Pure speculation without any use, "intrinsive" valeu is just poison. Nothing substancial...
In spite of the typos, this is the most accurate summary of BSV I've ever read. Good. We know ur comprehension capabilities very accurate for long time now. BSV has just all the other values u ll never get |
|
|
|
 You're trolling. Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance. gotta love that comedy. so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin. Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want? more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.
What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right? it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech centralising the network?? how... go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers.. .. my response: people will run full nodes on home devices again my response: people will run full nodes on home devices Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs. For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.
There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.
U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.
The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed. I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened. Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trollingYou're clearly trying too hard to mislead the readers by acting like that. But if you believe it's making me angry, it's not. I'm very happy to reply with the facts for everyone to read. Newbies, learn your history, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality No prove that proof of raspi did anything. Just simply PoSM You say "no proof", but you cannot disprove the movement. Segwit activation through the initiative of the UASF is proof enough.
Mislead newbees to finance ur dumb btc ponzi.
Cannot be taken seriously, especially from a person who misleads everyone, and say that "Craig Wright is Satoshi". You have lost.
Sane ppl know all that or find it out in a day of due dilligence
Nope The only kick for activation came from the 2x promise / NYA. Wanting to ignore this makes u full retard ponzi scammer. This is proof |
|
|
|
Bump, Craig is a fraud.
I see him rather catching all the anno and anarcho frauds who try to do all sorts of illegal stuff with crypto No wonder they hate him and want him to be called out... |
|
|
|
Pure speculation without any use, "intrinsive" valeu is just poison. Nothing substancial... Trolls just too lazy or dumb to get that and able to inject permanent PoW into real usage (except ponzi ...) |
|
|
|
You're trolling. Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance. gotta love that comedy. so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin. Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want? more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.
What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right? it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech centralising the network?? how... go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers.. .. my response: people will run full nodes on home devices again my response: people will run full nodes on home devices Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs. For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.
There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.
U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.
The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed. I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened. Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trollingYou're clearly trying too hard to mislead the readers by acting like that. But if you believe it's making me angry, it's not. I'm very happy to reply with the facts for everyone to read. Newbies, learn your history, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-realityNo prove that proof of raspi did anything. Just simply PoSM Mislead newbees to finance ur dumb btc ponzi. Sane ppl know all that or find it out in a day of due dilligence |
|
|
|
You're trolling. Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance. gotta love that comedy. so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin. Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want? more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.
What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right? it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech centralising the network?? how... go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers.. .. my response: people will run full nodes on home devices again my response: people will run full nodes on home devices Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs. For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.
There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.
U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.
The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed. I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened. Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trolling |
|
|
|
bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.
I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused? It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless  Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition. so it should be free to transfer But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange. We know, it is chicken & egg. But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW e-cash so what is the issue ? BTC is not Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out. Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design You're trolling. Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance. If u are losing on arguments, u go name calling? Did I call you names? No. Is that your way to end the debate? I said you're trolling.
Nope, scaling means real scaling, and not little ( by little Joe, little RasPI,...)
In the real world, by real, in this dimension, no one can go around the laws of physics.
Miners have done this step already, they have invested and installed high tech level network over the past years, in a still enough decentral way, and that is as industrial grade scaling has to be done for global networks,
Nothing new.
It stays decentral enough over time cause competition is maximum open and everyone can build high level efficient mining equipment and join every time, that will challenge any monopoly over long term. Perfect open rotation.
Because they had to specialize, or be left behind mining with inefficient hardware, and mine at a loss.
Little joe RasPI pies were never ever of relevance, they only run their wallet clients, when miners run the server farms, as Satoshi designed it.
Meh
Non-mining full nodes validate, they are as part of the network as the nodes the miners connect to. Some miners don't run their own full nodes anymore. Plus why would you tell everyone not to? Is that your whole debate for big blocks? "Because the community doesn't have to run their own full nodes"? There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat. U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol. Nice trolling from u though |
|
|
|
bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.
