Bitcoin Forum
January 24, 2020, 02:12:56 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 ... 873 »
5481  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Classic developer admits it: blocksize debate is just a powegrab excuse on: March 25, 2017, 03:37:52 AM
Yes,nothing is happening today for the progress of bitcoin.They are not really worried about transaction fees and more time for transactions.They are just mentioning this issue to grab the power.Whatever happens is not good for the progress of bitcoin.But we as bitcoin investors cant do anything now and we are just audience to watch this drama.

you (as a non-pool) cant do anything to stop segwit officially, because core went soft.

but for other proposals that are not soft you can.
EG if you hate segwit and you hate dynamics then just stick with core version 0.12

it wont do much for veto'ing segwit but 72% of pools currently are not flagging for segwit unless they see unofficially good node support.
but would show you dont support dynamics officially

if you hate dynamics but want segwit then run version core 0.13.1-0.14, its unofficially supporting segwit but would show some unofficial confidence in it, and it it OFFICIAL veto of dynamics due to officially reducing node count consensus of dynamics

..
if you hate segwit but want dynamics
the there are SEVERAL brands that are for dynamics BU is just one. but you can also tweak any othr favourite brand you prefer to be dynamicly capable

if you want segwit AND dynamics then theres bitcoin EC. or you can tweak your own core v0.14 to be dynamic and segwit accepting


5482  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Proposal: Make the orignal "Nakamoto" coins available for miners on: March 25, 2017, 03:15:11 AM
and this is a subtle hint of whats to come...

if segwit activates.. a threat will come.
move to segwit keys or have your current UTXO killed off in a mass prunning event of blocks before activation date getting prunned

people can already see blockstream planning it as their threat to push people to use segwit keys to force people to move funds to even achieve segwits promises

P.S
core have all the prunned, mimble wimble and other plans to move funds and destroy blocks without community consent..

P.S
having code that can destroy coins is worse than just letting a thief move them.. oh and lets not forget the real world realising devs can simple delete coins at a whim will destroy any "asset" trust of fungibility.

if anything let a thief move them.. atleast the funds would then be moved to secure keys and then still part of circulation.. the ramifications of destroying funds will be worse.

think about it. if satoshi did move them to secure keys.. what would the response be.. "its not satoshi.. its D-wage theft, destroy them before they are all moved"

how will anyone know the difference between the legit owner moving them and a d-wave thief.
5483  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: stop blaming miners on: March 25, 2017, 01:09:21 AM
miners are already feeling the effects, if compromise is not reached they will have lots of bricks and debt

Exactly. The incentive system in BTC should actually kick into effect soon.

When Segwit was in the ascendancy BTC was hitting new highs and was resilient even after the ETF decline. As soon as BTU took the lead BTC has suffered. The market is speaking and is hitting miners where it hurts.

segwit made many promises from late 2015. but now people are seeing the holes. and realising something else is needed because segwit is not as utopian as promised.
5484  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: stop blaming miners on: March 25, 2017, 01:07:34 AM
Yes we are not to blame miners because they are just earners like us who wanted good profit, so respect what perspective they have for their own good. Price will move as part of the economy system and yet demand versus supply will realky take effect of what had happening right now and price actually goes down as the current update shows.

pools just collate tx's (in an arrangement and block formation that NODES accept).
nodes can reject any invalid block arrangement which literally makes pools not get paid. so pools are not going to do foolish things.
secondly the exchanges set the bitcoin price based on users decision of value.

users can decide that bitcoin has less price value and as such pools acceptable block earnings lose fiat price value. so again pools are not going to do anything to hurt their income.

