$2017 street price* btc people on the street are buying!!! :-D I feel really sorry for that hopefully single individuum having sold for 0.002 - still trying to bit his own ass.  |
|
|
|
Lauda your tolerance and persistence is commendable. However your effort is wasted. Selectively ignoring about 4 bitcointalk trolls in this argument will make your life much more enjoyable and any discussions regarding scaling much more useful as it increases the signal to noise ratio to about 100x higher.
sticking head in sand and pretending the dream is a reality will make your life more enjoyable.. but you have to wake up someday. and your dream fades away once the real reality takes over your life. You re so mean wiping away others Sweet Wishes  Tomorrow I ll anounce a new coin called FeeAssCoin (FEASCO) using a new proof of mempool (POM) running by segregated users with limited brain. |
|
|
|
Last week some of my friends invested in bitcoin too. We have so much fun at the moment.
I got some guys from Thomsonreuters infected  |
|
|
|
987$ für einen umgebauten NUC...naja wenn Geld keine Rolle spielt strong buy  mein erster PC 386 und MS-DOS plus Turbo taste um auf 40 MHz zu kommen kostet 2000 Demark  4 MB RAM, Graka 512 KB speicher.. Nen bissel Fantasie?? Mein C64 mit Floppy 1541 genau gleich .... ufff |
|
|
|
Let's go to $1300 and there won't be any debate over the last ATH anymore
Fuck it, why not $1500 I sure wouldn't mind We write 2017 that's the correct goal in $ |
|
|
|
It's not going to die anytime soon.
Only the Ponzi scheme portion continues - the technical portion is totally fucked and broken. Speculators thrive. Developers have ruined the protocol forever. Blockstream's failed takeover screwed so many companies. Hehe - yeah and bitcoin is below 10k - so it's dead. |
|
|
|
Too sad that again in the SW supporting forums there is just only fear about having an open discussion https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5ut05w/why_im_against_bu/ddxiool/That way I see no chance to get along with it (SW) in a open world with open blockchain on top of an open internet. Simply this behaviour makes me getting on distance with SW and activates critical thinking - luckily this still works. |
|
|
|
|
If you compare the invention of the bitcoin protocol with invention of other protocols before like smtp or voIP then you might derive that the entire financial system will not vanish or go away. Phys mail (FedEx) and telecoms just have lost some parts of their business (cards,letters or long distance calls) but keep on going quite well, if they went with time and adopted parts of technology.
For banks it is hard since most of their business is non-phyiscal, except of e.g. physical gold and safes, but they will stay if they go with the new tech.
|
|
|
|
The O(n^2) sigop attack cannot be mitigated with Electrum X or by simply buying a faster Xeon server.
As Gavin said, we need to move to Schnorr sigs to get (sub)linear sig validation time scaling.
And AFAIK moving to Schnorr sigs at minimum requires implementing Core's segwit soft fork.
Informed Bitcoiners like Adam Back and the rest of Core plan to do segwit first, because it pays off technical debt and thus strengthens the foundation necessary to support increased block sizes later.
So you are saying their Developer is not competent enough to find a solution. I think if the Developer of electrum was actually worried about it , he would have mentioned it when asked point blank on the blocksize issue. Electrum devs cannot change the fact Bitcoin uses Lamport sigs. As currently implemented, Lamport sig validation scales quadratically with tx size. Nobody can fix that until we have segwit and may then change to Schnorr sigs. Source: Too sad, that science dictates to have SW first and than Schnorr... What a pity! |
|
|
|
That was a really nice one as well as the after beers, tx a lot for the organisation! Good to see that Jonas tried to leave the room once the QA got political. And sorry for the noise in the middle ( I hope the coming video is ok), it was not me but I feel guilty somehow ...  |
|
|
|
WoW, look at all those fake Nodes popping up at the same time.
Just for clarification - what is a 'fake node'? To many Nodes running by a hand-full of people, BU will go bust. Segwitt will prevail!
At least one of those recent BU nodes is mine. I opened up my node to inbound connections last week. Segwitt will prevail!
