Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2019, 05:10:44 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 ... 822 »
621  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Can REGULATION Really Be Beneficial to Bitcoin? on: February 13, 2019, 06:06:43 AM
regulations, if you wash away the buzzwords is this in simplicity:
1. gives a business a shiny sherrifs badge to look professional and an authority of trust. while letting the business police its customers
2. it allows businesses to get away with certain civil crimes by letting them push the crime onto someone else
3. it does not allow a customer to police a business. even though the business is the one holding the funds/product/asset of the customer

regulating bitcoin does not help decentralised independent people. it just helps make businesses and custodians look professional while hindering users utility.

regulations should not be promoted. but instead at worse consumer protections should be promoted whereby allowing independent people to police the custodians/businesses that take funds of users.
622  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are we not abusing decentralization? on: February 13, 2019, 05:32:21 AM
Decentralization is meant to be this way that people can fork any coin they'd like, you may find it abusing but its what makes it decentralized. Anonymity is another thing to abused though. You just have to figure which project you can classify as stupid than fairly good and decide whether to send money to it or not.

Agree. A cryptocurrency that cannot be forked at will, as well as, lacking permission-less characteristics, is not considered decentralized. It's normal to experience thousands of forks from a single project, as it's beneficial for the maturity of Blockchain technology. There can be as many copies from Bitcoin within the market, but only those that are solid in development and innovation will most likely prevail in the future. If you're considering investing into an altcoin or Bitcoin fork, you need to decide whenever it's worth spending your money on it or not. This is done by researching about a specific crypto project you're interested into.

this is sometimes where some people mis interpret and start to think the only way to innovate and have a strong project is to use forks to push out the weak idea's and then keep only the strong idea's as a single project under one teams control.

to insinuate that what you say means that bitcoin needs one lead team IS centralising.

the whole concept and revolution of 2009's invention is that different people do not NEED to split off when an idea is promoted.. instead the true "honest node" consensus is that changes to rules simply do no occur unless there is diverse agreement that the change is beneficial to the majority on the network.. without splitting up the network.

research byzantine generals.

so those trying to insinuate the only way to upgrade a network is to fork away opposers is literally abusing the bitcoins prime purpose of consensus.

yes people can make as many altcoins as they like. if they want to make their own altcoin. no one is forced to stay. but in th same breathe no one should ever be forced to leave before an upgrade purely to fake a majority.

that means a certain team should not get to control bitcoin and be ultimate lead by forking off opposers, forcing people off bitcoin just so one group gets their way is not consensus nor is it being a honest node majority.

if a certain team proposes an idea. and there is no HONEST NODE majority.. then the upgrade does not occur no harm no foul.. obviously the idea was not good enough... end of story move on

the proposer should then listen to the community, figure out the objections and find a solution that a majority would settle for.

if your mindset is still foolishly thinking bitcoin needs a leader and forks are needed and control from a central group is needed then please research the byzantine generals issue and the things that bitcoin solved when it was invented in 2009,, before trying to rebutt to insinuate that bitcoin can only function centrally via forking out opposing views

regulations and single lead team reference clients goes against the whole point of bitcoin.

if you want scam safety. try getting politics of countries(not crypto) to actually build laws that make it easier for users to sue/charge a scammer.
you dont need to regulate the currency/network. you need to make legal recourse in a courtroom easier to access for victims, and then education about self awareness, due diligence to help prevention of scams/theft.
regulations dont do either. but consumer protections does
623  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Whats up with Craig Wright? on: February 13, 2019, 04:22:43 AM
I will give him the benefit of the doubt until 2020 because im very generous. He himself put several countdowns on his credibility, including the end of the Tulip Trust thing which has the coins on lock, and the one where he will kill segwit next year. If he doesn't deliver, he just can't hold his act anymore, not even for his biggest fans. His ego is unlimited tho, just like his block size, so he will come up with further excuses.

did you even read the details of the tulip trust.