dont blame pools because they are not kissing blockstreams ass.
pools are 72% veto/abstaining from segwit because of many factors.
1. the node count is not sufficient to cover any orphan risk or consensus protection.
2. not all the merchant services are sold on the idea of segwit
3. segwit itself is not 100% fix. and it has many empty promises it cant hope to realistically achieve.
4. segwit turns the node network into a TIER network not a PEER network
5485  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: stop blaming miners on: March 24, 2017, 11:52:59 PM
Since the first ASICs came out we're witnessing a growing centralization of Bitcoin by mining industries. The pools are getting bigger, farms are getting bigger and the equipment is getting more expensive. That's what people are afraid of when looking in the near future. What if in 2 - 3 years it will all be in the hands of 2 big companies that will each have 35% of the network and the rest of us little people will have to accept whatever they come up with?

in 2013 there were only half a dozen pools... now well over 20 pools
5486  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: stop blaming miners on: March 24, 2017, 11:28:19 PM
blockstream

Life must be so simple when you don't need valid arguments, just a bogeyman.

like blockstream fanboys cannot defend the half promises of segwit that wont be met and the empty temporary bribe gestures, etc.. they instead find their own boogeyman, such as blame the pools for blockstreams removal of reactive pricing(replaced by average) removal of priority(replaced with just pay more) and refusing to expand REAL blocksize(replacing with empty promises of more tx if segwit happens)
yet all the finger pointing can find its way back to blockstream caused events


well when nodes HAD the power to veto. pools had to follow nodes lead or get orphaned.
EG
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)
boom non consensus block dealt with in 3 seconds. drama over
...
but now blockstream used a loophole to give pools the power(going soft).. and if pools dont kiss blockstream ass blockstream can kill the pools.

also segwit(blockstream) wants to widen their loophole(going soft even easier in future) to make it even easier to throw trojans in without node consent/veto.
and again blame pools if anything bad happens or kill pools if they dont do as blockstream say.

if blockstream had any honour. they would see there is resistance and instead of threats of lowering bip9, doing UASF and mining algo changes.. they should honourably re thing and compromise themselves to something the community would accept..
but no its blockstreams road or the cliff
5487  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: stop blaming miners on: March 24, 2017, 11:18:48 PM
but whoever takes up that new race will be fully aware that they'll be kicked to the kerb if they wilfully go against the interests of blockstream. if it happens once, it can happen again and they'd better know that.

FTFY
5488  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Classic developer admits it: blocksize debate is just a powegrab excuse on: March 24, 2017, 11:15:21 PM
It's about giving the miners and a few people close to them the power to dictate the rules of consensus.

segwit went soft and advocated giving power to the miners

   -banning various network participants and blacklisting addresses (Mike Hearn)
    -lifting the 21M coin cap (Peter Rizun)
    -destroying competing chains via hostile mining (Gavin Andresen)

bilatral splits - gmaxwell
millisatoshis - rusty russel
PoW algo change - blockstreamists


hypocrisy at its best
5489  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SHOCKING: BU chief scientist: "We need Bitcoin's inflation rate to be non-zero" on: March 24, 2017, 11:11:14 PM
bily bob zorton
you forget
adamback CEO
gmaxwell CTO

hypocrite


as for other hypocrites who pretend to be defending bitcoin decentralisation and "free market"

here is carlton before he became a blockstream defender
Dynamic resizing is the obvious compromise between the camps. Everyone can get what they claim to want from it, without having to compromise either.

The market could even try out bigger blocks, decide it doesn't work, try the alternative, dislike that more than bigger blocks, and then revert to some compromoise blocksize. Y'know, it's almost as if the free market works better than central planning...

That's similar to my position also. I support an algorithmically determined blocksize limit, but sadly we don't have any complete proposals yet.

here is carlton at the same month transitioning to being a blockstream defender

If I could pick a Bitcoin dictator, I'd pick Szabo.

And you have to. This area (the dev team) is where the decentralisation paradigm loses its usefullness.

People keep making the argument: "Decentralise everything! Let the users decide on difficult technical problems!"

Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.

and just as he transitions to be a blockstream defender
Any arguments that their plans to monetise aren't public are not credible. Plans are public and benign to the interest of the stakeholders. Known shills in this thread claim otherwise when it has been explained to them already.

