I have a question. How much did you pay for registering the domain first time ?
good point - but I bet you could look that up. |
|
|
|
People opposed the big blocks because in time it would get a lot harder to sync a node from scratch than what it already is.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
Its not just about 'big blocks' its about ALL TWEAKS and ALTERATIONS of Bitcoin and its geniusly defined protocol - cause this allows any evil to happen and it finally opend the vector of having 5000 altcoins now btw ... think of the peace we ll have if you cannot discuss, alter, gain power of CHANGES at all !! There is nothing to do in smtp, tcp/ip , VoIP, ... NOTHING >> same MUST apply to a global protocol of sending money Get rid of they idea you might do better than Satoshi That's why if you have a hard time getting the change you want or consensus, we just stick with the status quo. Good thing that seqwit was passed with overwhelming consensus, so that should shut up the whiners, but it does not. Anyhow, sure anyone can make proposals and if they cannot get traction, then we just stick with the status quo, which difficulties to change remains a bitcoin feature not a bug. Regarding lightning network, it gives options, and there are quite a few people working on developing it, but surely if it is not performing up to the task and it is just a mess then people do not need to use it, which I suppose is part of the reason that there are people working on alternative second layer solutions too, and maybe something better than lightning network will come along - or otherwise there might be some break throughs in lightning network to cause it to become more user-friendly - which seems to be one of the complaints about that option. lol, try to get a 'democratic' overwhelming 'consensus' whatever fo a change to tcp/ip ... Nope and btw: esp for SEGVID-17 there wasn't - only in 'agree' of the 2x - you remember ? Bugs must be fixxed - sure, but you can see a real bug if that comes - there are strict definitions |
|
|
|
... despite there is just no proof at all - rather lots of facts that prove now that little amateur kitty was always wrong and still only option left is shoutng and ranting, but it gets worse ...
Better read all the facts and questionaries and check (also code and definitions -> BSV just the only real Bitcoin)
make up your own mind, Satoshi might not be they guy you dreamed of
hv keeps on lying and bullshiting Justice Bruce Reinhart: " Particularly given my prior finding that Dr. Wright has produced forged documents in this litigation, I decline to rely on this kind of document, which could easily have been generated by anyone with word processing software and a pen." And what Judge Bloom thinks about Ninja Craiggy  If the term 'read the facts and sources' transfers to your mind into 'keeps on lying and bullshiting' --- sigh |
|
|
|
People opposed the big blocks because in time it would get a lot harder to sync a node from scratch than what it already is.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
Its not just about 'big blocks' its about ALL TWEAKS and ALTERATIONS of Bitcoin and its geniusly defined protocol - cause this allows any evil to happen and it finally opend the vector of having 5000 altcoins now btw ... think of the peace we ll have if you cannot discuss, alter, gain power of CHANGES at all !! There is nothing to do in smtp, tcp/ip , VoIP, ... NOTHING >> same MUST apply to a global protocol of sending money Get rid of they idea you might do better than Satoshi |
|
|
|
... despite there is just no proof at all - rather lots of facts that prove now that little amateur kitty was always wrong and still only option left is shoutng and ranting, but it gets worse ... Better read all the facts and questionaries and check (also code and definitions -> BSV just the only real Bitcoin) make up your own mind, Satoshi might not be they guy you dreamed of |
|
|
|
|
Hope so, cause ICOs asking for momey and deliver what? A promise? A product? All of that is regulated and even eth did pre mine and delivers what? A scam producing scam?
Wtf, there is only Bitcoin maximum compliant
|
|
|
|
Lowering the standards such that dead horses may be included in the specification. FTW ...or something. I could not find similar for dead cat bouncing theo, does that connect?  |
|
|
|
agree, give it back...
Who took it off you? Name names so they can reported to the authorities. This will not stand. Once they're in jail 'give it back' to whom? Errr, this guy?  This hunk of burning love?  Fuck it, let's get some referrals going. Why turn down money waiting to be made? Let's fuckin' party.  Cobra might know, and there should be the receipt from 2008 ... |
|
|
|
The coins that was moved, was linked to a regulated exchange..... do you really think Satoshi Nakamoto would use regulated exchanges if he wanted to hide his true identity? Regulated exchanges link Bitcoin addresses to actual true identities of specific people, so making use of these exchanges will reveal your true identity. This is most probably some early miner that are known to everyone that are simply selling some early coins just to test the integrity of these exchanges. If his tx is linked to his true identity and this information is leaked... then he/she would open up a whole can of worms.  Just ignore this and just move on.  Satoshi Nakamoto had a lot of people helping him to test the mining back then and these coins was mined in February, if I am not wrong. So the regulated exchange sending, if true, would also cut out that hackers found the key.... |
|
|
|
Did someone already throw in Andreas M. Antonopoulos as the domain name keeper?
