have been trying to point out the truth for some time with frustrating results.

It is like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes and then being laughed at like you're crazy.

But eventually, reality catches up and it seems the tide is turning.

the thing is they know the emperor is naked. but they think.. if they kiss his naked ass they may get part of the emperors $70m.

the issue is for years they will play games arguing that he is clothed just to avoid talking about his nakedness because they want to distract and abstract the conversation of the nakedness subject

but yea eventually they will realise that the $70m is not a pot of gold for future employment chances. but debt that the emperor needs to repay. and all the suck ups realise they have be loyal to DEBT while trying to destroy real ASSETS
5427  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 27, 2017, 12:45:19 AM
train car wrck.

gold is not valued simply because its valued.

gold is valued because it has UTILITY

lets halt golds utility and make it so its only useful as jewellery.. thats right no electronic component utility because thats outside of its original utility. so lets limit it to just jewellery like it used to be

then go check your value because it has value stupid reasoning
5428  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 11:16:45 PM


Who was speaking of democracy? Only an idiot thinks democracy is the most effective way of governing herds of sheep who can't think for themselves. I'm speaking of economic voters the ACTUAL STAKEHOLDERS.

If you don't have any bitcoins and if you're not a miner then honestly STFU and GTFO you are no one and have no say in governing this network.

democracy is about anyone having the power to vote.
bitcoin is about everyone running a node having a say. that includes merchants and pools
it costs nothing to run a node. you are not asked to pay to be a member/voter/VIP

core want dictatorship with the fake pretence of democracy...

turning bitcoin into a quasi dictatorship with a gesture of democracy... but in reality its a meritocracy

dont let core turn bitcoin into a centralised TIER network

bitcoin works better as a diverse decentralised per network
5429  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Let's assume I'm a moron...explain Bitcoin unlimited. on: March 26, 2017, 09:47:42 PM
we're just having this scaling debate for no reason. how silly  Roll Eyes

We want and promote scaling

You want and promote blockchain bloating and hostile takeovers



Remember your libertarianism, jonald: if you need to use force against someone to make them do what you want, it's because they think it's a bad idea.

Quit trying to force people to choose something they don't like or want. If you initiate force, expect to get your ass kicked. Again. (this is like the 3rd time with you punks now)

maenwhile core forced the vote on the pools and bypassd the node community
meanwhile core forced the deadline
meanwhile core is planning to force the UASF 'it will push through no matter what'
meanwhile core is even willing to force an algo change.

meanwhile core ass kissers say core is utopian code thats not brok, yet core are offing elements/segwit altcoin total rewrite as a fix for bitcoin code

see the hypocrisy
5430  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 07:24:02 PM
edit
to counter the fail of calling it Fud/conspiracy from trainwreck
I didn't call it a conspiracy, I am asking you if you are claiming there is a conspiracy by blockstream that we should fear which signifies uncertainty for the future of bitcoin which implies we should doubt the current direction it is going?

Also, assuming you are not a fan of Adam Back, I should point out he was an original cypher punk (as I understand), and quoted in Satoshi's whitepaper, seemingly obviously trusted and respected by Satoshi.

to read someones white paper and quote them.. does not mean you understand or know the person behind it.
they were not friends. infact satoshi never talked to adam back.. all adam back got was an email from satoshi saying that satoshi quoted part of adam backs white paper as a small fraction of satoshi's idea/concept. and said adam is free to join.
adam didnt take much notice until years later AFTER bitcoin became a thing and satoshi moved on.

just like reading john Nash's white paper and watching a few youtube video's and a movie doesnt make anyone john nashes best friend, or someone that knows nash well or someone that understands nash
5431  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 06:25:21 PM
So your argument is that blockstream will have the biggest hub. Can you tell us why you think so ?
What does blockstream have that nobody else running a hub has ?

the DNS seed that controls the routing.... obviously

the DNS seed is used for jumpstarting bitcoin nodes not for lightning


thats a bitcoin DNS seed

LN has its own DNS seed..
remember rusty russel of LN is a blockstream employee
remember Cdecker is LN is a blockstream employee - https://github.com/cdecker/lseed
Quote
A DNS seed for the Lightning Network


edit
to counter the fail of calling it Fud/conspiracy from trainwreck
5432  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 06:14:46 PM
So your argument is that blockstream will have the biggest hub. Can you tell us why you think so ?
What does blockstream have that nobody else running a hub has ?

the DNS seed that controls the routing.... obviously
5433  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 05:52:40 PM
The protocol should be neutral to a 2nd layer, and I expect competition between several second layer networks over fees.
Even better, low end users should be able to participate by running LN nodes, getting a cut of the fees.

That's what I expect from this, and that's why I support SegWit

if your only supporting core with hopes of making an income running a LN node hoping to be a 'payment hopper'. i have to wake you up

even if it costs 1sat(its more and fixed so forget hopper competition) to make a payment and you core'bob' want a fee for instance

Alice< >'bob'< >Cindy< >Dave< >Eddie
if alice wants to pay Eddie.. alice needs to pay
'bob' 1sat,
Cindy 1 sat
Dave 1 sat
to get to Eddie.. costing alice 3sat(it will be more, but for simple demo im just saying 1sat each)

if alice wants to pay Dave.. alice needs to pay
'bob' 1sat,
Cindy 1 sat
to get to Dave costing alice 2sat(it will be more, but for simple demo im just saying 1sat each)

this will not happen.. instead..

             Bob          Cindy
              ^             ^
              v              v
alice < > blockstream/DCG < > Felicia
              ^             ^
              v              v
            Dave        Eddie


now alice can pay anyone for just 1 sat.. and the other people get nothing... yep thats right core'bob' you get nothing.
blockstream get the 1sat's per payment.

even funnier part is LN has fixed the fee at % of amount.(which actually limits how many transactions you can make offchain)
EG if 1%= 100 payments and literally your money is gone in mostly fee's
5434  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 05:28:18 PM
gmaxwell and his team avoided community consensus by going soft.. pools didnt ask to be the only vote.. it was thrust upon them.

gmaxwell and his team scream drama cries that splitting is bad, purely to play the fake victim card

gmaxwell says that it can cause issues blah blah blah. trying to play the victim card. but its gmaxwell and his team with all the deadlines. PoW change nuclear options. and the overrule activation and split code even if there is no consensus

gmaxwell loves his zcash, monero and $$$ fiat salary

oh..
this little nugget
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
5435  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
5436  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)
5437  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.

5438  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
5439  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.
5440  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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 ... 873 »
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!