Any arguments that suggest this centralises the dev team further are not credible. It's centralised now, it was centralised before, and it will be centralised under any other management. That's how the development process works.  


However, any arguments that Blockstream are deficient in their design ideas are those that I am willing to entertain. I'm not as familiar with their proposal as I could be, still haven't read it in full. But if Blockstream ever appear to be against the spirit of Bitcoin, I will not favour their solution, or anything that promotes it.

Superficially at least, Blockstream satisfies that basic stipulation; Blockstream's proposals thus far only enhance Bitcoin. We will have wait to see if that's what materialises.

and then when he is full on centralist blockstream defender. and no longer bitcoin decentralised defender
revealing that blockstream want their TIER network where devs control bitcoin

It's tiered. 3 tiers.

Tier 1 is the development team
Tier 2 is the miners.
Tier 3 is the users.

and as segwit is now revealing. that blockstream want to be the upstream filters of their TIER network [blockstream segwit Fibre] to totally dominate not just proposals. but the users control. leaving the rest of the network in a cess pool of prunned, spv, witness stripped nodes that cant sync with each other and are reliant on blockstream nodes.
5490  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 86% segwit support from users on: March 24, 2017, 02:51:11 PM
You are on record shilling BUcoin which is based upon a "Economic Consensus" concept which doesn't work and you should know it if you knew how to read code. You would also not run software that keeps getting bundled with exploits to the point incompetent developers had to resort to closed source patching.

Stop trying to sound smart. Smart people are on github not on bitcointalk 24/7 giving lessons about what is or isn't great code. Segwit has been peer reviewed by expert on the field, it remains objectively the best step forward.

goodluck moving them 46mill UTXO to segwit keys to get your segwit promises
oh malicious users wont move over to segwit keys. so forget ever getting rid of malleability, sigop and databloat spam.

though looking at the dates of the spam, its obvious who is causing the spam to try selling their proposals
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year
june/july - CSV
october onwards -segwit

oh and which 'team' removed reactive fee's (which drop in low demand) and replaced with average fee's to keep it up even in low demand times - core
oh and which 'team' removed priority and thinks that bankers 'just pay more' economics is better then coding some actual rules - core
oh and which 'team' made the biggest fork drama in the past - core 0.7-0.8
oh and which 'team' has all the snobby centralist ban hammers and coin splitter and mining destroying ideas - core

if you think the activation of segwit is the 'fix' keep learning
5491  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BUcoiners are trolling you into buying alts on: March 24, 2017, 02:38:35 PM
BU and other implementations have made no threats,

all the drama is made by the core scripted rhetoric pointing fingers in the other directions to avoid blame.
CORE intentionally gave pools the vote. so only core should blame themselves if pools are vetoing cores proposals.
cant blame pools when pools didnt instigate it.

core is just one of many nodes. core does not own bitcoin, never has (but they want to)
core did not invent bitcoin
core did not exist before 2013
5492  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 86% segwit support from users on: March 24, 2017, 02:29:57 PM
you think Jihan is the threat.
lets put the shoe on the other foot.

without consensus. this is what would happen to a 1mb+ block maybe jihan produces without pool and node consensus.
even he knows to not waste 10mins of electric for 3 second reject
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)

you have been sold into a script that holds no value of truth or no value of a scanerio that would work.

maybe spend more time understanding how bitcoin works, to defend bitcoins decentralisation.
then you wont be defending one brand incorporated and now wanting a centralised TIER network.

segwit is the threat.
read code, not reddit scripts.. it will enlighten you
5493  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 86% segwit support from users on: March 24, 2017, 02:20:02 PM
Blah blah blah. Same shit as always by this paid nerd. Get a life.