Doesn't appear that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset will ever amass the 95% block requirement for activation. What's plan B? Luckily we have still some legends in this good old legendary forum thinking of plan B! That can make bitcoin only stronger. Tx! |
|
|
|
Hahah, astrein, hab auch geflennt wie Roger. |
|
|
|
Try this: If e.g. A stock price tested against a barrier two times, will it hold 3rd for sure?
Stock prices follow random walks. Stock prices are not experiments. The do not support or disprove a a hypothesis. You don't seem to have a clear understanding of how science works. I can't imagine living in such a dark, demon-haunted world. I'm truly sorry you never received a proper education. Here, read this. https://explorable.com/falsifiabilityLet there be light!  kiklo, The O(n^2) sigop attack cannot be mitigated with Electrum X or by simply buying a faster Xeon server. As Gavin said, we need to move to Schnorr sigs to get (sub)linear sig validation time scaling. And AFAIK moving to Schnorr sigs at minimum requires implementing Core's segwit soft fork. Informed Bitcoiners like Adam Back and the rest of Core plan to do segwit first, because it pays off technical debt and thus strengthens the foundation necessary to support increased block sizes later. Let ICi believe in random walks and sience is answer to all issues. He does not even get how to communicate in civilized manner. Riddle for you: What distribution do you need for your stock market random walk or ( same task) what one is underlying to the real ( not academic ) economics like bitcoin experiment (e.g. acceptance probability)? |
|
|
|
*XT gets rekt*
*time passes**Classic gets rekt*
*time passes*BU is going to win this fight.
Try to guess what happens next!  Yeah. You convinced me again. You find two measurements and extrapolate the future out of this. Great brain! Edit: So we should go long always at the end of every trend? You are confusing "measurements" with the resolutions of the XT and Classic experiments. Instruments take measurements, experiments test hypotheses. What an appallingly ignorant display of your lack of basic familiarity with the philosophy of science. I didn't say anything about "the end of every trend." My point is obviously specific to the resolution of the Unlimite_ measurement experiment. Please try to stay focused on the subject at hand and not wander off into lazy universal generalities about what we should or should not "always" do. Ok , thx that you stayed on and just w/o any insult. Try this: If e.g. A stock price tested against a barrier two times, will it hold 3rd for sure? |
|
|
|
*XT gets rekt*
*time passes**Classic gets rekt*
*time passes*BU is going to win this fight.
Try to guess what happens next! Yeah. You convinced me again. You find two measurements and extrapolate the future out of this. Great brain! Edit: So we should go long always at the end of every trend? |
|
|
|
*schnipp schnapp*
Also ich traue dem Braten (z.B. Orderbuch von Stamp) nicht. Du pochst ja immer darauf, dem Wochenchart den Vorrang zu geben, aber der zeigt doch exemplarisch eine Preistreiberei seit Ende 2015. Der Kurs hat sich seitdem verfünffacht und das obwohl (man kann es immer wieder runterbeten) sich nichts Substantielles verändert hat. Eher im Gegenteil, die Entwicklung stagniert durch Grabenkämpfe, innovative Konzepte werden von Alts umgesetzt.
Irgendwie habe ich den Eindruck, daß die anhaltende technische Pattsituation derzeit nur von abgebrühten Zockern mit viel Kapital ausgenutzt wird, die die Schafe vor sich hertreiben um sie zu melken.
Noch einer der versucht das Sentiment zu beeinflussen? Es hat sich nichts Substantielles veraendert? Aber der Preis hat sich verfuenffacht? Das ist eine dreiste Lüge! Selbst wenn sich technisch beim Bitcoin nicht viel getan hat, dann hat sich eben im Rest der Welt was getan. Z.B. in Venezuela und Indien. Bei der Darstellung eines Werts durch einen anderen ist das nunmal so, dass, wenn der eine steigt, angegeben im anderen, es moeglich ist, dass schlicht der andere immer scheissiger wird. Da gehoeren naemlich immer zwei dazu! Und die Bitcoin-Welt besteht nun mal nicht mehr NUR aus Bitcoin, da gibt es naemlich inzwischen schon Verbindungen zur Aussenwelt. Und diese beeinflusst eben auch den Preis. Ausserdem danke ich Bitcoin, dass er sich nicht gar so schnell entwickelt. Die Ethereum-Geschichte sollte allen eine Warnung sein. Das laesst mich ruhig schlafen. Bestätigt genau das nicht meine Ansicht? Bei den Alts läuft es seit Jahren genau so, nur im Kleinen. Es wird ein fiktives Kaufinteresse suggeriert, welches kleinere Anleger zum Kauf animiert. Im "Top" wird häppchenweise abverkauft, wobei Kleinanleger immer in dem Glauben gelassen werden, daß es sich nur um Korrekturen handelt und sie deshalb erst zu Einkaufspreisen am "Boden" verkaufen, in der Wahrnehmung ja nicht alles zu verlieren.
