Bitcoin Forum
June 16, 2019, 02:16:39 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 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ... 820 »
861  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: India May Legalize Cryptos But Under ‘Strong’ Rules: Report on: December 26, 2018, 09:21:34 PM
(firstly im not into drugs but ill use the analogy)

you cannot give a court summons to a plant
you cannot give a court summons to a piece of code

bitcoins, drugs and alcohol are not illegal. india cannot make them illegal.
its not their jurisdiction.
india can make HUMANS become criminals for doing a certain thing. but they cannot make drugs or bitcoin criminals.

so its not about making something legal/illegal. its about making HUMANS not allowed to be FOUND doing something. to then suddenly change and then making it about making HUMANS then able to be FOUND doing something in a certain way.

which is where HUMANS will find a way around the rules thus making HUMAN control laws redundant.
drug dealers using kids under 12years old to do the dealing, because kids wont get arrested for petty drug "crimes"
862  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Vote for Bitcoin Drama Queen of 2018 on: December 26, 2018, 07:29:59 PM
the craig wright drama was 2016
the ver drama was 2015-2017

any drama they caused in 2018 is nothing to do with bitcoin. but their respective altcoins.

so as the title says... whats the 2018 drama of bitcoin
863  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Vote for Bitcoin Drama Queen of 2018 on: December 26, 2018, 03:40:16 PM
the biggest bitcoin drama queen of 2018 is.............
the market cap

the reasons:
1. its a meaningless number as the $ is not even real $ supporting the number
2. anyone can make an alt with a trillion coins and buy 1 con for $5 and overtake the market cap for just, as i said $5
3. yet masses of people follow it and believe it has value and are obsessed with talking about it

(i know the vote is about people, but peoples sentiment seems to have more people foolishly following an empty number than the names in the vote)

also the names in the vote are names of people unrelated to bitcoin, but related to managing machines and altcoins.. so seems the names picked are as about appropriate as saying samson mow or butterin

so to me the voting options are limited to the same crap options as england had for "britains got talent" the year a dog was voted as the most talents brit.
864  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 24, 2018, 04:26:54 AM
I lived in Hawaii just under 25 years, krishton fairy-talest calumny slanderer.  I swam whitewater by the cliffs (you have to dive under the waves at the last moment to avoid being slammed) and I surfed.  When my NEO, GAS, ELASTOS, NANO et. al. takeoff, I'm gonna buy one of the $250,000 units for my old age, and put it two miles south of the Canuckistani Digital Curtain border in ND where I live, sonny boy.  I might put a big picture window in there to piss off c-tards such as yourself and mason cultists (lots of em on the bench) when it's pitch dark and 40 below.

james bowery banking meltdown sept 2008 Bitcoin jan 2009 coincidence nov 21st 2018

satoshi bowery who is the smart one

james bowery james watson selling nobel prize cause no one wants to admit i exist

james bowery chris langan hat size aug 11 2018

none of that proves anything.. now your just posting the whole internet on this forum, but nothing relating to creating bitcoin
865  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 24, 2018, 02:22:50 AM
I guess you don't even much read the posts before you prattle, Dim.  franky1, I had already put my pic in #126.
up to the point of post 129. i still did not give a crap about who craig cobb or james was in rgards to their nazi/social life.
my only interest was really about could you prove linkage to the satoshi identity. which you still fail to.
i only mentioned the prove craig cob proves james is not timestamp.. as a thing that im not personally interested in but others are and it seemed you just prefered to rattle on about faming up about james nazi/non bitcoin creator life

as regards to your picture. all i seen was a balding guy near a kids swimming pool taking pictures.. (i wont mention my judgements about what someone would be doing there doing that)
but i did not see a guy holding a piece of paper up saying "i am timestamp" or shoe on head... so again not caring or being interested in the social drama aspect. i just notched it up as "probably just a google image grab.."
yea the social life of craig cobb is of such lack of interest there was no need to have searched up craig cobb. as its of no significance to the topic or me.

