That's what contempt looks like   Nice - CSW just Triggers the trolls / bagholders - where is bespoke 'censorship resistance ' ? Now today he talks about writing the White Paper - where he still owns the Copyrights - nothing happend from trolloverse - except they made more Drama such that more will listen  |
|
|
|
franky1, if you are debating that Schnorr + Taproot won't scale more than 40x, then no one is debating that with you.
The point of these upgrades is to improve the network's latency, with the current block size that Bitcoin already has.
take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1. oh look so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits oh and one last thing.. You know what to do everyone. In case. #UASF
if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks. the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin' ** = both UC and OR UASF is not a new voting mechanism to activate new features. its an aparthied/community segregation technique. basically like 'if your not white and you dont like being told what seat on the bus to sit on, get off the bus, your not wanted'. core do not care for community participation. they literally bypass community need to agree to new features before activation. by letting their nodes bypass the verification so that nodes cant reject the new stuff Cannot agree more - btc kinda sold out. Good: Bitcoin was and is not bound to a ticker. Let them hodl a ticker - Satoshi hodl the protocol |
|
|
|
Some trolls spreading propaganda made from the bitcoin.com website, owned by Bitcoin Cash leader, Roger Ver.
Saving and spending are inseparable. You save now, to spend later.
same pattern all over, if you cannot dispute with arguments - simply call other trolls happy days |
|
|
|
Segwit airdrop
I realize that you're simply here to be a trolling fool, but are you really dumb enough to think that Segwit was a hard fork? An "airdrop" refers to getting something for free, which was what BCH and BSV were. Tell me, what did BTC holders get for free during the "Segwit airdrop"? Any off - forkings are air drops - Relevance: tax & legal - visit ur Consultant... |
|
|
|
I believe what you said was: You forgot the bit where the big blockers try to fool newbies into thinking Bcash lol and BSV are Bitcoin.
Quite a different proposition than trying to fool newbies into thinking BCH or BSV are BTC. But nobody is doing that. That would be dishonest. How are the three near identical logos not trying to fool newbies into thinking BCH or BSV are BTC? I am unaware of any exchange that implements order entry through logos. Most seem to employ ticker symbols for this purpose. Kindly directly address the question regarding the logos. Please do try not to go off on tangents. Here are the logos in case you have forgotten    What is the difference between these logos and how is not deliberately misleading / confusing to newbies ? Orange right leaning/slanting/italic, and straight Gold is the difference and if the BCH airdrop junk logo is green/orange or round/rectangle no-one knows. Would the appropriate logo for the Segwit airdrop not be:  or:  ? Yes - but not many will agree here  |
|
|
|
It’s actually just the obvious privacy concern and nothing more. With the sheer amount of possible address combinations in the address space using RIPEMD-160 (2^160) for bitcoin, it’s totally advisable to just use change addresses for each transaction in order to mask up one’s origins for their funds. Collision is also highly unlikely for bitcoin, so why be so conservative and not use new addresses for each transaction anyways?
I d say it is best practice to use always new addresses, and good wallets should just not implement anything else. Best privacy comes from big blocks, many ppl using on chain txs and open scaling btw |
|
|
|
I'd ask him what projects he currently spends his time on, what he thinks about block sizes and 2nd layer, why he decided to vanish and what his favorite beer is.
I guess he prefers red wine |
|
|
|
Nazi crap
We see, that politics should not get too heavy at all, even the democracy has gotten a monster over the years and needs to be put on a weight watchers plan Can you please stop spreading his nazi crap? Umff, sorry in case u got me wrong, I m all in for democracy and capitalism, but just with having minimal rule set / maximal transparency needed. Pretty much like the 'need to know' principle to get things done best practice. I ve lost a lot of relatives by nazis, I m German btw. A bad thing nazis did, was stopping free thinking and communication and isolated themselves... |
|
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks that the US ain't going to vote for Yang only because he looks so Chinese-ish?
People aren't voting for Yang because he's a piece of shit, CFR puppet trying to implement communism and spamming people with c02 hoaxes and gun confiscation. Are you people this stupid that you have not yet realized the CFR just fabricates a list of puppets for each side in each election to give you the illusion of choice when they're all grade Z, puppet actors? The solution is simple. Since all that exists are Jew puppets pretending to be your 'leader', do not comply with anything they say or do. Hard to be a puppet 'leader' when nobody will acknowledge you even exist.  We see, that politics should not get too heavy at all, even the democracy has gotten a monster over the years and needs to be put on a weight watchers plan |
|
|
|
@1Referee. That is not the argument. The argument is Vitalik's ICO prospectus was to build scalable dapps on Ethereum. However, they admit that they knew Ethereum was never going to be scalable in a developer conference. What was that? An admission of failure?
Also, Ethereum will not create a layer 2. It will reboot to a scalable Ethereum 2.0. What is that again?
2.0 will be no PoW. All the eth whales will be oligarchs for ever (PoW is open for monopol break up cause higher op risks) then and their eth stake will give them rights to create the blocks and return dividends . Eth is security even more such Proof of Shit |
|
|
|
Some more 'low level' infos for those who might get it ( or think of trolling...) Smart contracts on Bitcoin are here https://youtu.be/51ZFe_8mSPw |
|
|
|
Segwit and LN and Schnorr are not BitCoin, for a very good reason.
You miss the real point. Money is supposed to be a constant and unchanging. Things like the noble metals (physical silver and gold) resist entropy. Bitcoin FACILITATES entropy. It's the #1 worst form of 'money' ever created. If something starts out as some completely arbitrary abomination and randomly transforms into some other new, completely arbitrary abomination, it's obviously not fungible or money. "Fungible" does not mean tumbling coins in some Albanian mixer to try and obfuscate outputs, it means the object has actual, inherent properties that don't mutate at random. Fungibility is a requirement of money and no imaginary, digital shitcoin has it. Physical metals are money and digital shitcoins are scam hoaxes pretending to have the traits of metals when they don't. True, but it is just implicit. Bitcoin cannot be changed after Satoshi left. It is fraud to do so and keep the name. Biggest shit was Segshit, and we had the biggest drop of btc in market share with that. Hope we have biggest learning curve about money now. True Bitcoin is better than any PM though That's an opinion too, but development must go on. For the simple minded, bigger blocks will do, but if you project the possible and likely outcomes, it's quite a fatal move. SegWit was a step forward, but development will have to face more bugs and problems to solve. It's like combustion engines, they convert 100% heat into 40% moving energy. Quite inefficient, but the efficiency did and will rise over time (if we don't make the complete jump to 95+% electrical engines in the near future). In my opinion, there is no "better" Bitcoin. Bitcoin is BTC and all of it's offsprings combined. The only true intention of Ver, Wright, Wrong and any of those shady hostile characters is that someone buys the story of the "right" Bitcoin and joins his argumentation army. They don't want to get their hands dirty while grabbing your money. EDIT: Also, when i can buy stuff or service with an entity, it's money. So far for the wet dreams of the roach. Average Joes just got totally brain washed with Bitcoin needs more dev or anonymity, whatever. Bitcoin works fine as designed by Satoshi It could ve been listed on any regulated exchange ( and be much more money ) if simple thin and on purpose, not bribbled / fucked up / altered as btc is now. Protocols should not change any few months Money neither Gold has its constant 999 / same nucleus count.. And by whom? VitalcoreK? |
|
|
|
|
First of all, there will be never true anonymity, no chance
Second, who does profit most from such anonymity?
Sure, not all the average Joes,.
Why than do such an effort to convince for such 'feature'?
Hint: A feature that needs convincing, is no ( like SegShit ...)
Satoshi wanted IP to IP ...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