And go shill for ETH scams? Snaking out in courts? Lol
It's people like you that make this forum so unwelcoming. By the way, thanks for your negative trust feedback, funny that you only mustered up the courage to do that after I was no longer owner of bitcointalk.org, perhaps you understood negative trusting the owner of the domain of the very site you're using would be comical.
It is neutral feedback. Lying, as expected of you.  I did not do anything out of respect for theymoses mistakes, one of which was trusting you very early on. This is no longer necessary. Doesn't sound very neutral to me: Refused to decentralize Bitcoin.org control very likely due to long term malicious goals. I would not trust this user until proven otherwise (Not doing evil is not proof of good). No, you didn't do anything before because you were scared it would have consequences for you (it wouldn't have), or that it would make you look stupid (it would), so you only acted now, which is cute. The clever snake smells the fear Right [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] |
|
|
|
Though I doubt Cobra will just sell the domain to someone like Roger, holy fuck if Roger actually gets to own two high-authority Bitcoin domains.
I don't think Cobra will just hand over the domain to Roger, as we can see the reply on twitter. He will definitely hand over to someone trusted and of course a supporter of BTC. It would be better if some trusted from the bitcointalk forum could have the access of it, may be theymos? theymos controls too many resources, it's better to pick somebody else, even though he's obviously very trustworthy. The difference should be obvious in practice. When Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja published their ideas in the Lightning whitepaper, people took notice regardless of where their income was sourced. Those who understood it recognised the potential and it sparked enough interest to result in multiple implementations, each with numerous team members, all producing code. There wouldn't be several teams of people working on it if no one thought it was a good idea, no matter how much money someone might be willing to throw at it. Smart people can waste decades on things that don't turn out to lead to anything. Academia is filled with scientists and mathematicians who spent a good portion of their life creating new systems and concepts that, with respect to them, can be described as a waste of time and a net negative for the world, because that person could have been pursuing better ideas with their time. I personally know a physicist who regrets spending years involved in string theory research. You would be surprised at how common it is for smart and highly technical people to fall into toiling away at flawed projects. Lightning has a lot of flaws. How do you train users that to spend money, they need to put it in a channel first? OK. Maybe the wallet can automatically open channels. How do you explain that some of the users money is gone because transaction fees spiked on Bitcoin, and more satoshis had to be reserved for when the channel needs to be closed? OK. I guess you can put a disclaimer, or alert. How do you explain watchtowers? How about backups? The user probably expects to receive arbitrary amounts of value, but you're going to need to tell them to get some inbound capacity if they want to receive anything substantial. At some point, Lightning Labs will choose to abstract all this away, but that's going to pressure them to centralize (a centralized directory of liquidity providers, watchtowers, well connected nodes, etc). Blockstream is a hostile actor in the space. They don't want Bitcoin to succeed. There are some good people working there, but those few good apples mostly collect their salary and focus their time on Bitcoin Core and cryptographic research, they tend to distance themselves from Blockstream's damaging products. Have you ever seen Pieter Wuille shilling Liquid? Nope. It's unclear to me how they ever plan on making money, but they will no doubt abuse their position of influence in the community for their own business interests at some point. They already attempted to market Liquid as "trustless", which lead to founder Matt Corallo publicly shaming them on Twitter. The worst thing Blockstream has done: they made a block size increase on Bitcoin absolutely impossible. They whipped up a mob to such an extent that, for the foreseeable decade, we're not going to get any increase because a mass of uneducated morons will oppose it. I don't ever see a hard fork in general as a possibility, which sucks because some nice things could have been fixed with a hard fork, and the "no hard fork" mentality hurts Bitcoin as more and more technical debt will accumulate because of ever messier soft forks. I suspect this is what they want: an ugly system, that is slow and congested, so they can market their sidechains as better alternatives. Before Blockstream, the general consensus was that hard forks could be done in the future, carefully and far ahead in advance. They ripped that consensus out of the community. Any Bitcoiner who doesn't view Blockstream with some level of suspicion has no intellect; you don't need to call them a fucking conspiracy, but you better raise a bloody eyebrow when there exists a company that benefits from Bitcoin not working. Right, so what s the plan? Give it back ... |
|
|
|
|
After 2140? Not much different as 2100 or 2080 or 2050
Most interesting rather 2024 (after next halvening) / 2028
?
Bitcoin economics and global compliance will decide that
|
|
|
|
|
No, does not look like it was Satoshi nor CSWs other funds, also not Hal, but maybe his heirs or Ira Kleinman s group needed money...
|
|
|
|
|
Why not ask Gavin ? Jon Matonis? Who created it?
|
|
|
|
Maybe you should get some  Get some Pizza today Clean unforked Pizza as 10y ago for clean unforked Bitcoin That caused scaling to go global - yummy Cheeeeeers EDIT: Bit before Pizza: Get drunk !! 8 Q. Did you ever exchange a printed -- strike
9 that. Did you ever exchange a key that is printed on a
10 piece of paper with Dave Kleiman?