but yea now i see a resemblance to the many police and courtroom 'mugshots'.. yet normally when people ask for proof of ID, holding up something that says i am user..X. is normal etiquette to quash the normal response of "he could have got the pic that from the internet" as a pic of craig cobb is still not proof of craig cobb being timestamp..
your social life was not worth the rsearch tim to google. so i was expecting a pic of actual meaning.

but lets drop the matter and just play along your craig cobb.
so you have CC
then im guessing it must be a infatuation with james you have, by wanting to fame him up.
which just leaves it as.. for money or for love..
but dont bother answering that. im not interested in the answer. im just stating my opinion..

all that matters is not the social life of you or james. but the real proof that james is satoshi..
which you do really trip yourself up and fall into holes you dug yourself

In scandinavia the OP would be called a troll.
Efficient research points out that the "Satoshi" may be, by some probalility a man from Australia, who has died some years ago.
So who?

Dave Kleiman?
Hal Finney?

satoshi is not those two guys either.
nor is he wright. nor is he dorian
(hes not american, not australian and not asian(proper word analysis shows more that satoshi cant be those, and cant be james... and i mean proper analysis.. not crap stuff like CC's weak attempts))

866  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 24, 2018, 01:05:12 AM
you can spend hours, days, months faming up lives of james...

but you have not proved the satoshi~james ties
im starting to think that you ar james faming yourself, but now with a minor tweak of that opinion that you might be either female and want to marry him.. or your male and gay and secretly inlove with him if indeed ur not james.

but the obsession with trying to fame up james.. is getting beyond a joke.. especially now you derailed your own topic to no longer prove a satoshi connection but just now want to flat out try faming james up as multiple people.

so either you are james trying to fame yourself up, or your unhealthily infatuated by him

you(as the timestamp persona) have as of yet done nothing to:
prove you received funds from satoshi
prove your not james (reveal your this craig guy, via photo or the old 'shoe on head' video proof)
prove james is satoshi

you just seem to want to talk about james life, as if it has meaning.

so apart from
1. you are james
2. your inlove with james...
i have still been inclined to think this is all some big faming/marketing ploy for "commercial value". EG im guessing you/him probably both, probably one of you. wants to make money out of fame unrelated to bitcoins creation.. but under the marketing ploy pretence it 'may have' connection.. just for some extra attention
867  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 24, 2018, 12:43:13 AM
to reveal another hole timestamp is digging himself and tripping into

the real bitcoin creator was not working on lights, optics and lasers in 2008
he was working on bitcoin since 2007
868  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 24, 2018, 12:17:57 AM
LN does use the Bitcoin network. In fact, its security model completely depends on it. That's how it solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem, by settling to the blockchain in case of dishonest or unresponsive parties.

Banks are irrelevant here since LN uses smart contracts, not trusted third parties.

banks are not third parties. they are second parties mascarading as third parties.
when you wire transfer or withdraw, you hand the bank the funds and then they move it on
LN is not a push to destination.. its a co-sign agreement

1. LN is not dependant on bitcoins network
LN nodes can still run without bitcoin network. they let litecoin users in vertcoin users. and other coins too..
so if there was not one single instance of a bitcoin node chainhashing a channel.. people can still use LN via other coins.

2. smart contracts are putting funds into a contract that requires more than one signature.
its about time some people do some independant research and not just skim the surface of promotional material they read

3. in the latest concept (not the outdated 2016 promotional over promising, under commiting material).
bitcoins are to be locked into factoriees(fortknx-esq elitist) contracts. and its the factories that hand out NON blockchain confirmed 'payments' to users. and then those users use those non-confirmed payments to open and close channels with a partner. and at settlement. the non-confirmed close session is handed back to a factory where by the factory aggregates the totals and the factory can:
a. sign off on either a broadcast back to a blockchain.
b.sign a fresh non-confirmed 'payment' to a user to open a fresh channel, without having to broadcast back to the blockchain

its this stage  3.b. that will play out as the "well bitcoin is heavy and expensive fe to confirm and slow to confirm so much better to not use bitcoins blockchain (the 18th century.. ("dont claim back your gold, here have some crisp fresh uncrinkled promissory notes and stay within the LN system, while we look after the gold)

dont get me wrong.. i understand the utopia, the dream, the convenience.. but look what happened to the "gold is a medium of exchange able to buy bread and coffee" in the 18th-21st century conversion period, due to having gold vaulted up by an elitist second key holder of the vault