I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused? It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition. so it should be free to transfer But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange. We know, it is chicken & egg. But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW e-cash so what is the issue ? BTC is not Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out. Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design You're trolling. Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance. If u are losing on arguments, u go name calling? Nope, scaling means real scaling, and not little ( by little Joe, little RasPI,...) Miners have done this step already, they have invested and installed high tech level network over the past years, in a still enough decentral way, and that is as industrial grade scaling has to be done for global networks, Nothing new. It stays decentral enough over time cause competition is maximum open and everyone can build high level efficient mining equipment and join every time, that will challenge any monopoly over long term. Perfect open rotation. Little joe RasPI pies were never ever of relevance, they only run their wallet clients, when miners run the server farms, as Satoshi designed it. Meh |
|
|
|
bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.
I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused? It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition. so it should be free to transfer But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange. We know, it is chicken & egg. But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW e-cash so what is the issue ? BTC is not Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out. Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design |
|
|
|
I disagree on your interpretation of “relatively high”. Weekly RSI is about 45 and falling. Historically the only time we get under 45 Weekly RSI is during the significant bottoming events in January 2015 and December 2018. I would say 45 Weekly RSI is “relatively low”. To get much further down you have to assume a capitulation event. We already had our capitulation this cycle. Am not convinced we need a second one this cycle. During the 2013 first crash we never got below 48 Weekly RSI.  A log(USD) plot would be better to see, esp for early time frame |
|
|
|
bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.
I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused? It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition. so it should be free to transfer But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange. We know, it is chicken & egg. But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW e-cash so what is the issue ? BTC is not Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake |
|
|
|
had to log in to merit this gem. after all we are talking about shitcoins. don´t know if it possible to sum up shitcoinery in one meme in a better way. Lol the 'Sharding' of Ethereum - such a DAO |
|
|
|
bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.
I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused? It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition. so it should be free to transfer |
|
|
|
BitCoin was about PoW If you want to have Smart Contracts (for dev sake, not scam sake,...) - so pls do and prove your work like this honest man here https://youtu.be/CN8NfMBTx0Uand this will be better by far ! But now all blockchains are switching to POS mining or masternodes to support the network. Why POW is better than POS for you? Staking is not secure for Long term - u once buy some license ( for a DB) and do nothing more for the db's security - this is just old world and LOL Proof of Shit |
|
|
|
BSV works great. Original BitCoin it is, feels 2011  |
|
|
|
Here's why Calvin doesn't throw more hash power at SV, its already embarrassingly centralized:  What metric u have for 'too embarrassingly centralized' LoL u have no - but nice rant  Its simple math: Coingeek owns the clear majority of BSV's hash rate. Coingeek: 41.67% SV Pool: 18.06% Total: 59.73% You're going to have to troll harder next time if you want me to respond any further. Nope - Definition of centralized and decentralized is not given second - u have not provided what that means - I d guess u are about 'risk' ? U ve no clue about risk, evalue it and properly mitigate it - go back to segshit and watch |
|
|
|
You're talking about trolls dominating the crypto space while unironically linking a coingeek article. That's rich. This is pretty much what I think of whenever I heard the name "coingeek": Yesterday, ETC Cooperative Executive Director Bob Summerwill uninvited Core Scientific CTO Kristy-Leigh Minehan to speak at the upcoming ETC Summit over concerns about her professional connections to CoinGeek, an ostensible Bitcoin news source that primarily exists to espouse Bitcoin SV propaganda...
To Summerwill, Minehan’s professional connections are disconcerting. He wrote:
“Craig Wright is a fraud, serial liar and perjurer, and Calvin Ayre is not much better. I cannot have the ETC Cooperative and the ETC Summit associated with such disreputable individuals and companies, so I chose to withdraw my invitation.” Craig has zero. Here's why Calvin doesn't throw more hash power at SV, its already embarrassingly centralized: What metric u have for 'too embarrassingly centralized' LoL u have no - but nice rant |
|
|
|
Dogecoin is a little suprise... It must be very cheap to attack bCash SV.  Doesn't matter how cheap it is, but it's illegal and what risk u run doing such So pls add on figures for being sued and u get it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