heres the revelation.
the tulip trust holds only PUBLIC KEYS which were put into a notepad file. and then notorised into a fund.
NO PRIVATE KEYS

as your post above proves he just grabbed random early adoptor keys. again PUBLIC KEYS
the tulip trust has NO PRIVATE KEYS

so no point waiting for 2020.
the tulip trust has been ripped apart as a scam hense why when craig used the tulip trust as collateral. it led to craig getting into alot of trouble with the aussie government after they done their checks.

all craig wright is doing now, because he cannot provide private keys. is to try social drama stuff to get his face on as many media publishings as possible and hope using the media publishing as proof of ID, to then hope to use that as proof of ownership (DUMB-ASS)

until then he is trying lots of tricks to gather funds to hope to ponzi his way out of big trouble (repay the big debts) and try to mitigate trouble by leaving only small holders too afraid to sue him left empty handed.
624  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The first Bitcoin (BTC) transaction received to an IP address ? on: February 13, 2019, 02:20:03 AM
Interesting discussion.

This reminded me of a tweet from Adam Back a few weeks ago, regarding the first BTC transaction to Hal Finney:

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1087013943330172930

Quote
curious what old TCPIP connection payments look like? the 1st #bitcoin transaction (from Satoshi to Hal Finney) was a p2pk, uncompressed pub key, for which no address format exists https://blockstream.info/tx/a16f3ce4dd5deb92d98ef5cf8afeaf0775ebca408f708b2146c4fb42b41e14be#expand,output:0,input:0 a deprecated method, direct p2p payment

Satoshi talking about disabling receive by IP feature:

Probably best to disable receiving by IP unless you specifically intend to use it.  This is a lot of surface area that nobody uses that doesn't need to be open by default.

In storefront cases, you would typically only want customers to send payments through your automated system that only hands out bitcoin addresses associated with particular orders and accounts.  Random unidentified payments volunteered to the server's IP address would be unhelpful.

In general, sending by IP has limited useful cases.  If connecting directly without a proxy, the man-in-the-middle risk may be tolerable, but no privacy.  If you use a privacy proxy, man-in-the-middle risk is unacceptably high.  If we went to all the work of implementing SSL, only large storefronts usually go to the trouble of getting a CA cert, but most of those cases would still be better off to use bitcoin addresses.

because the IP feature was just about a different way to get a bitcoin address from someone, it was not a big NEEDED thing. but opened up nodes to trojans, viruses hackers, man in middle, and ofcourse DDoS attacks so benefit vs problems.. weighed more into the problems direction. so was disabled

anyway moving onto to adam back...
dang.. seems like adamback has no clue
1. there actually was an address that satoshi sent the funds to hal
1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3

2. a TCPIP connection payment is just a standard bitcoin payment. seems he dosnt know the basics yet CEO's a company of dozens of developers..

then. in the replies section. he then reveals the issues of connecting to ip addresses to request data... and if you read it and then look at his companies invention known as LN . it, yep LN has that same fatal flaw.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1087151635510583296
"It's not very good:
- recipient has to be online (vs send to address recipient offline)
- IP address could change (many ISPs dynamic IP)
- recipient could have firewall or NAT (unreachable)
- TCP hijack could send funds to someone else (intercept/reroute)
- as no authentication"
625  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How does block size harm decentralization? on: February 13, 2019, 01:40:25 AM
doomad

the kingscorpio thing has nothing to do with centralisation. its just a crappy website that no one really views or considers important, but kingscorpio treats it like the network relies on it.

however. in regards to things that actually do affect the bitcoin network/centralisation..  even by your own admission and such has shown that the network is far too reliant on core. your admiration and devotion to their tactics of control alone shout loudly how its the case. let alone the stuff i said

in short. show me how the network has changed due to code/protocol changes that didnt not involve core devs in the last say 4 years.

your own words of "compatible" when you talk about no vote needed. and "permissionless" when talking about their consensus bypass and how you admire that they get to control the network changes is where the centralisation lays. you really need to learn what the 2009-2013 consensus was all about, what the byzantine generals problem of pre2009 was about and how satoshi found the solution around it to make it so there doesnt need to be a single leader/controller/reference of the rules.