LN is the same business model as 18th century banks. where barons set up banks 'for convenience'

4. when the whole 'atomic swap' / factory really takes off.. imagine the nodes.. requiring to monitor not only bitcoin but litecoin blockchains..
funny thing is the rhetoric of bitcoin cant scale because bitcoin blockchain too bloated.. yet LN's master nodes will be monitoring both...
oh and if you want to rebut that users will just want to run cell phone apps (which will be the case).. well they can run cellphone apps ONCHAIN..
and then those that are capable of monitoring 3 chains to be masternodes.. could easily just be bitcoin nodes of a scaled up bitcoin network without LN..

its all just a pre arranged roadmap to get people into LN and then notic that users sould probably atoically swp their bitcoin for litecoin if they ever decide to exit LN

5. the whole "factories help not need to broadcast back to a blockchain" makes the blockchain redundant to channels.. as people are trusting factories instead.
the whole point of blockchains/byzantine generals solution was that funds are confirmed and audited by a community. and rejected by such..
LN does not audit by community/reject transactions by such.
LN does not have fault tolerance by community each node can be edited independently to mess around with its channel partner and no community of auditors exist to help prevent that
869  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Countering over promises of the Lightning Network with facts and reasoning on: December 23, 2018, 10:38:34 PM
Generally speaking, any level users of the forum are easily mislead legendary are just as much as newer members sadly..

users are not always in a position to defend themselves from misinformation and their nodes are treated as 'compatible' thus they have no way of stopping certain groups roadmaps. any nodes redesigned to oppose such are thrown off the network

It appears as though there are some unscrupulous people out there who would take advantage of this.  It's therefore vital that we give all users the real knowledge to be able to differentiate between lies and genuine assistance when they are presented with information about technical subjects.  As such, this topic wil rebut the the propaganda that other networks are a better way to transact and will stand as a handy guide on how to counter any fraudulent or deceptive arguments being presented by malicious users.

Moderation note:  Any malicious users who are quoted as sources of lies are permitted to post in this topic. but will be  corrected. and at worse, yawned at and laughed at. if they dont like it they can hit the ignore button.. its free


"The Lightning Network will encourage users to leave Bitcoin by locking it up in smart contract vaults that are co-signed by elite users called "factories" who will charge for the service of being the entry and exit of broadcast tx and they will handle the non blockchained payments inside LN (other network thats not bitcoin). all due to certain devs stagnating bitcoins network scaling and implying bitcoin cannot transact well.. yet its the stagnation and stuff the devs have done that is the hold up. not blockchains themselves.
blockchains are not self coding AI. devs code it, so any problems it has come down to devs.

the result would be that average joe will end up seeing different blockchain coins as favourable when they want to exit the non-blockchain network. due to other blockchain networks having lower fee's and allow more transaction throughput
again bitcoin is not an AI that self coded in limitations and fee increases and self stagnated. developers purposely limited bitcoins scaling opportunities these last 3 years.

here is a person claiming it wont be the case, but he himself in his own reasoning shows that it will be the case that people will atomically swap within the non-blockchain network
It's called an Atomic Swap.  The clue is in the name.  It stands to reason that you can't swap coins on your blockchain with coins on another blockchain unless someone with coins on that blockchain wants some coins on your blockchain.  People will want to hold bitcoins due to the comparatively higher levels of security and adoption in relation to other coins.
If you relinquish ownership of some bitcoins and take ownership of a proportionate amount of altcoins, the owner of those altcoins will then take ownership of the bitcoins you just swapped.

