Bitcoin Forum
June 17, 2019, 11:56:55 PM *
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 83 84 85 86 ... 820 »
701  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So I interviewed with Bitmain in Rockdale TX back in November. Ranting on: January 19, 2019, 06:50:20 PM
btcc has literally disappeared in 2017-8.. no ones talking about them
702  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Search for "Bitcoin Core developers" on Google, the results are funny on: January 18, 2019, 05:54:52 AM
I never "blindly promoted" Lightning in the forum, but I never posted "disfigured facts" on how it functions either.

Or maybe you didn't understand how it works, go do your research again.

On this topic, should be be concerned on the people who edits and maintains the "Bitcoin Core developers" page in Wikipedia?

its about the core developers.
and when you and your buddies poke the bear and all you get to say is "wrong because wrong" shows you need to do more research

oh and when i simplify it down to ELI-5 is not "disfigured facts" its called simplify things into non jargon, non bs
take jargon like "inflight upgrades" which mean upgrades without needing consensus. in reality thats a backdoor
take jargon like "wallet" which mean stores funds. but in reality a wallet.dat is a keyring analogy

what i find funny is how you and your buddies say the same stuff like a scripted echo chamber, but then all get upset when i say you need to research. so why do you and your buddies get upset whn being told to do some research

have you learned about multisig/factories/routers to denounce your own 'no third party' bs
703  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitMex Reportedly Losing Users due to Regulatory Pressures from North America on: January 18, 2019, 02:45:44 AM
trading bitcoin for USD... is a big no no as that also requires MSB licences which are a SEC requirement
it doesnt matter if the 'USD' is just a mysql database balance, a crypto/stable coin.. any token/balance thats pegged or described as value as USD puts it in the realm of being a MSB
704  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Qs about Proof of Work concept ? on: January 16, 2019, 10:40:03 PM
Firstly thanks a lot for the anwsers and your help i really appreciate it, cuz i found difficulties when asking that kind of Questions just a few people reply and answer question  Smiley

Quote
6. in simplified terms the block header has a nonce. ASIC create a hash that is the block header and where the nonce changes. this makes the hash change. they keep changing the nonce until they find a hash that meets the difficulty requirements

what a form that the nonce take (Numbers ...)? and from where it is generated ?

Quote
7. imagine it like 15 different groups(pools) racing each other to get a block hash result that meet the rules. only one can win per block.

but the other unrewarded pools can create a block and win the reward in the next (x) time ?

6. the nonce. is just a space to put in a number.
imagine you had some text :
'blahblahblahdeblah'
the text and a nonce would be like
blahblahblahdeblah000000
if you hashed it you would get
161F37591904929E6EBFDD9BA4DFB22C092204DE58D552E46FF9F771AAF186D4
so changing the nonce changes the result
blahblahblahdeblah000000=161F37591904929E6EBFDD9BA4DFB22C092204DE58D552E46FF9F771AAF186D4
blahblahblahdeblah000001=86E8E440341479C85888F906EE103579BE4EF34582FDECB546BBF43AC3C3A904
blahblahblahdeblah000002=887C68F2C56015B3CBFE4D3E76531AA2A1B4855CE9394940F783B0BE01BF1ABC
blahblahblahdeblah000003=E110996EBDBFFD6FB63D78FEABE2AF3F89577CE031A9764C6D6C4C98F3711794
blahblahblahdeblah000004=576889D3D11E55ACA59B4176B2119ED8B7DD8B571C0622AEFB0B4564F1D2D71D

7. if a few pools crate blocks within seconds of each other there is a chance that different users would get different blocks. depending on how they are connected to each other.(a small rar chance of this happening)

ALL the pools then restart working on the next block. and again whoever is fastest wins.
and this time the gap between first and second place might be wider so now the winner is a clear winner which then makes all users choose to trust the fastest clear winner. and so will hold onto the blocks that are linked to the winner chain of previous linked hashes and ignore the second place

people in second place dont win anything. they just have to retry and hope at some point they gt to first place.

