^^Don't stop trying, hdbuck. Sooner or later, you'll get it right   |
|
|
|
... Yes sell all before the halfing in supply, sound strategy  The supply is increasing every 9 minutes or so, will continue to do that in the foreseeable future. You must mean *demand* halving  |
|
|
|
I remember driving a fwd shitbox in a snowstorm when I was a kid. 4-lane highway, car starts getting crossed up, but sloooooowly. Enough time for friend to ask from the back seat, without raising his voice, "we're gonna crash, huh?" "Yeah, pretty much nothing I do seems to make much difference." [pause] "Well, you got nobody behind you..." "I know. Sorry." [pause] "We're not gonna roll?" "Nah, doubted..." [car finally blows off the road to the left, into divider ditch]. Won't belabor the parallels  |
|
|
|
...
Seriously, screw whoever is perpetuating this obvious shilling.
Mircea Popescu, a notable Bitcoin enthusiast & small-block advocate. Not sure what he's shilling this time tho, explain? |
|
|
|
A notable retrocoiner, Mircea, concedes loss of faith in Bitcoin: ... the notion of "a majority of Bitcoin nodes" is void of content, most of the relay network being under the control of the same entity and supporting functionality not contemplated by the Bitcoin protocol (such as selective mothballing of specific transactions).1 This specifically means that "someone"2 has the ability to nuke transactions out of the network irrespective of whether they are validly signed or not, directly replicating functionality already available to fiat governments in fiat payment processors such as Visa or Paypal.
That a cartel of Bitcoin miners is deliberately and systematically withholding blocks for an interval of about 20 minutes to a half hour, so as to ensure themselves a (significant) advantage over any would-be competitors.3
http://qntra.net/2016/03/a-miner-problem/Ha ha, they win. Again  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV  P.S. Will $420 hold  |
|
|
|
"As CCN.LA’s Giulio Prisco wrote: It should be obvious that if enough people want to buy something, there will be providers. Crackdowns and seizures don’t eliminate online drug markets, but only push them deeper underground under the control of criminals. If the more “principled” providers are eliminated, the field will be left wide open to the less principled ones."  |
|
|
|
Yes, Core defines consensus for Bitcoin, and the core consensus rules were set in stone from the point when Satoshi released version 0.1. If you don't believe me, read his words for it here. If you see two posts later down, you will see Gavin defining his future role in Bitcoin. You are taking the post out of context, if you want to quote satoshi like granny quotes her red letter Bible, here is what satoshi thought of changing the blocksize: It [higher blocksize limit -ed] can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
I am not religious. I quote Satoshi for facts, not beliefs. That's exactly what Granny tells me about her red letter Bible. And you know what else? When Jesus says something she don't like, like It [higher blocksize limit -ed] can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit ...just like yourself, she points out that her Bible is outdated, and... Smarter people have taken over development the world, and have found much more viable ways to scale bitcoin make better laws. > A hard fork will essentially make an altcoin. In that case, you've been using an altcoin since March 2013. Surprise! |
|
|
|
B...buh but they promised... <snip> Saying this as a friend, Alex: What one shouldn't entertain is the fanciful and delusional notion that Bitcoin can scale without it becoming a settlement network. Just do the math. And stop being fanciful and delusional.  |
|
|
|
...
I remember the day I learned Bitcoin couldn't scale right. It was last summer. I'm sure you made this discovery sometime earlier.
Everybody made that discovery a bit earlier, just not something to talk about in polite company. Ruins the Currency of the Future backstory/spooks greater fools. Not in your rational self-interest, know what I mean? |
|
|
|
...
What one shouldn't entertain is the fanciful and delusional notion that Bitcoin can scale without it becoming a settlement network. ... And to think I bought into that whole Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System load of crap... O well, settlement layer for prepaid gift card Lightning Network it is then. Thanks for settin' me straight, BitUsher >Eth is a solution chasing a problem that doesn't exist *Bitcoin You keep misspelling it. |
|
|
|
You don't understand the difference between a hard and a soft fork. A soft fork adds new rules, which can be done without breaking the consensus defined by Bitcoin Core (all versions).
Drop the patronizing tone. I understand the difference between soft & hard forks; it is irrelevant to my point. The point being: who gets to define consensus. Which, in the linked article, is Core. P.S. Are you the *humph* author of the linked piece of Core shillery? Yes, Core defines consensus for Bitcoin, and the core consensus rules were set in stone from the point when Satoshi released version 0.1. If you don't believe me, read his words for it here. If you see two posts later down, you will see Gavin defining his future role in Bitcoin. You are taking the post out of context, if you want to quote satoshi like granny quotes her red letter Bible, here is what satoshi thought of changing the blocksize: It [higher blocksize limit -ed] can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
Attempts to break the consensus rules will make an altcoin.
Once more: No one is breaking consensus rules -- Core doesn't get to decide what constitutes consensus whenever it feels threatened. In principle anyone can do a soft fork by enforcing new rules, stricter than the rules in Core, and this will make a soft fork. It will not succeed however, unless there is a clear majority supporting it. Older nodes, all versions, will continue working after a soft fork.
Either you don't understand the difference between a hard and a soft fork, or are having trouble staying focused. Increasing the blocksize limit is, necessarily, a hard, a hard fork. I have been using Bitcoin since 2010, and exchange bitcoins for a living. The health and development of Bitcoin is vital to my business, and for that reason I follow it closely.