this is exactly what banks done with the gold market in the 18th-20th century by offering something thats not as secure as gold but "convenient".. and eventually people didnt want to play with gold no more. eventually realising silver and copper coins were easier to handle. and then the banks got to keep the gold while swapping ownership of the gold from the users to the banks and letting users then have silver and copper coins

thinking a swap is an equal 2people enter 2 people exit(one with btc, one with altcoin). and here is a persons foolish attempt to sway the sheep to sleep by saying it will all be ok
It's not a one-way street.  A swap is only completed if someone takes ownership of the bitcoins.  As such, it's only natural that there will be as many users coming in as there are leaving.  This will not result in a reduction in the number of people using Bitcoin.  

an elitist factory(bank) takes in peoples bitcoins under their smart contract cosigned address.. its not one person with bitcoin one person with an altcoin.
its one bank with altcoins and multiple people with bitcoin.
thats what an LN factory is. a bank vault where many people lock funds up with one entity and then the factory hands out non blockchained, unaudited unconfirmed 'payments' to users so that users can play around within LN

once those people end up wanting to leave LN by needing a factories signature to do so, users will naturally want the cheapest fastest easiest way to get their value out of LN

thus naturally leaving with altcoin and the bank as one entity keep the bitcoin..
reasons.. as explained in issue #1

many have been fooled initially that LN is a bitcoin only network layer that will make bitcoin scale and more popular. but that is a myth

LN is a separate network, it is not as secure as bitcoin, it does not solve the byzantine generals problem, it does not have a blockchain to even community audit the payments. users need other users for it to function. the other users need to sign off an payments. and many other issues.
yes i understand the promoted "convenience" POSSIBILITY. but in no way is it a bitcoin scaling tool. its a separate network to get people away from using bitcoins network. and locking people bitcoins up in co-signed contracts. and making it harder to exit LN via things like factories gatekeepers/watchtowers that are made to persuade users into keeping bitcoin locked up, by reissuing new offchain transactions as oppose to broadcasting bitcoin transactions out.
and lastly by making bitcoins network innovation of scaling be stiffled for 3 years just to keep up the persuasion that bitcoins network is not the best utility for value(facepalm)

so if anyone wants to refute this and instead continue the lie that LN is made just for bitcoin. try checking the code.
litecoinMainnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,

// chainMap is a simple index that maps a chain's genesis hash to the
// chainCode enum for that chain.
chainMap = map[chainhash.Hash]chainCode{
bitcoinTestnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
litecoinTestnetGenesis: litecoinChain,

bitcoinMainnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
litecoinMainnetGenesis: litecoinChain,

 and as pointed out thus far even by the guys over promoting LN who are now FINALLY admitting its purpose to get people in, and then atomic swap them for altcoins(issue 1)

people still insist that bitcoins network has scaled in the last 3 years due to segwit.

yet. segwit byte for byte is heavier on a hard drive than legacy bitcoin transactions. bitcoins original creator calculated under lean, non bloated contracted silly feature conditions. where users just do lean transactions of one spend, one recipient, one change address.. would allow 7tx/s (604k tx a day) this was an estimate given 8 years ago.
segwit of same lean 1 in 2 out wont get 600k a day for the same 1mb hard drive space
the wishwashy code allows
partial data to be miscounted(witness scale factor)
separated(segrgate witness).
and the pretense of there now being a 4mb "weight" limit.
even the devs that created segwit admit that it wont achieve a 2.4m tx a day threshold(4*1mb estimates)
they cant even guarantee a 1.2m tx day (2*of 1mb estimates)

even now. there has not been a day that has pushed passed the 600k tx estimated threshold that has existed since 2009

segwits aim was not to be a scaling solution. as the byte for byte bloat proves (though many devs try hiding it with wishy washy scale witness and vbytes code)
segwits utility is to be the gateway tx format to persuade users over to other networks, such as LN.
while also adding in a trojan back door to allow devs to now change the network without using bitcoin consensus.
(their buzzwords 'inflight upgrades'/compatible softforks)
which if certain things are added that have malicious intent. users wont have consensus to prevent it as that has been by passed with the "compatibility" backdoor and threats of being taken off the network if they attempt to oppose segwit or deactivate it.