due to issues where users might (rarely) hold a different block due to the race competition.. block rewards are not spendable instantly.. but instead untill 100 other blocks are stacked/linked ontop because the chances of people editing blocks and then catching up (point 4) and also the races swapping latest blocks. are not going to be a concern to a block 100 blocks deep(100 confirms) as the odds of negative impact resulting in changing something 100 blocks ago is soo small. its then deemed safe to let the winner finally spend their rewards of the block they won 100 blocks ago
705  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Binance CEO saying don't keep coins on exchanges on: January 16, 2019, 09:04:09 PM
OP
your quoting a crap media
crap media quoting a panda
panda is quoting an image of a tweet
image of a tweet is quoting a tweet that says

if you store coins yourself you control your security
if you store on an exchange use only a trusted exchange

OP says CEO is saying dont store on exchanges
but the quote of th quote (from panda) is saying th CEO is saying to store coins on exchanges..

but the actual tweet is unbiased either way. its just two if statements where the "if" is subtly implied

anyway best advice is dont use an exchange as a custodian wallet. they are not designed or insured as being custodial wallets. they are just a trading service. most exchanges have terms and conditions wrote towards exchange trading, which means expect losses and you cannot hold an exchange liable for losses [of trading] which if translating to fools using an exchange as a custodian. is also implying you cant hold the exchange liable for loses.. meaning if hacked, your screwed.

so only use an exchange to exchange. and yes expect loses. dont think your funds are insured
706  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Qs about Proof of Work concept ? on: January 16, 2019, 03:59:45 PM
1.a. its more so that when a new block is added the previous/older block(s) are safer to trust as stronger. EG a transaction in a block 100 blocks ago (100 confirms) is safer than a transaction with only 1 confirm

1.b. because a block contains the hash of previous blocks then to have a valid block does require clear links that do go all the way back to the genesis block. for instance you cannot just copy ethereums block history or litecoins block history to be a bitcoin attack chain. because although their blockheights(number of blocks) are more. the genesis wont match

2. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm

3. yes each tx has its own hash which is called a TXID (transaction identifier)

4. he can only ultimately alter which transactions were in a block. thats the easy part.. catching up with the network after is the harder part
say blockheight was 570000 and someone wanted to edit out a tx in 569999. they would do that but then they would need to PoW mine the hash for their 569999 and then add that hash to their 5700000 then PoW hash that block.
the rest of the network would probably be on 570002 at this point because while he went back everyone else continued forward
so the person editing would need to catch up and race against the network hoping to get ahead so the network would accept the alteration.. which at 15% has little chance of happening

5. save as last point but much more chance.

6. in simplified terms the block header has a nonce. ASIC create a hash that is the block header and where the nonce changes. this makes the hash change. they keep changing the nonce until they find a hash that meets the difficulty requirements

7. imagine it like 15 different groups(pools) racing each other to get a block hash result that meet the rules. only one can win per block.

8. continuing from point 7. the other pools dont get anything. its like a 100m race the first one to cross the line wins.. as long as they are not found cheating
707  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin [BTC]ís Lightning Network capacity is now worth over $2 million on: January 16, 2019, 12:00:02 PM
I don't get the fuss.

the fuss is that LN is not a bitcoin feature. its its own separate network for multiple coins to use (thus not something to concentrate on giving bitcoin uniqueness)
bitcoin had to b modified to become compatible to the commercial network known as LN. LN was not modified to fit bitcoin.

the fuss is that BITCOIN i will emphasise this BITCOIN NETWORK needs to scale, yet years of delays, excuses and backtracking and 'beta/experiment' blah is now turning into bitcoin cant scale so hand bitcoin to factories(banks) and let them give you unconfirmed/non blockchain audited 12 decimal pegged tokens. as the only road to go down.

the fuss is even if LN works for a niche of daily spenders(yp even in utopia its not fir for everyone). the bitcoin NETWORK still needs to scale to manage such. and also cope with the people that dont want to use LN...

and yet. years later. BITCOIN has not progressed.
infact many are already starting to say using other networks to exit LN is a future.
the same old banking/thunderdome tactics.
gold and silver may enter silver may leave

we even now have the community making out that being a true bitcoin fan (bitcoin maximalist) are bad.