11 MS. MARKOE: Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: Mr. Kleiman and I had been
13 in the country together once since the creation of
14 Bitcoin, where neither of us handed over any Bitcoin on
15 paper wallets, neither of us handed pieces of paper
16 together as we were drinking and getting drunk, to each
17 other on that day, and the value of the entire Bitcoin
18 market at that stage, when we got together, was,
19 I think, about $100, which was millions of Bitcoin, for
20 the entire value $100 was it. So, did I hand him a
21 piece of paper when we were in foreign countries: I do
22 not know how I could possibly do that.
23 BY MR. FREEDMAN:
(WITNESS = CSW) |
|
|
|
Also eine Adresse aus CWs tullip trust. Wenn ich auf seinem Niveau Spielchen spielen wollte würde ich da auch Adressen angeben die ich kontrolliere und behaupten ich kontrolliere sie (noch) nicht um sie dann zu bewegen und Verblüffung auszulösen. Noch wahrscheinlicher ist aber, dass er einfach irgendwelche alten Adressen angegeben hat die lange nicht angerührt wurden. An für sich ist eher keine Aufregung wert...finde ich. Nee, offenbar doch nicht aus dem trust https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/kleiman-v-wright/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=descAber man will es offenbar nicht öffentlich lesen lassen seitens Ira / Kläger Hier mal 'reinlesen' ist aber recht interessant... die Story kann man nicht erfinden Leider wird es bisher in fast allen Crypto-Medien 'weg-getrollt'. Man muss selbst die Sourcen nachsehen "reinlesen" in tausende Seiten Prozessunterlagen?! Kannst Du etwas konkreter werden? Es geht da wohl um eine Festplatte von Kleinmann die über den Bruder an CW gegeben wurde, Inhalt unbekannt. haha, und dass Bitcoin 1998 / 2002 schon entstand, wer (offenbar auch ein US Regierungsmitglied) alles das White-Paper gesehen haben müsste (insb vor 2008) und wieviel Dave Kleiman davon 'Anteil' hatte denn der Streit geht um das Erbe (Dave starb 2013), das evtl ca 500.000 Bitcoin umfassen könnte Damals war das nicht so viel in EUR, aber heute, bei dem Kursverlauf .... Achja: Und immer erst trinken - dann happy Pizza-Day ! 8 Q. Did you ever exchange a printed -- strike
9 that. Did you ever exchange a key that is printed on a
10 piece of paper with Dave Kleiman?
11 MS. MARKOE: Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: Mr. Kleiman and I had been
13 in the country together once since the creation of
14 Bitcoin, where neither of us handed over any Bitcoin on
15 paper wallets, neither of us handed pieces of paper
16 together as we were drinking and getting drunk, to each
17 other on that day, and the value of the entire Bitcoin
18 market at that stage, when we got together, was,
19 I think, about $100, which was millions of Bitcoin, for
20 the entire value $100 was it. So, did I hand him a
21 piece of paper when we were in foreign countries: I do
22 not know how I could possibly do that.
(Witness = Wright) |
|
|
|
I'm trying to run a scam and claim that i can calculate private keys. I also sell 50btc for 25btc and have a Nigerian uncle that would like you to inherit his billions...
I've found a potential buyer for you. Please contact a user cryptonian(s)  Faketoshi could really use those services right about now. Can we ban this idiot? Ban ppl on censorship-free .. what ? lol better ban criminals cause blockchain is sheer transparent and legal compliant... |
|
|
|
still laughing at the LN fangirl windfury.
people that actually want to use the BTC bitcoin blockchain without huge fee's. the people that dont want to be diverted to other networks.. windfury wants to call them 'centralists' and 'big blockers'
Bigger blocks to scale on-chain has its own debate why it's not good for the network's security, franky1.
kinda funny how he doesnt even realise the reality
if less people are moving funds onchain. they have less need to secure the chain.
so advertising other networks that dont need to touch the blockchain for months. is more of a divert away from bitcoin. not a incentivise to secure bitcoin.
its just that simple
Reality? There's already two other "Bitcoin networks" that has hard forked to bigger blocks, BCH and BSV. Why aren't the people, "who actually want to use on-chain transactions WITHOUT huge fees", not using them? lol - BSV has highest txs count and who says that with professional mining setup security goes down? Better DBs / infrastructure are run by many profs (for profit!) than some funny toy-girls losing coins and wealth on LN and bills |
|
|
|
worms come out of the ground during the rain
These grounds are very deep and dark. But reading all that into the light now seems to be the only way to get ppl see it. Pure move of coins just don't..... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