as for the fee formulae. delving into your mindset of your admiration for core and your (sometimes denial, sometimes loudly spoken) thoughts about cores permissionless ability.. yes i said core could write a fee priority formulae and activate it. after all with all the controversy around segwit, core still got their x1 via all the tactics they employed in summer 2017. so its not impossible. core are not just chimney sweeps that are powerless.

and i find it funny that when an idea is suggested that can improve things. suddenly the core defense league of echo chamber people suddenly pretend and flop around that core are then powerless and shouldnt be trusted to implement it.. purely because its not on their roadmap thus should not be implemented.

so atleast try to stick to one narrative. either man up and admit the centralised code updates and then only a DISTRIBUTION(sheep follow or thrown off network) of that code and stick to one narrative. or man up that your waffles are just social drama in an attempt to bore people into giving up discussing things not in cores roadmap via your meandering flip flops, just so core can follow through with their centralist plans unhindered by the community

by the way. reading all your insults. you are the cranky one. you especially get cranky and insulting when getting told to do something useful.. like research.

maybe spend less time on your social drama sideshow of personal waffles and actually start caring about bitcoin (not alternative networks/commercial services)

but have a good year.
626  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How does block size harm decentralization? on: February 12, 2019, 01:55:26 PM
blah


go do some research. go watch some eastenders. go do somthing to atleast expand your views of bitcoin or your social drama limits

your flip flops and misunderstandings and denials of one thing to suggest another then flopping to deny another to suggest a further have become boring tactics of just social drivel that you continually try.

by implementing a fee mechanism can do things that counter your centralist mantra, while helping the community and pools and others.
waffle all you like to say that pools are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.
waffle all you like to say that users are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.

it was you that was emotionally spouting out your usual echo's that core can upgrade the network.. (remember your permissionless rhetoric). so dont now cry when i actually use your rhetoric against you to suggest core should do something that benefits a decentralised community.. because no one else can without getting rekt

(i can guess your next flip.. that core dont need to listen to community desires/needs/idea's, they will do what they want and ignore the community... which just circles back to the waffles listed above flops)

yes i get it anything to promote decentralisation you hate. but to then have you flop your own rhetoric about core and its compatibility and permisionless stuff.. is just you failing. moving from core being the trusted devs that you adore, to core just being chimney sweeps/janitors all in the space of a few posts is amusing to see you flop so much

end result
my OPINION and pure DISCUSSION is about things that can help. it is just words on a forum that harm no one
emphasis words on a forum. not code with mandated forks. so relax, dont get emotional

your reaction, i presume is that it might accidently open a few minds and have people want it, thus you fear that there may be a chance of it happening openly via a community open choice, without me even needing to write code. infuriates you.
it seems you actually fear the possibility of a NEW fee priority formulae being added as a consensus rule, you fear any discussion thats not optimistic to the centralist roadmap agenda

but oh well.
we all know you only want one direction of centralisation and commercialisation to occur. but beyond that you have become very boring with your unresearched flip flops.
especially when your flips flops are used against you.

but instead of trying to over-dramatise my comments. do some research
have a nice year,
627  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If Bitcoin means Decentralisation why did it brought then a centralised on: February 12, 2019, 12:34:25 PM
the crypto index that concerns YOU so much is only a concern to YOU because YOU are the only one obsessively observing it.

here is the cure.
if YOU stop visiting the site. it stops becoming a concern to YOU. because apart from YOU. i dont see the whole community even giving a crap about some dumb website no one even heard of unless you highlight it.

the crypto index is not a big community barometer / measure. the community dont care about it.
so calm down
628  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Now On Par With Apple Pay on: February 12, 2019, 02:20:12 AM
^ an article of optimism and hype and over promise

funny part.
"LN can rub shoulders by only being a few seconds slower then apple pay"
research on timings is used in a scenario of 'design to work' AKA perfect conditions test
rather than normal/random situation where scenario is not done in perfect/biased conditions

even the actual LN dev's admit there are flaws in LN

yet more over hype over promise.. (facepalm)
629  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How does block size harm decentralization? on: February 12, 2019, 12:33:58 AM
That's right, be a good little lapdog and keep spreading Craig Wright's arguments.  Then wonder why no one takes you seriously.