sorry but th fuss will continue if the whole ethos of bitcoin being an open barriers digital cash. gets morphed into a bank vaulted coin to play around with non blockchain unconfirmed funds that are no better than fiat.
708  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin [BTC]ís Lightning Network capacity is now worth over $2 million on: January 16, 2019, 11:29:09 AM
(although it's still beta).

it is in beta,

bitcoin is in beta and its been 10 years.
using the Beta excuse is just saying they can stall things for as long as they like, promise anything and if a flaw is found then and only then do they backtrack their over promises and just say well "its an experiment" "it's beta"

i think too many people that dont actually use LN or have not even done the research on its limitations/flaws, are too excited about the over promised utopia. and are happy to say bitcoin cant scale purely to advertise this altrnative network thy have little clue about

so heads up. heres an actual LN, core and blockstream dev who actually openly is telling people some of the flaws that he says himself will be unlikely resolved
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
709  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin [BTC]ís Lightning Network capacity is now worth over $2 million on: January 16, 2019, 09:23:40 AM
Even after 30 days the sum can be calculated. And from my understanding that sum is not related to the "advertised" "capacity" of those channels, so I'd like to know it, since it would give a better view about the current "success" of LN (although it's still beta).

yea 12 decimal values get aggregated(calculated)
but bitrefill are in the control seat.

remember the promises of LN
it was: spend 'your' funds instantly 24/7
became: let a factory control the funds and hope they are online when you need their authorisation

it was: close channels and broadcast when you like
became: submit a close request to a third party and hope they dont stiff you

i think people are forgetting the whole point of bitcoin. and they just want fiat2.0
710  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Search for "Bitcoin Core developers" on Google, the results are funny on: January 16, 2019, 09:06:16 AM
Then can you say that what you are spreading about Bitcoin, the Core developers, the Lightning Network, and the rest of your twisted arguments is the "truth"? How can you say that? Most of them are wrong.

I respect you, but I don't know what your agenda is.

firstly, when i say something. i done some actual research and look at statistics and find different sources.
secondly you think what i say might be wrong not due to statistics/data. but due to echo chamber rants from a group of people


What made you believe that everything you say is "right"? I do not mean to offend you, but many of the things you post are simply wrong.
all i say is to do your own research.
also read my footnote.
"Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience"

you sound too much like doomad. which is just empty rebuttals and implying i say things i dont actually say

try doing some independent research, and not think what you have learned from a certain buddy group you repeat stuff from is right.
its very telling your stuck in the repeat what your buddies say boring mythical crap of over promoting something you have yet to research yourself because even after months of giving you hints. stats and data. your rebuttals just become empty "wrong because wrong"
take some time to learn something not involving the certain group. exit your echo chamber of all your buddies thinking they are right because they all kiss each other and agree with each other simply because they only ever see and hear one story

thirdly i dont hope you just believe me for the sake of believing me, even you know i have annoyed alot of people by asking them to do their own research, that includes you and your buddies.


My buddies? Are you talking about the people in consensus? Cool

Quote

its been months now. have you learned (without the buddy echo chamber) what:
consensus is. in regards to byzantine generals and why bitcoin/blockchain invention is so revolutionary


Are you referring to our debate about the Core developers? I believe you misapplied the Byzantine Generals Problem in that post.
you seem to not yet even know the depths of the byzantine generals problem to even know what your referring to. maybe when you learn the real stuff you will understand why blockchains are revolutionary and why everyone is so shocked and astonished at what satoshi solved in 2009. LN does not solve the byzantine generals problem.
there is no blockchain, no community audit. not strict rules that LN NODES have to adhere to strict community protocol.
LN is not revolutionary. its actually a step down from bitcoins/blockchain revolutionary problem solving.


and LN is devolved tech
That is your opinion, and therefore could be biased, and wrong.
do some independant research... for once.
bank accounts are just like LN channels. think about hubs as town/regional banks. think about how the funds flow through banking systems
LN is not the same 24/7 PUSH tx system as blockchains. LN is the 'is the 'bank' open and online to authorise payment.