This post will be updated with more issues that will and are negatively affecting bitcoin.

just remember they dont want bitcoin to scale. they want people to lock up thir bitcoin, play with other networks and not return so that elitists can stockpile the bitcoin. because they want bitcoin as a "reserve currency" not a open peer to peer cash network
870  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 23, 2018, 12:14:06 PM
How does it dilute Bitcoin's utility? It can make micro-transactions long term viable, which adds a great deal of utility. Use Bitcoin for slower and more expensive but highly secure transactions. Use Lightning for cheap, instant and private transactions that still leverage Bitcoin's security for Byzantine fault tolerance.

What's not to like?
1. not using the bitcoin network.
2. thats what banks said about gold
3. LN payments dont solve the byzantine generals issue.

Maybe you should try taking your own advice if you want Lightning to "fizzle out".  At the moment, you seem to be doing a great job of promoting Lightning, even going so far as to claim that Lightning will be so effective that users won't want to use Bitcoin anymore.  Roll Eyes

LN will make people fall into the same FIAT trap as gold merchants in the 18th -20th century

but nice try pretending i think it will be fantastic/effective
people will end up locked into factory contracts that just circle funds within LN channels = bad
people will end up unlocking from factory contracts using altcoins because bitcoin devs are not scaling bitcoin network utility = bad

bitcoin can grow. but devs are not allowing it because its not in their roadmap=bad

gotta laugh how you and your chums love to twist things that im promoting and im saying LN is fantastic and effective

now go do some independent research, because you sound more and more like the same scripts your chums try to churn out.
or maybe atleast try having an independent thought and not play the same social games.. its not original
871  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A Bitcoin Millionaire arrested on: December 23, 2018, 11:58:55 AM
Anyone read this? I just read this in an advertisement that popped out of nowhere.

Maybe he is a member of this forum too and I am a bit curious what really happened there that pushed him to do that, they say that it is an advertisement, well, in his own way of advertising.

"maximum penalty for his offense is a 12-month prison term and a fine of HK$5,000. "
"the police reported that they were only able to recover HK$5,000 (the equivalent of $639) from the streets."

"and they have also urged members of the public who were beneficiaries of his lawlessness to return the bills to where they got them."

in short police have to return 5000 back to the arrested man..... (so he can pay his fine)

5000 needed to pay.. only 5000 returned to him.. not a coincidence

"Innocent bystanders at the location attested to the total amount of money that was thrown away could be millions,"
HK5000 is less than 700US
i wonder what the police done with the other amounts that they grabbed but didnt declare, thus not have to give back to the arrestee
872  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin gave us something more than the protocol on: December 23, 2018, 11:18:53 AM
but you again seem to want to pretend the non consensus mandated august 1st 2017 bypass (dev state buzzword bilateral split) ever occured.
kind of funny because "dev state" were and still are proud that it occured
Hold on. You were the person agreeing with Roger Ver, and debating that "Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split". How is it that now you are saying that it is a "dev-state" buzzword. Hahaha.
1. greg maxwell termed it before august 2017.. he actually was openly saying in that conversation in ~october 2016 how he tried to convince opposers to f**k off and the opposers declined his offer.
2. saying it happened is different than advocating the desire of bilateral forks/split/contentious dilution of the community/mandated threats
3. i didnt agree with ver. i independently mentioned that a moment in history occured.
4. you have on many times subtly worded things to suggest i advocate and i want Y. when im actually mentioning the opposite of advocating/insisting on it happening. you seem to do this so that you can then foolishly have the mindset that i am pushing for things which i am not pushing for, just so you can ignore the real context of the message/topic i am discussing

the fact that you admit in another post that core didnt get segwit in using the 2009-2013 consensus (the november 2016-spring 2017) shows it wasnt high majority. it only had 35% vote.
The community wanted Segwit, your "35% vote" were not really "votes", but miners signalling their readiness to the soft fork, which they politically used to make drama.
the community includes miners. but got threatened to accept segwit or find themselves off the network
if they continued to oppose on august 1st they would have had their blocks rejected.
that is NOT community wanting segwit. thats the community forced into segwit.

learn what actually happened on august first to fake a majority. stop denying nothing happened
blockchains dont lie. the block data proves what actually happened, no matter what social yammer you may script out. the blockchain immutable data can refute you
873  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Bitcoin SV caused mid november bitcoin collapse? on: December 23, 2018, 10:57:20 AM
so the more you mention it the worse it gets toward what you actually want. which is for it to fizzle out.
so stop talking about it.