funny thing is people had same opinion as me and others YEARS before craig wright even was a thing..
who's the lapdog..
certainly craig wright didnt create the opinion... (do some research)
ill give you a hint. the real satoshi had th mindset that not everyone needed to be full nodes.
craig wright in 2015+ adopted that narative to try to convince people he was satoshi.

separate thing.
i have been thinking of bitcoin as a decentralised diverse network where not everyone needed to be a full node, before 2015


but yea you try your social drama games.. of distracting the narrative...
but try going to a forum about eastenders and coronation street as thats where social drama should reside
630  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How does block size harm decentralization? on: February 12, 2019, 12:28:20 AM

b) developers have no ability to force miners to do anything and are relatively powerless even if they did want to make that choice
c) developers don't make all the decisions and it's a double standard for you to claim they do whilst simultaneously advocating they should make decisions about fees (which they don't want to and can't anyway, because see points a+b)


^
seriously.. you learned nothing..

pools just consolidate transactions into blocks..
its then for the nodes to accept those blocks (ultimately BLOCKSTREAMS fibre network AKA CORE roadmap/core dev invention) that decide what passes and what gets rejected(learn the network topology). so if the network had a fe formulae that was set as a rule. then pools would need to follow.

pools dont and wont write a node and publicly release it.. (REKT campaign of social drama by core would avoid that happening)
so knowing the CODE is centralised by core and has been. it would have to be core devs that write in a fee priority formulae.

but hey mr flip flop. wheres your
"devs dont need permission" if your now pretending devs cant change rules as they see fit
"compatibility" of nodes means core can do things without needing a vote
"i agree with cores tactic in august 2017" of the network push off

for months and month the only social debate was not that core control rule changes, but that you love their control and i detest their control.
and now you gone and went full flip flop to even pretend core are not even code creators and just chimney sweepers that do nothing for bitcoin (facepalm)

seriously sort your flip flips out
631  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How does block size harm decentralization? on: February 11, 2019, 11:47:44 PM
The narrative is that non-mining nodes matter, and the blockchain is way too bloated on 1MB already, let alone 8 or 32MB.
Thing is, if every merchant wants one, companies like BitPay own multiple (in order to check for double spends agains 0conf scammers) + all miners having the full blockchain + spv services + all exchanges you could argue that this situation is decentralized ENOUGH.
Decentralization is not a goal to work towards imho, it's just a means of achieving censorship resistence and a lack of central planners / single points of failure. And unless there's other benefits to decentralization (having useless people feel important as if they're participating is not a benefit) I don't see why having more full nodes is beneficial.

yep. correct
having 100,000 nodes are decentralised
funniliy the EXCUSES to say everyone(millions/billions) NEEDS to be a full node. so lets stifle bitcoin and deburden bitcoin of utility to push people into LN..
but then those with the stifle/deburden bitcoin mindset... then strangely are OK with factory servers/watchtower masternodes.. and then millions of users that are just autopilot slaves using litephone apps where their funds are locked with a factory/watchtower aswell as a counterparty

the hypocrisy is soo ludicrous the only end agenda for having that hypocrisy would be the LN lovers hope to be the hubs/watchtowers/factories getting rich

to preempt and answer the usual echo chamber crew of LN lovers rebuttles

1. initial blocksync time - can be solved with just grabbing a few UTXO set info of a users wallet to get an initial 'unverified' final balance. thus users are not twiddling thumbs(same method SPV/Bloom works..) but still including the full blocksync where the blocksync is then less of a time sensitive priority

2. initial blocksync bandwidth. - users dont need to be connected to 200 nodes  so just connect to 1-2 nodes and wait.
(point one) solves the twiddling thumbs waiting for utility issue. so downloading the blockchain is not a waiting dilemma but a background afterthought.