LN factories. in regards to the "3rd party" / "middleman" you continue to deny but seem to not want to research/admit

What are you talking about? A "channel factory" is a feature that makes it more convenient to open and close payment channels in Lightning, done off-chain, without broadcasting on the blockchain.
blah blah blah you rebutt with the ignore the security concerns. the code issues, the limitations and flaws.. and just reply with promotional script of a over promised network.. as usual but you miss the point.
learn HOW they do it.. learn and research HOW and you will see the 'third party' you love to dismiss the existence of

but anyway. main point is do your own research beyond the base stuff first presented to you.. look beyond the base and look at where the source material is and the context


I look at the data objectively. Do you?

i do. i dont just ask a few friends for a promoted glossy overview of over promises. i actually read the code, documentation. i even get information from the devs themselves.. i doubt you even watched the video of the devs calling out all the flaws even they admit they think cant/wont be fixed
..
now here is a question for you:
are you someone that actually wants to know how things actually work and know both the positives and negatives of something
or
are you someone that just wants to promote positives because your buddies think IF its a success in someway they are gonna get rich from it. thus you think maybe you can get profit following them
711  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin [BTC]ís Lightning Network capacity is now worth over $2 million on: January 16, 2019, 08:43:22 AM
Nice numbers and nice graphs. But I see no info about how much BTC was actually moved around in these channels.

people don't just put money in their Lightning Channels for fun, they put it there to make transactions and there are some big channels that have done it to support the network and process more transactions.
however i don't know how you can count how many transactions have taken place in this network, if at all possible to count. but you can check out some of the stats some of the merchants released. for example i remember the bitrefil saying they reached 1BTC payment about 6 or 7 months ago. haven't checked for updates though.
analogy:
exchanges HOARD hundreds of thousands of btc.
but trade volumes of the non blockchain exchange databases are not hundreds of thousands.
they are just hundreds being day traded (rinsed and repeated)
emphasis on a non blockchain system

secondly with LN
while BTC(8 decimal) is locked up in factories (like bitrefill recently announced) they then create channels with users and give them unconfirmed/unaudited balance of 12 decimal values.
these transactions do not have a bitcoin blockchain parent UTXO as an input.. but give a user a grandchild unconfirmed balance output where the parent input is also a unconfirmed input

all so that at the end of the 30 day lock. the user cant just broadcast a tx onchain, but have to send it through bitrefill and request bitrefill to aggregate the balances and charge a user to broadcast back to the bitcoin network using a 8 decimal TX. or (bitrefill prefers) to get users to just open a new channel. which they can do because the user only gets to handle 12decimal transactions so bitrefill are not afraid of early broadcasts
712  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin as a better store of value than gold on: January 16, 2019, 08:27:07 AM
OP argues that bitcoin is a better SoV because its easier to use as a medium of exchange.
the foolish part is those that want to remove/inhibit/stall its MoE utility to be just a SoV

by removing/stalling/ sidestepping its MoV. by letting people play with promissory unconfirmed tx's on another network and requiring vaulting up coins to even use that other network. is not going to gain value of bitcoin.
What was removed, stalled, or side-stepped? You can use Bitcoin on-chain transactions all day, everyday. Go have a ball.

now you are just being ignorant after months of the same things being said. but your own post history can remind you if you genuinely cant even remmber your own converastions
removed: fee priority mechanisms, prices 2009-2015 were pennies. now they are more
stalled: BITCOIN NETWORK scaling: 2010 the 7tx/s number was known .. (600k tx a day) show me a day exceding 600k tx
sidestepped: many things. read the 2015 roadmap where things were meant to move along in weeks/months to scale BITCOIN NETWORK where the actual results of2019 are a tx format that is a gateway to another network and a bloat expansion (not to scale up) to try avoiding reduction of tx counts to fit bloated new features
the MoV: the very devs you love to defend are the ones shouting that bitcoin cant scale. even you and your buddies are of that mindset that bitcoin cant be MoV and will be SoV

seems you have become ignorant, and even forgetting your own mantra's and mindsets on the issues

vaulted up coins(8 decimals) locked in fortknox(factories) to then play with unaudited promissary transaction mediums(unconfirmed 12decimal tx's) is the same business plan of banks using paper money that 'represents' gold in the 18th century