He said without a hint of irony.   Roll Eyes

As if you're in any position to offer that advice.   Cheesy

Best franky1 post ever.   Cheesy

the topic creator was talking about how a website is indexing crapcoins based on how popular the coins name is mentioned

my opinions are not being indexed and monitised into a basket of crapcoins
thus no irony regarding me mentioning a certain thing, as me mentioning it has no impact . its just discussion. its just chat.
if you dont like discussion then hit the ignore button. or dont look out for certain topics that are against your beliefs

oh and if you actually stopped poking the bear. then you wont get bit by the same bear
learn that simple analogy.
if you dont like bears biting in a certain way. dont poke them,

again if you dont poke you wont have to hear the same answers.
its that simple

but have a good day.
874  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 23, 2018, 09:50:18 AM
its not helping scale bitcoin though. its helping divert people away from the bitcoin network
its diluting away the utility of the bitcoin network

How does it dilute Bitcoin's utility? It can make micro-transactions long term viable, which adds a great deal of utility. Use Bitcoin for slower and more expensive but highly secure transactions. Use Lightning for cheap, instant and private transactions that still leverage Bitcoin's security for Byzantine fault tolerance.

What's not to like?
1. not using the bitcoin network.
2. thats what banks said about gold
3. LN payments dont solve the byzantine generals issue.
it might be worth you updating yourself with the issues of LN.
even the LN devs admit it has issues.
watch this.
and also for further research look at the eltoo concept of factories(fortknox issuing unconfirmed off-chain (promissory notes) into peoples accounts(channels))

if anyone wants to promote LN. try to be atleast more open to honesty without all the utopian optimism of over promising
LN is a separate network service for multiple coins to be locked and pegged into contracts to allow faster payments for people that want to do regular small purchases more often then a couple times a fortnight

4. i understand the optimism and the utopian dream. but diverting gold from being used hand to hand and instead insisting the future is banks and promissory notes
i understand the optimism and the utopian dream. but diverting bitcoin from being used peer to peer and instead insisting the future is smart contract locks with factories and offchain transactions of 12 decimals

but it is not helping make bitcoin stand out as the better network than say litecoin or other coins that do have more transaction throughput capacity per day
875  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 23, 2018, 08:50:59 AM
it's very true that LN is not a bitcoin network. it's interoperable with the bitcoin network, and that's what is important. this means it can be used to help scale bitcoin.
its not helping scale bitcoin though. its helping divert people away from the bitcoin network
its diluting away the utility of the bitcoin network

Plus I believe no one is saying that IT IS "a Bitcoin network", like franky1 insists. Although we do need Bitcoins to open channels, and use the Lightning Network.
first of all. you are quoted here saying something that SUBTLY IMPLIES that i insist it is a bitcoin network(should your chums take your words out of context). .. which is not the first time i seen you trying to make out that i am the one advocating stuff.. when infact i am doing the opposite.
secondly many people do say its part of bitcoin with the "layer" buzzword. i am simply informing people to clarify to them that LN is SEPARATE.
EG coinbase is not a bitcoin layer. its a separate service/company that accepts multiple coins

since the blockchain scales linearly, it can only be improved so much by optimizing things like transaction size. schnorr is one such method. but it provides very limited scale compared to things like LN.
blockchains dont scale linearly. bitcoins blockchain hard drive usage if all blocks were full would appear linear, because scaling is not happening. scaling would allow data/utility expansion to move away from a straight line. should real scaling occur onchain
oh and also. dont then say exponential like the old myth of "gigabytes by midnight".. scaling is not a zero or full only 2 options scenario
and also schnorr is not about helping scaling. infact its to try to avoid new bloated transaction features from reducing tx counts per block. thus not scaling up, but just trying to avoid reducing utility, while they add more bloated complex tx formats

