*yawn*
You're in Imaginationland, as ever. The coup failed, and your retarded plan had a headstart. You really think you can revive the corpse of your garbage takeover plans with a spurious correlation with the latest alt-coin pump&dump?
As usual, you seem to underestimate the intelligence of the people you're trying to hoodwink, and overestimate your own credibility (which you somehow believe to be a substitute for factual information).
People that are actually invested in Bitcoin have a real incentive to check the alacrity of any claims that affect their investment for themselves. No self-respecting investor would do anything but, so do be quiet. It's not like you haven't already been told.
Per definition BU must be THE bitcoin, correct? 1MB, SW, ... are altcoins then. |
|
|
|
Need to ask FEDalik Butyellen first... |
|
|
|
they got hacked, that's enough to make people stop invest in this idea(at least for now).
With fork or without fork, they are already screwed up.
Correct. For money and business trust is no 1. Once lost it takes YEARS to earn trust back. |
|
|
|
I think holding is great for now.
Offtopic. Pls watch correct spelling! HODL!  |
|
|
|
Never catch a falling knife!
especially on Jan 15, 2015... Hmm, I know sb bought for below 0.70 ..... |
|
|
|
|
Never catch a falling knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like China has
most mining power
most ASIC producing power
most trading power
most owning power (hard to proof - see trading & mining)
nodes ?
coding ?
|
|
|
|
In the post you linked, CIYAM apparently hadn't yet realized the insoluble Sybil attack problem for decentralized file storage, which I had originally pointed out in 2013, reiterated months ago, and reiterated again this week: No decentralized storage can solve the Sybil attack on storage where many nodes are sharing the same storage, but collecting payments or otherwise deceiving the claimed redundancy as if they have multiple copies of the storage.
It is a fundamental weakness that can not be fixed. Decentralized storage can not work. Period. End of story.
Latency is not reliable enough to be used as an indicator.
I hope I don't have to repeat that again. AnonyMint's very first attempt at a better consensus algorithm was proof-of-diskspace in 2013. Was not aware of that - tnx. |
|
|
|
Steemit's PoW has a novel idea to incorporate signing into the PoW for the public key that will receive the coinbase block reward, so as to force the miner to have real-time access to the private key for each nonce attempted. Daniel Larimer/Bitshares et. al claim some benefits which are explained at the following references: https://steem.io/documentation/consensus/#mining-algorithmhttps://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf#page=23This is perhaps the first technical idea I've seen from the Dan Larimer group that I must frankly state is very good and I will likely adopt it for my own project. However, I would structure it differently to avoid the security caveats they noted. I would have the miner sign the hash(H, nonce), the use that as input to the PoW, e.g. PoW = hash(H,nonce,SIGN(hash(H, nonce))). They think one of the benefits is that it will encourage the development of an ASIC which can perform faster elliptic curve signing and validation, and I presume this is so that they hope to be able to validate more transactions per second with more efficient hardware. But I don't claim that is a realistic expectation for a benefit, because well I expect to popularize unprofitable mining and thus the end of ASICs for mining forever. The benefits I think are realistic are no botnets and no pools. Excellent. I had already eliminated farming out mining with another method (farming out can't be resistant to DDoS), and this idea from Dan's group completes attributes I'd like mining to have. So for the first time, I need to tip my hat to Dan and kudos. That sounds really strong! And I found recently CIYAM speaking about a new 'proof-of-storage' here where I wonder if you could force now the miners also to have the entire blockchain stored locally for real: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1323657.msg15091671#msg15091671Those mixed together is the holy grail ...  |
|
|
|
Core developers do not have any responsibility in this case, there were/are options to increase the block size people didn't adopt them, people chose the 1MB limit, bitcoin has the same transaction capacity since ever, you can't blame it for being what it always was...