What are you talking about? Bitcoins sent through the Lightning Network are not "promisory transaction mediums", there are no "promises to pay", they are Bitcoins.

i can write a transaction on a piece of paper and hand it to someone. guess what it wont be considered a bitcoin transaction.
first rule of bitcoin/blockchains.. if its not on the blockchain it didnt happen
learn the terms "confirmed" "settled"

secondly the LN transactions are not blockchain transactions. ther is no guarantee that they will ever be blockchain transactions. so at best they are promises. and we all know promises can be broke.

even the LN devs admit this. that they are a future promise to pay. much like showing off a bank statement that you are well funded but writing an IOU that gets adapted and re-signed before being settled

i say this with actual sincerity
ACTUALLY RESEARCH LN!!!!

oh and let me guess tether is actual dollars will be your next rebutt.. think about why tether is not actual dollar. and think real hard about the reality of LN. not the fluffy pony hopes your buddies promote to you that LN will work out in the end and will be utopia
713  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Cryptocurrency One Big Ponzi Scheme? on: January 16, 2019, 04:23:00 AM
a ponzi is where some guy has a big bank account. everyone puts lots of money in. but the guy only gives out pennies on the dollar as interest/dividends to keep people from asking for all their funds back.

crypto is not a big moneypot with a mr ponzi
crypto is like buying a asset. like a car. you own the asset and you decide when you buy/sell it.
you dont earn interest/dividends from it. you dont have any guys holding value on your behalf.

the asset just has a price depending on what price people want to buy and sell it for. which is why its volatile
714  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Search for "Bitcoin Core developers" on Google, the results are funny on: January 15, 2019, 09:53:44 AM
Then can you say that what you are spreading about Bitcoin, the Core developers, the Lightning Network, and the rest of your twisted arguments is the "truth"? How can you say that? Most of them are wrong.

I respect you, but I don't know what your agenda is.

firstly, when i say something. i don some actual research and look at statistics and find different sources.
secondly you think what i say might be wrong not due to statistics/data. but due to echo chamber rants from a group of people

thirdly i dont hope you just believe me for the sake of believing me, even you know i have annoyed alot of people by asking them to do their own research, that includes you and your buddies.

its been months now. have you learned (without the buddy echo chamber) what:
consensus is. in regards to byzantine generals and why bitcoin/blockchain invention is so revolutionary and LN is devolved tech
LN factories. in regards to the "3rd party" / "middleman" you continue to deny but seem to not want to research/admit

but anyway. main point is do your own research beyond the base stuff first presented to you.. look beyond the base and look at where the source material is and the context
715  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: January 14, 2019, 09:19:24 PM
@franky1 I don't understand why you insist in the constant bashing and ridiculous ad hominem attacks against gmaxwell.

When someone resorts to personal attacks, it means he or she is out of arguments, and resorts to this in desperation for having lost the debate.

oh look more poking the bear.. ill bite, yet again..
but before i begin. i did try avoiding the pokes of the bear for the hypocritical point of what is wrote above in regards to ad-hom. where i tried to avoid derailing into persona comments unrelated to bitcoin full node issues.
but seeing as more than one person wants a response. ill give it.

i make points about how core devs are doing things that are taking people off the network. bitcoin is not some AI that self codes. yes i mention devs by name such as wuille lukeJr and gmax
that is not ad-hom. that is highlighting who is involved

i have never made a comment about gmaxwell personal attributes that had nothing to do with the topic. EG i do not meander into attacks about his beard or the way he walks down a sidewalk.

instead i talk about bitcoin issues caused by devs. and yes its those devs that cause issues should be mentioned.
the funny part is how instead of understanding the content of the issues such as how their code has got negative impact. they want to meander the topic into appearing as if its a personal attack.
they keep writing code. but then pretend to be powerless janitors that cant code. they themselves play the ad-hom game by changing bitcoin but whenever anyone highlights the changes. suddenly the commenter must be some personal attacker.