Storage was never a big problem for on-chain scaling, bandwidth is.
the old myth of 'online games wont work. streaming live video wont work, because bandwidth'
maybe you should tell skype, applefactime, livestream, youtube, twitch, facebook messenger, and all other such services that deal with large amount of data. that they should not use their services as bandwidth is a problem(its not).
bitcoin uses far less bandwidth than online games and streaming media

pre millenion kodak had the ignorant mindset that digital media for photo storage cant scale..

home users that have bad internet suppliers dont need to be nods with 100 connections. they could set there node to only have a few connections, they would have a better experience that way.
EG its like someone taking a shower. the bandwidth myth is that people thing a shower has to be full pressure water supply or turn off the water supply.. because it will cost them alot on their water bill. they never thing to adjust the taps to just use less water while taking a shower
telling people that the future involves avoiding a shower and using water from a sink to flanel wash their privates is the future is not the right thing to be informing people

again because i know how this scripted propaganda is played out. its not a linear or exponential (server farm full on or nothing scenario). only two option debate.
there are multiple ways to scale bitcoin onchain without having to divert utility away from the network
as the misleading concept that scaling is full on or nothing is the same rhetoric that bankers done with gold in the 18th century 'its too heavy, lock up your gold with a trusted partner/service and use these promissory notes instead"

oh and dont rebuttal that blockchains couldnt scale due to the legacy linear sigops validation problem.(which still exists and remains unsolved even now)
solution was easy. dont let a block allow itself to be deemed full by having just 5 tx of sigop bloat.
reduce the maxtxsigops from being just a 5th of maxblocksigops
eg instead of maxblocksigops=80,000 maxtxsigops=maxblocksigops/5(16,000)
eg instead of maxblocksigops=80,000 maxtxsigops=maxblocksigops/1000(80)
then you will find people can still pay many others in one go without some malicious transactor filling a block with just 5 tx that take ages to verify under legacy conditions
and to pre-empt your rebuttal that segwit helps with this using witness scale factor to miss-count actual sigops of legacy by making legacy tx of say 4000 sigops appear as being 16,000 max ex sigops.
as i said it doesnt solve the issue of 5tx filling the block. infact the wishy wash code of misleading actual count by using witness scale factor makes it far easier to fill a block using just 4000 sigops
again solution to allow more transactions throughput per block can be solved by making maxtxsigops/1000 so that there is never a case where a block is deemed full with under 1000 tx included due to a "sigops attack"
876  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 23, 2018, 12:29:31 AM
500 bitcoins is rather negligible considering the total market cap.
Yes, BTC is for HODL-ers mostly and these are all the early enthusiasts who want to be part of history - like the pizza guy from 2010.
I'm not a huge believer in the long term success of LN, but I sure hope it does succeed regardless. Simplification of installation and configuration should be significantly prioritized at this point, otherwise it's not going to get better than that.

LN is not a bitcoin network

what should be prioritised is scaling bitcoin. not locking bitcoins up and persuading people using alternative networks that are not decentralised blockchain audited/secured/utilised..
i guess people forget why blockchains are so unique and forget what satoshi solved when bitcoin a thing
877  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Bitcoin SV caused mid november bitcoin collapse? on: December 23, 2018, 12:25:00 AM
It's possible that the split added fuel to the fire of our downtrend. [altcoins] supporters were holding a lot of Bitcoins before the split and if they wanted to pump their own coins they could sell some of that and buy the coins that they were supporting. Craig Wright at least was vocal about it and he probably sold some to pay for [altcoins] mining.