I did not say just core. The act would be first against the Exchange, and it would depend on their law and contracts. But since the Exchange might be bankrupt you would look for next Company with assets (or they do for you), which might be responsible for e.g. causing 'correct fees' beeing now fully unstable compared to all the years ago, when you signed up. That might be the reason why Coinbase / GDAX wants that 2MB to be done quickly. |
|
|
|
do you really think he is human? I d rather think he is a bot just mixing a bit some phrases but in the end looks always the same, hmm I don't think that a bunch of illiterate non-entities can hold a candle to my credibility as a genuine human. Mistakes in your grammar and punctuation are unforced and clearly demonstrative of low reading/writing ability, whereas I make deliberate punctuation mistakes so as to make a point (if you ever find yourself on the receiving end of a reply from me without any punctuation at all, think about what it is I'm trying to communicate with such deliberate mistakes  ) You people can barely string a legible sentence together most of the time, all you do with this kind of talk is harm your own credentials even further. Oh sorry, next time I will switch on my grammar bot as well and hope I can meet some of your expectations. BTW, your hair is really good looking! |
|
|
|
Get filing.
Prediction: you will fail to prove that your own shortcomings choosing a reputable exchange platform is somehow someone else's responsibility; Bitcoin is about personal responsibility, not running to daddy when you can't get your own way
Thanks Banks, your predictions are always apreciated! At least you do not say its completely impossible and only few insulting, good start. |
|
|
|
Can you sue a bank for having bank holiday before capital controls come in place? I don't think so. Core devs are not a bank of course but this argument is stupid so I'm giving you a stupid analogy. OP almost sounds like a troll.
Correct analogy would be sue a bank for not executing your tx and next day go bankrupt so that your money is lost. Hope you do not troll me? |
|
|
|
|
Case is clear
You buy a bunch of btc on an exchange but are not able to transfer to some safe wallet because of the 1MB limit and full blocks, despite you payed some 'reasonable' fee.
In the meantime the exchange gets goxed and it's gone.
So who is really responsible for that case and might get sued?
Sure you can start argue you know this new limitation and risk beforehand, but huuuu....
|
|
|
|
me bankster shill?
sorry but carlton loves his bank funded company blockstream. he loves banks so much he even included a subtle hint to such in his username
its literally in his name
what carlton is afraid of:
isnt that bitcoin would break due to a hard fork
isnt that bitcoin would remain distributed if people had more then one choice of full node to download
isnt that he has failed to give any technical evidence
but is simply that he fears he wont get to merge mine some monero with his best buddies lauda, icebreaker, gmaxwell and luke Jr who all love altcoins.
i kind of feel sorry for him that he has only viewed his promotion featured future on paper. never actually personally using it. never actually realising that the unicorn dreams he read about on them papers have actual limits and have not explained the deeper stuff that actually matters.
i think he should take a week to not play with his altcoins, not play with his friends and finally do some research beyond the glossy leaflets he is spoon fed
but i know he will just reply with insults and bad assumptions to hide his pride in blockstream and their sidechain plans
True. But do you really think he is human? I d rather think he is a bot just mixing a bit some phrases but in the end looks always the same 1mb content, hmm |
|
|
|
Looks rather like the soft minded small forkers do not dare any further actions and feel responsible for some price rebouncings driven by Chinese gamblers who will soon take all over , the coding as well ... |
|
|
|
I never realized what a bunch of silly bitches techies are. It's like reading a verbatim dialog transcript from a high school prom.  Dont know what you mean. Real techies do not fear crystal clear changes by inventing minimal codeings. They'd just DO and not fill up blogs. |
|
|
|
It's on now. Bitcoin has now completed a giant, two year long cup and handle. For any TA illiterate, that means likelihood of skyrocketing soon = high:  Correct. Thats a huuuuuuge coffee to gooooo! |
|
|
|
this coin looks pretty good~
We all know that. The beauty of Etheruem is that it is a fuel for the smart contract system. it can also support DAO. I heard that some companies a building a platform for smart contract based on the bitcoin. it might come out next year. I do not think that will be able to compete with the Etheruem. Etheruem will be much popular than that. But who would use Ethereum when you can use a sidechain token that does the same and has superior security due higher hashrate and without having to deal with another token (ETH)? Honestly I don't see a single advantage of using ETH instead of BTC sidechains. If the bitcoin side chain comes out too late and people already use the Etheruem, they will keep on using it. If smart contracts on blockchains do not scale or you cannot earn money with, they will keep not using this.... |
|
|
|
If there is no transaction capacity increase in the next 2 years, the bitcoin will be dead as another coin will replace it.
Yeah ..well that would be Silly ....and unlikely imho Then again we do share DNA of 98% with chimpanzees so anything is possible I guess Pigs are also very close ... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