the buzzwords "ad-hom" is an old and repeated strategy the core devs keep falling back on as their way to avoid answering why they are coding what they code.
the funny part though is if you done a word count on insulting/vulgar words. you will find those who are in core friendly group are the ones that do more 'attacks'. but i do not care about their vulgar meanders. i just continue to highlight the issues about bitcoin. and let them circle their out-dated tactics of avoiding listening to the community.

sorry but devs are not the victims here. greg got well paid to stifle bitcoin between 2015-2017 and has enough income to live happily because of it.
if you think greg is not involved in a "roadmap". well here is the advert naming it
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
and here is the roadmap itself. note the creator at the top
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
what bitcoin has become is a network where:
if it doesnt follow cores roadmap, opposers are deemed not as a counter option. but as an attacker that needs to disappear.
devs prefer to have less people using the network
devs do not want bitcoin to be a unique success, as they are happy to program other networks and promote other networks and even promote their involvement of pushing counter options off the network

note. the false promotion
"been working on scalability for several years" (that was wrote in 2015 meaning they have ben scaling for years prior)
yet. satoshi in 2010 mentioned the 7tx/s number and so yea 2018-19 i questioned gmax about his "working on scaling BITCOINS SYSTEM" to show m one single day that out paces numbers known about since 2010, to show that scaling is actually occurring

oh and a further point about when Gmax shot himself in the foot with the example block of 12k+ Tx's before segwit. i knew about that in 2015. and do you know why i excluded it from the main conversation. because that block contains no signatures and as such, as a true full validating node. bypassing that block and auto passing it as good, without validating signatures. is a security risk.

do you think its good security for nodes to just pass blocks around without signatures and just treat the data as passable.. can you even try to consider the auditing/security risks. without diverting the topic to sound like it must be ok because you trust the devs that allow nodes to accept such a unvalidated set of tx
716  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Search for "Bitcoin Core developers" on Google, the results are funny on: January 14, 2019, 07:54:30 PM
gaslighting

typical reply..
boring reply thats just the same as your buddies replies years ago. when you lot cant rebut, you then shout out certain buzzwords that are known in your group. before it was 'ad-hom' then 2018 it was 'gaslighting'..
well its 2019. time to think of a new buzzword

anyway my point is this.
you get the results based on what you decide to search for and what you decide to notice/react to/ take as the answer.
this topic has been open for a week now. but have you tried to change anything?

also if your easily triggered by selective results presented to you without looking at the source to check its validity. then by you reacting and thinking its a big deal that top results that appear to you are wrong. then it might be a lesson to not just take the first answer you get as the truth. a lesson that research takes more time than just taking the first answer spoonfed to you

have you tried to correct anything?
google snippets have feedback
wiki has edits
717  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: BTC - POS is the future on: January 14, 2019, 04:41:08 PM
for me its not a rich vs poor debate. for me its those who want to change bitcoin to be PoS, IF they are doing so purely to get a lottery win and then exit bitcoin fiat rich....
...are the kinds of people we dont want changing bitcoin.. as they dont care about bitcoin.

and its not about rich or poor.
its not about how poor may deserve a lift off the ground, or slapped back down

its just if you dont care about bitcoins sustainability. and you have not done the research into which security is best. and all you can think about is profit. then maybe your not the best person to be handling the topic
718  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The story gets scarier. on: January 14, 2019, 03:07:55 PM
all this waffle about social drama that dos not actually physically affect bitcoin.
so with that said. why isnt there the same waffle about BTCC and the other pools

remember. before you spew nonsense about bitcoin making ASICS. no TSMC make the asics
i find it funny how no one is talking about BTCC's disappearance since the BTCC buyout
719  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lots of doubt on on: January 14, 2019, 02:07:28 PM
i was expecting a rise due to the mining:market dynamics. i was expecting a larger rise in hashpowre, but it seems alot of people are sticking to s9's and s11's. and not that much is happening with the s15's

so the mining cost:market price is remaining low due to cheap s9's still circulating and changing hands at cheap second hand prices.
so for me its just a waiting game to see hashrates move into the 45-50exa before i start trusting a sustainable up movement of the price.