[altcoins] =removed reference to certain coin names to not let the topics point of a certain index finding references of certain coins being speculated more than usual in topics

there was no volume of arbitrages of markets. or correlation to show any trend that the bitcoin price downfall was due to the altcoins.

there is a correlation that the mining hashrate decline in october due to selling off old S9's before new S15's took over on some pools

there is correlation that the mining hashrate decline in october played out a mining:market dynamic of decline in november.
there is correlation that the a buy up of coins in novmber and a sell off of coins in november 2018 had an impact
878  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 23, 2018, 12:10:01 AM
franky1 said:

and before you begin pretending that suddenly you actually made that address to be specific to you..
vanity is not easy to make an address that has VW in it at that location of the address..
vanity was not even a thing back then

You indeed have an incisive mind.  James designed and launched the entire Bitcoin Core, but of course, as mathematical odds would have it, his first revealed address had "HOME ftp" (caps different) in Satoshi's address.  Clearly, you don't figure Satoshi is as bright as you, as he couldn't conjure up a partial vanity to amuse himself with his numbers-spinning binary "this not that, that not this" marvel ware.

again he did not create the address that you pretend contains funds you pretend to own
secondly the person that created vanity was not satoshi
thirdly the computational power needed to get an address with certain descriptors as laid out in the address you define as yours.. well ill make it simple for you

1F.......................... = seconds
1Franky................... = hours
1.................franky... = years = months

fourthy.. it would have had to have been you that made the address if you indeed were the recipient of the funds
for you to have not been using bitcoin for months to have generated such a personal address(which you claim it is). to have said to satoshi heres an address to send 10 btc to. shows both lack of basic knowledge. lack of bitcoin history. lack of timescale proof. and also. just obsurd notions that faming up someones life before bitcoin is proof of involvement in bitcoin. is just overwhelmingly short sighted agenda to garner fame.
879  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 22, 2018, 09:58:56 PM
I can only conclude James bet I'd never read the blockchain, or if I did, I wouldn't recall my quite definitive and memorable address.  His final reasoning may have been-- being his fellow thought criminal with so much water under the bridge, I still wouldn't say anything, but mightcall he could deny.

you trying to pretend you own funds of a address because it has significant meaning. is not proof.
you subtly implying that the address was created as a vanity, to have meaning to you and thus it must be yours because you have special personal social reasons that link you to that address..

but guess what.
that address is actually RANDOM. firstly satoshi didnt not send it to an address of significant meaning to you.

what occurs in bitcoin is the address is randomly created by a reciever and the receiver then tells the sender the address to send funds to.
not the other way round
as shown below.. you believed satoshi created the address specifically for you.
my distinctive wallet address "1DUD...VW" (the people's, "volks" car of Hitler!)  James, did you do that as more fun gamery?  VW, really?  What are the odds?

and before you begin pretending that suddenly you actually made that address to be specific to you..
vanity is not easy to make an address that has VW in it at that location of the address..
vanity was not even a thing back then
880  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning Network records are booming on: December 22, 2018, 09:28:38 PM
outsiders (not the utopian dreamers) but realists see LN as a room that needs a room just to use a room.

EG everyone knows a house has utility and has value. but to outsiders.
many know bitcoin has/had utility and everyone (SHOULD) know bitcoin has value(im not talking abut price)

but outsiders say having to KYC to turn their fiat into crypto.. first wall of entry.
then using crypto = fee's and confirm delays.. next wall..
then being told crypto is not good for transacting so need to lock up the coin.. another wall..
then being told to split funds into separate channels. more walls.
all just to be able to spend crypto for coffee.. more walls

alot of people are saying easier to just buy a starbucks giftcard and job done

thats like thinking your not just selling one house(fiat) for another house(crypto) which was the old concept of bitcoin being the free open borderless second option to fiat

but instead selling a house to then buy something thats more like a house-share(timeshare) that you have to share with other strangers and hope you dont inconvenience them by waking them up when you want coffee

there have been many other people express concerns that stalling bitcoin innovation of bitcoin network utility.. just to persuade people over to alternative networks is not the direction the "project" should go.

but hey, most bitcoin utopianists dont want to hear the realistic view of how the general public view it. and so will keep their ears and eyes closed and keep dreaming that if extra people just buy bitcoin thats all that counts.
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 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ... 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!