3. initial blockchain data. hard drives of 4 terrabyte are no problem. we are not stuck at millennium technology afterall
(same argument as games consoles and users wanting to play latest games apply. if you want to run it. expect to upgrade hardware more than once every 2 decades)

4. linear/quadratic sig validation.. reduce the sigops limit prevents a problem. no one needs thousands of sigops anyway

5. peer-to peer / cash/ money is a one user to one user analogy so the whole pushing for group transactions just bloat transaction sizes thus limit numbers of users who want independence away from group held custodial models. so get back to simple lean transactions

6. remove the wishy washy witness scale factor code that still under utilises blockdata limits

7. add a fee priority formulae that actually is beneficial to all. punishing just the spammers. but also allowing efficient infrequent transactors with a fee that differs from the spammers. but still effectively gives pools something. without having to stifle bitcoin utility and deburden the network(which definitely would kill miners fees)

all points above have nothing to do with increasing the blocksize but would most definitely get bitcoin passed the 600k tx a day threshold yet to be achieved.

and then
8. incremental (not massive gigabyte foolish nonsense)... INCREMENTAL growth like we had between 2010-2015
632  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The first Bitcoin (BTC) transaction received to an IP address ? on: February 11, 2019, 11:10:13 PM
instead of a user having to gain a bitcoin address from a user via a website, a forum, a chat, a business card or a display at a merchant and having to enter it in at GUI level via copy/paste/qr scanning

a user could be connected to a services IP address..
the user sends a message to the IP address requesting a public key.. and the IP address (Service) gives back a bitcoin address.
the user then makes a transaction using that given address..

in short it was just a different way of getting an address that didnt rely on copy/paste. QR code scanning. manually at GUI level. but instead direct IP contact with a service the user wanted to give funds to, to get a public key without GUI manual methods

it was never about making a transaction where the recipient output was an IP address.
just a way to obtain a valid public key from a recipient via direct communication as oppose to GUI level copy/paste/QR code scanning

once the transaction is made. it still needs to then be relayed to pools and confirmed.
again its nothing about the output destination of a transaction being an IP address.
again its nothing about avoiding pools to get confirmed funds.

its just a different way to obtain a proper public key, but without using the GUI/manual way
633  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How does block size harm decentralization? on: February 11, 2019, 10:49:55 PM
pools cant change bitcoin rules. only devs can when devs make node upgrade options. so it was the devs that removed the fee formulae

You're confused about what "Bitcoin rules" are. Transaction priority was never a consensus rule. It was a client side rule. Not required by the protocol. That's why there was no fork when miners (and later Core) removed it from their clients.

1. pools cant change the rules.(separate debate)
2. pools can IGNORE features that are not ruled(separate debate)
3. but ultimately it was the core devs that REMOVE or add code

EG pools still ran CODE that included the fee priority. they just ignored it.  they didnt release a node to the public that didnt include the fee priority.
pools did not release a node to the public.

it was the core devs that did.
so while pools were ignoring the fee priority, users were still getting messages about fee priority issues. until CORE removed it

ultimately though a new better fee mechanism can solve the issues you have of:
thinking blocks need to be stifled just to get people to pay
thinking pools wont get paid if blocks were large and demand was low

knowing the math that 1mb baseblock 2mb baseblock 4mb baseblock is not a harm to decentralisation..
knowing the math that 1mb, 2mb,4mb base block is no harm to miners
knowing the math that fee's are not essential for years/decades
knowing a fee priority formulae can be implemented to solve the previous 2 things when pools need fee's.
there is no reason to keep blocksizes low under the ruse of "helping pools"
634  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Whats up with Craig Wright? on: February 11, 2019, 07:16:05 PM
social drama

craig appeared public in 2015.. i been here since 2012
chicken.. egg..

what you dont realise is craig is not as smart as he makes out to be. so pretending craig influences people is a big laugh..