Das ist suggestives Gelaber! Wer Daytrading betreibt ist selbst schuld. Insbesondere wenn man keine Ahnung davon hat. Ich glaube, nein ich weiss, dass Kleinanleger, welche letztes Jahr Geld in Bitcoin angelegt haben und diese hielten sich jetzt sicherlich nicht beschweren. Mich verwundert ehrlich gesagt, daß du plötzlich Coinbase als Referenz nimmst, aber immer propagiert hast, daß China den Kurs macht. PBoC- Ernüchterung?
Hallo??? Mit diesem Statement hast Du Dich gerade selbst als ernsthaften Gespraechspartner disqualifiziert. Wenn Leute sich verspekuliert haben und jetzt den Preis durch nichtgerechtfertigte Schwarzmalerei druecken wollen damit sie einen besseren Einstiegspunkt bekommen um die Verluste minimieren, dann ist das okay, aber dann doch etwas subtiler und nicht so offensichtlich. Und ja, bei einigen habe ich diesen Eindruck! Everybody should just chill down... Trading ist Krieg, egal ob bitcoin oder was anderes. Egal in welchem Zeitfenster. Für mich ist bitcoin einfach nur buy. Wer verkauft hat, war bisher immer falsch Wichtig, immer nur soviel, wie man bereit ist im Casino zu verzocken. |
|
|
|
Trying to be mostly neutral and searching for a unifying solution, I see SW supporters running out of convincing arguments and try hiding behind polemic and insult not only here but even in most SW loving forum there is lot of confusion https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5ukz58/segwit_is_a_softfork_to_miners_without_supporting/+ all efforts to claim SW is THE no brainer solution and needs to be just waived through because core knows better and is fully tested and disclaimer free + seeing BU expands adoption (despite not 'fully' tested), SW stalls: One can only conclude, so far, SW is Not the no brainer and needs either to be entirely reviewed or abandoned. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, "minor" changes in the BU code even before their hard fork activation have already led to invalid block generation.
Remember: BU and Segwit are not the only two choices in the world... 2MB hard fork is VERY easy from the software side. The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement. At this point, lines are drawn, and people are unlikely to accept Segwit, regardless of whether a blocksize increase is included or not. JayGuanGee, [facepalm], I can't even engage with you, please look at this chart and tell me there is no problem again: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7×pan=all (7-day average mempool size). You cannot engage because you are continuing to exaggerate and to make things up. Yes, blocks are still full, but transactions are going through and fees remain relatively low. and we are still achieving secure immutable decentralized value storage and transfer of value. This bitcoin thingie is world changing, and even if there is no solution (such as seg wit or larger blocks), bitcoin brings a lot of value, even in its current state. So don't be trying to suggest that bitcoin needs to compete with Visa or with some payment system, when it achieves a whole other level of added value, even in it's current state and even if some variation of its current state were to continue for the next 20 years. I feel sorry for you. You've also been fallen into the BS fee trap. Do the math: Fees are just not needed for the next years... |
|
|
|
Edit: *sigh* "It’s common for full nodes on high-speed connections to use 200 gigabytes upload or more a month. Download usage is around 20 gigabytes a month, plus around an additional 100 gigabytes the first time you start your node." I guess that I will not have a full node after all  all dependant on how many connections to other nodes you have. less connections = less bandwidth usage And as far I understand Jonas Schnelli had done sth for limiting this upload traffic a bit, by some parameter - not sure if this is part of BU? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