Don't mean to sound cold now that you're sharin', but I couldn't care less. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. |
|
|
|
Your refusal to consider what they are saying seems myopic. They are not complaining about another 3-4 cents. They are complaining about unknowable transaction inclusion times.
Transaction inclusion can never be a given. You could hit 2 miners mining empty blocks because that's what they want to do - even if you pay 5$ in fees. Transaction confirmation time can also never be a given, because the 10 minutes are an average. A block could be delayed 2 hours or you could have 5 blocks found in 20 minutes, due to variance.. That's the nature of bitcoin. That's the best thing about Bitcoin -- not like legacy finance, NOT BORING. "Bitcoin's like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." --brainyquote.com |
|
|
|
>hard consensus rules which were set in stone from the first day.
In stone? My understanding is once upon a time, blocksize limit was 32MB? Not so?
Please go back to Reddit instead. You will feel more at home among the trolls there. You may want to read this article about how the consensus works, but I doubt you really care. From your enlightening article: "For these and other reasons, the Bitcoin Core development team has said that it will typically require a super-majority of 95 percent of hash power to agree on soft forks." So yeah, Core decides what constitutes consensus; core dictates consensus rules. Where do you see a problem in my post? You don't understand the difference between a hard and a soft fork. A soft fork adds new rules, which can be done without breaking the consensus defined by Bitcoin Core (all versions). Drop the patronizing tone. I understand the difference between soft & hard forks; it is irrelevant to my point. The point being: who gets to define consensus. Which, in the linked article, is Core. P.S. Are you the *humph* author of the linked piece of Core shillery? |
|
|
|
Hope $430 holds... On a more positive note, consolidation ~$350 would be perfectly healthy & actually good for Bitcoin |
|
|
|
>hard consensus rules which were set in stone from the first day.
In stone? My understanding is once upon a time, blocksize limit was 32MB? Not so?
Please go back to Reddit instead. You will feel more at home among the trolls there. You may want to read this article about how the consensus works, but I doubt you really care. From your enlightening article: "For these and other reasons, the Bitcoin Core development team has said that it will typically require a super-majority of 95 percent of hash power to agree on soft forks." So yeah, Core decides what constitutes consensus; core dictates consensus rules. Where do you see a problem in my post? ... >Therefore all changes have to be in line with the consensus rules Which brings us back to my original post: "'Long as the the dictator gets to define [dictate the meaning of] consensus, I see no problems." There seem to be multiple schools of thought on what constitutes consensus, and those in politically-favorable positions get to decide which one counts   Bitcoin's consensus mechanism in action. A thing of beauty to behold
P.S. You've previously alluded to Satoshi's white paper, can you clarify which part, in particular? |
|
|
|
...
I think mempool must be mainly full of sh*t... just a thought from a BCT lurker.
Yeah, ChartBuddy is just a govvy shill spreading fuds, u got nothin' to worry 'bout.  |
|
|
|
This is not the place for ELI5s of how bitcoin works. See Satoshi's whitepaper.
No ELI5 was asked for. If you got nothing, just say "I got nothing." If you wish to reference something specific, clarify plz Short version: If you want a dictator to own your money, just give them to someone. You don't need Bitcoin for that. With Bitcoin you have your own money, controlled by hard consensus rules which were set in stone from the first day. The rules are enforced by every node in the entire network, and to change the rules, e.g. to steal all the money and take taxes for the dictator, you have to change every single node. This is not doable in practice. Therefore all changes have to be in line with the consensus rules, and the powers of the developers are limited. >You don't need Bitcoin for that. Looks like this is what I'm getting, needed or not. >hard consensus rules which were set in stone from the first day. In stone? My understanding is once upon a time, blocksize limit was 32MB? Not so? >take taxes for the dictator Bitcoin is getting taxed just fine, afaik. Proceeds of crimes getting seized (albeit not always, see TradeFortress/Cryptocyprus/Pirateat40/etc., etc.). What am I missing? >Therefore all changes have to be in line with the consensus rules Which brings us back to my original post: "'Long as the the dictator gets to define [dictate the meaning of] consensus, I see no problems." There seem to be multiple schools of thought on what constitutes consensus, and those in politically-favorable positions get to decide which one counts Bitcoin's consensus mechanism in action. A thing of beauty to behold
P.S. You've previously alluded to Satoshi's white paper, can you clarify which part, in particular? |
|
|
|
... How do we know something like LTC or any other alt can handle the pressure? It's had a very relaxing life so far. They all have the luxury of lack of spotlight. The same old shit would pop up wherever the heat was pointed. ... Many ways to stay safe. One is to be perpetually aggressive/threatening & invest (or, as it happened, think that already have) in weapons/heavy armor. The other is simply not picking fights. The problem with Bitcoin, from the git-go (actually from this bullshit), Bitcoiners adopted the former |
|
|
|
... It would be helpful to acknowledge that Prohashing is a scrypt mining pool for altcoin mining. What a shocking statement coming from them Let me know when Coinbase, bitpay or any other large merchant starts recommending an alt. Won't you just post another rolly-eyes emoji & cry claim the merchant isn't large enough/spreading FUD? ... If their margins are so tight that they cannot afford an extra 3-4 pennies per tx for a small group of users than that is certainly troubling. They should simply pass on that fee to their clients if they cannot afford it because many clients are dumping a portion of these mined alts for btc anyways and it is less expensive to pay 4 pennies more than any exchange fee.
They have too many clients, most probably poors -- don't want to spam up Blogchain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
