If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve.
That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature. Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam? Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't. b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with: LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior" bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior" connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs. “A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks. and you're just creating FUD. what evidence is there that there would be a shift in just who the large miners will be? maybe there won't be any. maybe there will be a shift so there are no large miners and everyone is equal. what we do know now is that there won't be the immediate large miner, large block attack all you guys have been FUD'ing about. |
|
|
|
If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve.
That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature. Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam? Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't. b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with: LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior" bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior" connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs. “A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.” |
|
|
|
i'm quite sympathetic to the concept of making Bitcoin digital gold. that's why this thread was born.
however, what the 1MB apparatchiks are missing is that Bitcoin really does represent the "ideal money". and that includes it being used widely in a manner that gold was never able to achieve. and that means, widespread worldwide adoption that crosses borders and gets into the hands of individuals. for it to be considered digital gold, however, i already talked about how that requires cheap reliable dependable tx confirmations. that is b/c Bitcoin is digital; it can't be held, weighed, shaped, coveted, etc. all the normal tangible aspects that poor ppl covet or expect from physical gold.
I agree. I also like your example of the African kid who has to witness--with his own eyes--Bitcoin getting him the things he wants, before he'll ever be able to fathom that those digits on his phone are more valuable than the paper notes his father uses to purchase food from the market, or the little diamonds he once saw a man killed for. We're not as smart as we think. We need to see, touch, and experience something before we can really understand that thing. You can't learn to ski by reading online tutorials--no matter how well you think you grok body mechanics and the laws of physics. Similarly, the world will only understand bitcoin by getting out there and using it. thanks for that. one slight correction above. in order for that African kid to be willing to replace his desire and faith in gold he will need to be able to transact reliably, cheaply, and safely with Bitcoin. we actually want all those kids to stop having or wanting to go down 3 ft wide holes 100 yd deep going after a hunk of metal. now that would be grassroots and the ultimate in decentralization that no bank or gvt could ever shutdown. |
|
|
|
Here's a great example, in which Frap.doc doesn't even bother trying to substantiate his wacky, vaguely senile assertion that the bank bailouts Satoshi singularly cited in Genesis had something to do with Visa/Paypal:
The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks. It does not mention Visa or Paypal.
"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal Satoshi actually used the term "financial institution" in the white paper. He focusses heavily on the transactional aspects of Bitcoin (e.g., the Visa/Paypal angle): Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.
There's actually no mention of central banks in the white paper whatsoever (although he does use the term "central authority" twice). The only mention of gold is in Section 6: The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation.
TL/DR: The white paper focusses more heavily on the transactional aspects of bitcoin than on its potential as a replacement for fiat currency/gold. i'm quite sympathetic to the concept of making Bitcoin digital gold. that's why this thread was born. however, what the 1MB apparatchiks are missing is that Bitcoin really does represent the "ideal money". and that includes it being used widely in a manner that gold was never able to achieve. and that means, widespread worldwide adoption that crosses borders and gets into the hands of individuals. for it to be considered digital gold, however, i already talked about how that requires cheap reliable dependable tx confirmations. that is b/c Bitcoin is digital; it can't be held, weighed, shaped, coveted, etc. all the normal tangible aspects that poor ppl covet or expect from physical gold. reliability, accessibility, and affordability has to replace the tangibility. |
|
|
|
"A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's companies decisions from financial conflicts, even especially if this person company is a composes 2 core developers and 3 commiters. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own.
CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block:
1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks.
2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block."
ftfy Why a company and not the Network? b/c the company in this case is Blockstream who has an interest in devving SC's which depend on moving tx's and fees off the mainchain. they have $21M demanding a 10x return asap. i predicted this kinda financial conflict would occur back in October. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin collapsing. Monero UP. [/center] see, didn't i tell you you were a Monero pimp? |
|
|
|
"A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's companies decisions from financial conflicts, even especially if this person company is a composes 2 core developers and 3 commiters. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own.
CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block:
1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks.
2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block."
ftfy |
|
|
|
If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve.