Facts remain:

1) BUcoin is shit software and no one supports it
2) 1)

Now go out for a walk, it's friday.

lol
there are more implementations than just BU, so why fear BU?
5494  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 86% segwit support from users on: March 24, 2017, 02:15:47 PM
So a couple of chinese idiots with a lot of hashrate given by the chinese government in order to deploy the BUcoin trojan horse think their plan will work when literally nobody gives a fuck about the BUcoin software because it's a buggy mess,

proof that if a miner tries blocks over 1mb, WITHOUT consensus... its rejected and trashed in 3 seconds

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)

so that debunks everyones scripted FUD rhetoric of how dynamic miners have control..
3 seconds gone.

P.S dynamic implementations need NODE AND POOL CONSENSUS.
segwit are the ones that bypassed NODE consensus. and segwits Bip9 can drop its pool thrshold below 95%. oh and core can UASF ban hammer and change mining algo to get that threshold even lower..
its core with the deadlines and threats..

all while other open and diverse implementations have just run for the last 2 years with no deadlines no ACTUAL threats and just ltting the community have a free open choice.. take it or leave it

will ellect a president and secretary of bitcoin (LOL) and will base their scaling roadmap in a flawed concept (Emergent Consensus).
What can go wrong?

ADAM BACK CEO blockstream
Gmaxwell CTO blockstream moderator of technical discussion and (implied by obvious CTO) boss of cor devs
Luke Jr blockstream contractor moderator of other aspects.

core came into existance in 2014 and incorporated their lead company in 2014.. allowing 100 unpaid interns to kiss ass hoping for a scoop of the $70m and a glossy blockstream namebadge if they kiss ass
5495  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: When will SegWit activated, considering BU nodes is a very small number now? on: March 24, 2017, 02:04:22 PM
BU activation at 51% could happen because of some rogue miner who produces a block of over 1 MB, I don't think that is BU's strategy.

No it can't. Miner's that signal BU support would currently reject it as invalid.

They designed it with some good features. They signal support of larger blocks but they don't accept larger blocks until either manually turned on or X of last Y blocks are bigger.

proof that if a miner tries blocks over 1mb, WITHOUT consensus... its rejected and trashed in 3 seconds
Quote
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)

so that debunks everyones scripted FUD rhetoric of how dynamic miners have control..
3 seconds gone.

P.S dynamic implementations need NODE AND POOL CONSENSUS.
segwit are the ones that bypassed NODE consensus. and segwits Bip9 can drop its pool thrshold below 95%. oh and core can UASF ban hammer and change mining algo to get that threshold even lower..
its core with the deadlines and threats..

all while other open and diverse implementations have just run for the last 2 years with no deadlines no ACTUAL threats and just ltting the community have a free open choice.. take it or leave it
5496  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lets make Bitcoin with SegWit on: March 24, 2017, 01:51:12 PM
we are not the one that decide(unless oyu are a miners), segwit or BU is only in the hand of miners and exchange that can force miners to choose path instead of another, especially investors who in the end are the one that buy bitcoin

consensus mechaninc is there for a reason, but it would have been better if it was extended to nodes too, i don't like how full node are almost pointless as they ar enow...

for core nodes are useless to veto segwit.
but other proposals and other implementations. nodes do have consensus power. this is why dynamics and other base block proposals have not set deadlines, but waited for node consensus.. 2 years on and no deadlines/threats.


dont be sold into the "nodes are not important ever"..
take for instance if a pool did try to make a block over 1mb..
Quote
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)
3 seconds and its in the trash, no harm, no foul, no network drama due to no consensus by nodes (only social drama by trolls)

nodes are important.. just core nodes cant vote or decline on segwit
5497  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Let's assume I'm a moron...explain Bitcoin unlimited. on: March 24, 2017, 01:47:09 PM
Frankie,

you do realize we're mostly talking to shills and zombies right?

yea but they have be corrected or they will continue their cabin fever rhetorical scripts until they get their blockstream corporate closed network of only blockstream kings on the top TIER
5498  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Let's assume I'm a moron...explain Bitcoin unlimited. on: March 24, 2017, 01:45:39 PM
The Tale Of Bitcoin
CORE : Well.. every time we introduce SPV, prunned, no witness nodes. and introduce a TIER filtered network. we have PROOF that the number of FULL nodes decreases.