also. my opinion is mine. made from many sources human, code, running scenarios... basically research.. u might wanna try it as your echo's are echo's heard many times before by a known group.
but nice try playing the echo game against me.. shame it didnt work due to lack of proper research

so yea ill still yawn and facepalm you. have a nice day
P.S ive never been into the altcoin drama. my mindset is on diversity WITHIN BITCOIN. but you continue highlighting altcoin and social drama stuff

but maybe stick to eastenders next time
635  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: On reversible transactions on: February 11, 2019, 02:27:42 AM
This will not profound solution to cryptocurrency theft. As security level goes higher the hackers also upgrade their hacking techniques. The solution is just to be careful and security conscious

Being careful and aware of security concerns doesn't seem to help exchanges much

As they are continually being hacked with coins stolen. So we need something which would stop hackers at the protocol level itself, something which they can't possibly beat (then no improved hacking techniques will be able to help them). I think an option of locking addresses at this level with a whitelist of addresses attached would help a lot in this department. Can anyone ask Bitcoin developers to think about implementing this option?

again. no protocol changes are needed.
the issue is that exchanges use "hotwallets". meaning they store private keys on the very same server as the exchange front-end. thus if a hacker can get to the server he can get to the keys.

easy solution is that exchanges stop using hotwallets
next instead of usernames and passwords. users can register a public key on the exchange. and then to login AND to withdraw they simply sign a message the exchange requests to prove identity.
EG: 'sign a message using 13xamP734ddr355 with the message:
deisiksayzletzmein110219

user signs the message using their key and pastes it to the server
this public signature sits on a database on the server front end. and separately a remote server just sniffs the database and sees the withdraw request and see's that the signature matches the users registered public key and then its the remote(secret) system that then processes actual withdrawals. thus no passwords, no private keys are ever saved on the exchange server

that way a hacker cant just grab a private key, because there are none. and cannot log in, because they dont have access to sign a message to prove ID.

i find it absolutely astonishing that in a bitcoin world people are not using the benefits of signatures as proof of ID
636  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Whats up with Craig Wright? on: February 11, 2019, 02:00:25 AM
long story short
he doesnt write bitcoin code
in 2013+ he pretended to own bitcoin of pre 2012 and make a false name for himself by pretending to own coins of bitcoins inventor(due to certain addresses being well known(part of his ploy/plot))

he does not own the coins and just grabbed publicly available data, which anyone has access to, to fake a 'trustfund' to then use the trust fund as collateral to scam many businesses including the australian government.
the aussy government tried chasing him with civil court actions so he fled australia
he is now just trying to grab fresh money from many places to hope to repay old money (run a ponzi) so now he is geting deeper into trouble

he is now trying social drama techniques to continue false faming himself. and hopes the fame would be the proof of ownership without having to prove ownership. and hope he can dig himself out of his hole using social drama, although he is just digging his hole deeper

in short he is not a bitcoin coder, not a bitcoiner, and not a bitcoin influencer.
no point talking more about him as he has nothing really relating him to bitcoin but scams. thus lets not give him more attention. let his name die out and let his faked fame evaporate
637  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How does block size harm decentralization? on: February 11, 2019, 12:59:40 AM
^ more insults.. but lack of research

typical.
pressuring bitcoin to remain low utility. and promoting other networks as the utility gate way.. is not promoting utility growth/scaling OF BITCOIN

emphasis OF BITCOIN (research "what is bitcoin")

but utility growth off another networks promissory note (counterparty signed 12 decimal tokens that are only acceptable during waking hours, and not confirmed by a blockchain nor validated by a community)

maybe you finally one day will do research on factories and watchtowers and update your understanding of LN's direction(thunderdome)
but hey if diversity of nodes and bitcoin scaling makes me a zealot. then your devotion to core and commercial services makes you a conservative(UK politics)

problem is. im just sounding off my opinions.. which you dont like.
its you that keeps thinking im insighting rebellion.
if i was a zealot i would be making code and insighting rebellion..

