|
Nothing really changed, maybe just some sellers stopped selling...
|
|
|
|
Vitalik would need to issue every block ongoing. Thus there would be no more mining and it would be 100% centralized like Visa.
This's exactly what was done with Peercoin. You still have "independent" mining and PoS mining, but the developer has to sign the blocks for them to be valid. Nobody gave a shit, and the coin kept going. As long as you can still pump it, people are happy. Few care about fundamentals. Money is stupid. Can't fix that, even my own does not want to listen to me and flees as I start trying...  ... And it's gone! |
|
|
|
Various governments and central banks seem to be going gaga over the blockchain. Yet, there is this resistance to even acknowledge bitcoin by many countries. They just seem to be resisting the inevitable.
Yep. Get them all their GagaCoin! |
|
|
|
wot do we do now?
with all this bickering like 1st graders how will anything get done?? i propose bigger blocks becoz u can add things like video, music, gifs etc to the blockchain and it makes it more fun...
the segwitted will not accomodate 7 billion people stop mucking around and fix this before i lose my investment
JUst pay higher fees. If you dont like it, you dont have to use bitcoin. No one is forcing anyone to use it. Just use alt or wester union. So we can close BTC soon. |
|
|
|
First bring all BTCoiners into big trouble by technobubble, than buy coins cheap once market reacts and finally invent nice joining-all soultion and be the hero and no techno is needed at all. One has to love the conspiracy theories, right? I felt more searching for an proper scenario how this invemstment could pay back after this big dispute here and some just called to leave or worse not join BTC, but failed, sorry for that. Could you pls help out? |
|
|
|
You can have them all soon, once nobody will join & buy.
They will join, because it's the only cryptocurrency with standards. If you want a socialist currency, create your own. But then again, you dont seem to be shocked, when I said that socialists want to steal bitcoins from us. So do you support theft of bitcoins in the name of Lenin?Majority does not want to steal ( if not forced to) rather wants to share wealth more equally. So you only need to think of not all can afford high fees. |
|
|
|
... And this might be the best plan ( I d do so..) to cash in by investing 50 mio $: First bring all BTCoiners into big trouble by technobubble, than buy coins cheap once market reacts and finally invent nice joining-all soultion and be the hero and no techno is needed at all. Happy days! |
|
|
|
That [limiting block space] is so wrong on so many levels. And then those guys are wondering why bitcoiners get in an uproar.  fuck ya! Fucking socialists with their mental illness ideology, they just want to steal bitcoins from us, thats all they want. You can have them all soon, once nobody will join & buy. |
|
|
|
for me classic is better because they want to increase the block size of bitcoin as soon as possible and i like this idea
Yep. And my vote is to let this be done by Classic AND Core together. This is just a tiny compromis and saves the BTC heaven! ... KINDERGARTEN....! Hope that does not need a convincing sharp price drop just to learn that. |
|
|
|
The bottom line for any of this is that you can't do true irreversibility without fairly strict decentralization; eg, where lots of lots of people/entities can be validators in the system. Bitcoin's miners provide this function, and critically, they do not have to be authorized by anyone or pre-approved in any way. They can be anonymous, join and leave the network at any time, etc. This is possible because of Bitcoin's *economic* incentive structure; eg, earning a token that's *native* to the ledger: bitcoins. Once you remove the native token incentivization, you've necessarily created a system that has to use some sort of pre-authorization; eg, "trusted entities". And once you have that, well, you're back to the problem that the entire idea of a validated cryptographically linked chain of blocks was invented solve in the first place!
These permissioned ledger systems can certainly be a useful tool for collections of organizations, but make no mistake: they fundamentally do not and cannot solve the same problem Bitcoin solves.
Yeah...but to an unimaginative bank, a "solution" is often a trade-off. If all they're only interested in preventing embezzlement, the trade-off thinking would go like this: "Is the blockchain solution decentralized enough to make embezzlement [practically] impossible? Is it centralized enough to keep it under control [eg., for rolling back unauthorized transactions]?" Banks are legacy institutions. They roll with what they got, and their "solutions" tend to be improvements at the margin. Correct. And they will do anything that let them kick out people and save money... |
|
|
|
In the FX world its above 100 Mio$  Since BTC is just a fraction 100k will move the markets already! |
|
|
|
IBM says they really go after all corps blockchain usecases high speed like they closed up with Java int he 90s so there will not be much room left for ETH or LISK... Check this around the 20 min: http://livestream.com/pemo/blockchainsf |
|
|
|
Just wondering what you guys think about the project... I think it's better technically in some aspects but I can see it being a disappointment marketcap-wise.
From technical point of view, Lisk took some things from Bitshares, some from Crypti. There is no innovation in copying, but they can polish these things and win hearts of millions average Joes. Good marketing and good management is needed for that. Not sure about management but, as the ICO showed, Lisk team is good in marketing, so I would bet more on Lisk being a winner than a loser. Thank you CfB you always have a clear vision of things here. ... And the marketing is copied from ETH.... |
|
|
|
This max block size is still a hot discussion but I think we also need to talk about min block size. We see a lot of blocks found with only 1 transaction in it, mostly these are coming from Chinese pools.
+1 for 2 MB or even more block size and we should do something for empty blocks.
I wonder if there could be some incentive to empty the mempool ... does that make sense? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