i know last octobers curve down in hashpower due to selling off s9's cheap caused the november market curve down. which i hoped would have just been a curve up due to new asics.. but it just a waiting game for the dynamics to play out as new asics come online and push the mining:market effect

i have a nice hoard of btc from years ago and i have no fear's in regards to price. the price will play out in the right directions once th dynamics head in the right directions. my concerns are more about a certain group wishing to stall/stifle bitcoins utility and mess with the market:mining dynamics by pulling people off the network
720  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin as a better store of value than gold on: January 14, 2019, 02:32:01 AM
OP argues that bitcoin is a better SoV because its easier to use as a medium of exchange.
the foolish part is those that want to remove/inhibit/stall its MoE utility to be just a SoV
That sidesteps his point though, doesn't it? Even if you believe that on-chain scaling is superior to off-chain, we should be able to agree that Bitcoin's properties make a superior medium of exchange to gold.

your turning into a flip flopper
you want to one minute say bitcoin is better than gold at MoE... but then say YOU say
"Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly"

i fully understand you prefer centralisation, along with your buddies. that has been obvious for near a year of you and your buddies "dev defense" meanders.
but putting your opinions aside about your admiration for centralisation.
going centralisation(middlemen factories) in general removes desirability of bitcoin. people will start thinking its no better than fiat
locking funds up removes self control
locking funds up removes desire for people to want to be full nodes. which reduces security
locking funds up reduces onchain fees as theres less onchain utility makes miners less profitabl thus reduces security
along with many other things which i could continue listing makes btc less desirable and leads to people wanting to exit and use other coins.
all of which make btc have less value

by removing/stalling/ sidestepping its MoV. by letting people play with promissory unconfirmed tx's on another network and requiring vaulting up coins to even use that other network. is not going to gain value of bitcoin.

Actually, it probably will. The more people that buy coins to lock them in LN channels, the more supply that is removed from the market. That should increase prices.
this opinion of yours has flaws, ill explain.
1. out of all the coins not much are actually on exchanges. so the effect you think is not as much as you think
2. if anything. it wil be people on exchanges who will avoid exiting exchanges and instead lock into a channel with an exchange to be able to arbitrage faster. thus there would actually be more 'balance' on exchanges, because LN will benefit day traders more then it would average joe just buying occassional stuff

I don't think LN is ideal, but neither is Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly. It's pretty amazing that LN could leverage Bitcoin's security while sidestepping those costs.
LN doesnt leverage bitcoins security, onc you update yourself with the 2018-2019 concepts and code of LN in regards to factories. the users are not even holding bitcoin. they are holding a 12decimal pegged token.
remember LN is a separate network and bitcoin had to change to fit LN's needs. not the other way round
LN has no blockchain. LN has no community audit. LN requires people to be online, LN requires people to sign on your behalf.
LN has none of the bitcoin ethos/features that secure bitcoin.
its like trying to assume bank notes are the same as gold. think about that in respect of the 18th century.. then play it out 200 years later and see the flaw of bank notes and gold


many coins will have the same feature of using these other network mediums.
so with less bitcoin unique-ness and yet costing more for people to actually transact on the actual bitcoin network. people will not want to store value in bitcoin if it becomes cheaper to exit the other network via other coins.

Altcoins that are cheaper to transact with have been available for many years now. If what you're saying were true, everyone would have exited exchanges with altcoins rather than bitcoins. Yet Bitcoin is still #1, in spite of its expensive costs. Why so?
bitcoins PRICE is higher due to the underlying value held up via mining costs. there is hardly any 'speculative' value ontop due to peoples faith and boost due to desirability.
take people off the network. making it costly to use the bitcoin network and all the other reason will reduce the desire to mine it which will make bitcoin not as popular

again take utility away from the MINING network of a blockchain will cause the underlying support of the mining:market dynamic. which will affect its underlying value.

if you think bitcoin would remain top when other coins can do the same thing but without the restrictions applied to bitcoin. people will move to the coins with less restrictions.

remember bitcoin network is only stalled and costly. not due to some technological limit. but an implied limit by humans(devs)
again to quote you. you said:
"Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly"
it is developers that put in the restrictions to make it inefficient and costly
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 83 84 85 86 ... 820 »
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!