you have got so emotional about just my opinion. that you have tried (and failed) to demand i make code.. purely just so that you can then scream how im insighting rebellion by making code, which you demand

i think you keep missing the point. even though i even made my point in my footnote to remind the likes of you.
hense knowing im just sounding my opinion and not insighting rebellion. you can simply hit the ignore button if you dont like what you read.
this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. so yea i will continue to DISCUSS. i have never had any aims to insight rebellion. i have just had strong opinions that oppose a certain narrative that is at play

but atleast before just returning to your echo chamber to gather more insults to throw. .. try to update your research and stop with the lazy "wait and see" method.
if you actually cared for bitcoin. you would be more desiring to care/research and understand bitcoins purpose. and want to think about things before things happen. rather then "let them play out"

but hey. i expect more insults. so if your initial reaction is an insult. how about try hitting the ignore button instead.
638  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why is BTC based notary services considered bad netiquette in the community? on: February 11, 2019, 12:06:18 AM
if you want arbitrary data on the blockchain. then never dare enter a debate about bitcoins blockchain is too big.
if you want arbitrary data on the blockchain. then use a blockchain thats not aimed to be just peer-to-peer cash

those that do argue that blockchain is too big and that other networks are needed to take the burden off the network.. but then go on and say that adding arbitrary data is ok.. are just flip flopping

they need to go back to basics and research the whole point of bitcoin. learn its usecase and then stick to the single narrative of that usecase. rather than promoting other features unrelated to the use case and then promoting other networks to provide the usecase, to then make bitcoin not utilised for its usecase and instead promoted as something different
639  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How does block size harm decentralization? on: February 10, 2019, 11:46:40 PM
This is ridiculous. I'm not pissed off at bitcoin, and I like LN because it can create great strides in scalability. Those who are truly pissed off at bitcoin have jumped ship and promote on-chain scaling like bcash and faketoshi's vision.

"LN can create great strides in scaling..."...scaling what.
promissory notes that are not guaranteed to end in confirmed bitcoin value for the intended recipient


people vaulting up value into counterparty locks and then using a network thats got nothing to do with blockchains. doesnt allow payment while people are offline. requires intermediaries to be funded and online to hot potato(route) payments.
and doesnt guatantee a confirmed bitcoin confirmation at the end of it....

again. if you think bitcoin doesnt piss you off then bitcoin would be the strides for scaling network you would want innovating. but you by your own admission thinking bitcoin cant scale by needing LN as the 'great stride' means you are saying your not happy with bitcoins lack of 'great strides'

again for you to desire LN means you think bitcoin cant do it.
if you scrape away the top thin crust of your desire and dig deeper. and truly question yourself. you come up with that answer.

in short if you didnt think bitcoin was broke/limited function. then you wouldnt think LN was needed as bitcoin would provide your needs
640  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How does block size harm decentralization? on: February 10, 2019, 11:22:35 PM
doomad..
seriously
all i see is ur insults

and then ur final summary. of:
"And why don't you just wait to find out?"
is basically  let it play out let bitcoin centralise let it get expensive

lol, again
"And why don't you just wait to find out?"

is like theres a tsunami warning that can wipe out a town....
doomad. let it play out and see what happens

typical UK conservative mindset.

as for me not listening. your the one that has one mindset.
i travel the world and speak to many people i get a DIVERSE(you'll need a dictionary as its new word to you) understanding. i do my research. yes my opinions are strong. and yea i dont just run off and bite my lip as soon as the echo chambers chime in to yammer about their love and desire to de-burden bitcoins network of utility to hand it off to other commercial networks.

my mindset is LN is a niche service and a separate network for a few people that need it.
but you and your echos endlessly think LN is a bitcoin solution. and then you flip flop.. all for your ultimate goal of wanting everyone to just use LN and then realise the thunderdome they entered, purely because you hope ull be one of the get rich quick LN hubs that just want a repeat of the whole 18th-21st century banking.. while ignoring the whole point of bitcoin
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 ... 822 »
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!