And this is how Bitcoin died sweetie.  Lol... This was good
summarised and FTFY
5499  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Let's assume I'm a moron...explain Bitcoin unlimited. on: March 24, 2017, 01:38:45 PM
its not an alt coin.  BU is an implemtnation of bitcoin.  it allows emergent consensus on blocksize. If a majority of hashpower forms consensus and some miners try to make a minority fork, the majority fork will be BU but its not seperat right now. you cannot buy "BTU" except as bogus futures contracts.

I remember people saying the exact same things about Bitcoin XT two years ago, and if I remember correctly, you were one of them. Folks on this board were incredibly adamant about making the point that their fork wasn't just another altcoin, but in reality that's exactly what it became.

This is just another such project hoping to capitalize off the success of bitcoin. It even borrowed its name.

I'm not saying BTC will be the digital currency that most people settle on in the future. Perhaps increasing block size isn't such a bad idea. But this is clearly just another attempt to hijack bitcoin's fame. One of many past and many to come.

*I also forgot about Bitcoin Classic...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Classic

bitcoin is a decentralised and open network of MANY implementations.

bitcoin implementations can be wrote in many languages too
but they all have to run on the bitcoin network to be part of bitcoin.

core did not invent bitcoin
no one owns bitcoin.

core came around in 2013 and then the main devs of the core implementation incorporated in 2014.

do not assume core owns bitcoin or you are already calling bitcoins open decentralised ethos non-existent anymore.

as for those saying xt, classic and bu, bitcoinj and others are altcoins or desiring to cause drama/split the network.. funny part is they are all still running on bitcoin now, made no threats made no demands to change the mining algo..

but core have. core have bypassed community node votes by intentionally going soft and giving pools the only vote and now core is shifting the blame of no community vote to somehow be pools fault.
cores proposal have not let nature take its course of acceptance or not... core have included network splitting code and even worse , they have made threats for pools to accept core as centralised leader or get attacked..
but then tried pointing the finger like its the diverse networks fault for core to need to nuke the network.

meanwhile bitcoinj, bu, xt, classic btcd, bitcoin ruby and several other implementations just keep running and being a voluntary no deadline option to keep the network decentralised.

in short. its core that has the big red nuclear button should core not get their centralised TIER network they are begging to get. but they really want to blame someone else for having to press the button, to play the victim card
5500  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lets make Bitcoin with SegWit on: March 24, 2017, 01:16:11 PM
all coblee needs to do is get a merchants API and litecoin acceptance on coinbase. and then bitpay.

then blockstream can go play with their segwit and have their change of mining algo(litecoinscrypt) desires of their separation alt creation thoughts met. without needing any ban hammers or threats.... by blockstream jumping to litecoin and leaving bitcoin alone

oh look 1 day ago litecoin on GDAX...
.. it has begun


and bitcoin can go back to being diverse open and independent consensus of multiple implementations and that includes core devs that dont kiss blockstream/DCG ass who may actually want to be part of bitcoins diverse PEER ethos

Bla Bla Bla, here we have super troll Franky1 with his daily FUD again. How much do you get paid from Roger? He pays you with his Dash stack, right?


i dont get paid by roger or anyone related to any bitcoin implementation.
my opinions and thoughts are my own.

kind of funny how i said core (minus blockstream) can happily stay with bitcoin, but blockstream should go jump off to litecoin.. because it reveals your defending blockstream, not bitcoin, not independent devs by you getting emotional about my opinion

P.S i dont get paid to troll. my income has nothing to do with my opinion or comments here. i dont even have a sig campaign.
but to wear your shoes i could say about you and others getting gmaxwells zcash and monero and part of his $70m debt notes
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 ... 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!