The hypothesis we're currently testing is "If Bitcoin was ever competing with Paypal or Visa, it would not even start. It competes with gold and central banks." Nobody except MPEX is saying "1MB FOREVER & EVER NO MATTER WHAT." Of course the 1MB cap will change "eventually" (to use Satoshi's word). The debate is over when, by how much, in what manner, and (most of all) to what end. Frap.doc@armchair.net feels he understands e-cash better than the guys (Szabo and Back) who invented ~2/3 of Bitcoin/Monero/Ethereum. It would be funny, but it's sad watching the Peter Principle apply itself to someone you like.  Here's a great example, in which Frap.doc doesn't even bother trying to substantiate his wacky, vaguely senile assertion that the bank bailouts Satoshi singularly cited in Genesis had something to do with Visa/Paypal:
The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks. It does not mention Visa or Paypal.
"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal Poppycock. Provably false demonstrably wrong poppycock. The Genesis Block contains the Holy Text as follows: The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks The Times article cited does not mention Visa/Paypal as being among the banks on the brink of receiving from the Chancellor a second bailout: blah, blah, blah from the Monero pumper. btw, i see you cleaned up your sig to hide that fact  having invested before them must mean something. i've always said i appreciate their contributions but they didn't invent Bitcoin, Satoshi did, so stop trying to impart his greatness onto them. your problem is your reading all sorts of meanings that support your view into 2 slim <140 char messages; the Chancellor's and a tweet, neither of which supports anything you say. it's a blowhard argument. you're acting just like TPTB. |
|
|
|
The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks. It does not mention Visa or Paypal.
"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal Poppycock. Provably false demonstrably wrong poppycock. The Genesis Block contains the Holy Text as follows: The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks The Times article cited does not mention Visa/Paypal as being among the banks on the brink of receiving from the Chancellor a second bailout: Billions may be needed as lending squeeze tightens
Alistair Darling has been forced to consider a second bailout for banks as the lending drought worsens.
The Chancellor will decide within weeks whether to pump billions more into the economy as evidence mounts that the £37 billion part-nationalisation last year has failed to keep credit flowing. Options include cash injections, offering banks cheaper state guarantees to raise money privately or buying up “toxic assets”, The Times has learnt.
The Bank of England revealed yesterday that, despite intense pressure, the banks curbed lending in the final quarter of last year and plan even tighter restrictions in the coming months. Its findings will alarm the Treasury.
The Bank is expected to take yet more aggressive action this week by cutting the base rate from its current level of 2 per cent. Doing so would reduce the cost of borrowing but have little effect on the availability of loans.
Whitehall sources said that ministers planned to “keep the banks on the boil” but accepted that they need more help to restore lending levels. Formally, the Treasury plans to focus on state-backed gurantees to encourage private finance, but a number of interventions are on the table, including further injections of taxpayers’ cash.
Under one option, a “bad bank” would be created to dispose of bad debts. The Treasury would take bad loans off the hands of troubled banks, perhaps swapping them for government bonds. The toxic assets, blamed for poisoning the financial system, would be parked in a state vehicle or “bad bank” that would manage them and attempt to dispose of them while “detoxifying” the main-stream banking system.
The idea would mirror the initial proposal by Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, to underpin the American banking system by buying up toxic assets. The idea was abandoned, ironically, when Mr Paulson decided to follow Britain’s plan of injecting cash directly into troubled banks.
Mr Darling, Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, are expected to take the final decision on what extra help to give the banks by the end of the month.
The banks have taken much of the heat for the economy’s woes. But ministers are said increasingly to accept that attacking the banks will not by itself transform a situation that is jeopardising Britain’s economic prospects.
Insiders point out that Mr Darling’s criticism of mortgage lenders has softened in recent weeks.
After the Bank of England’s radical cuts in interest rates over the past two months, the focus at the Treasury has shifted away from mortgage lending to the pressure being put on businesses by the scarcity of loans, which is emerging as the bigger economic danger.
Richard Lambert, the Director-General of the CBI, said yesterday: “The Government is going to have to do more to restore credit flows across the economy.”
He said that the car industry was especially vulnerable: “Without access to credit or loan guarantees on commercial terms, this vital part of the economy will incur lasting damage.”
The scale of the lending drought was highlighted as separate Bank figures showed that the number of new home loans approved plunged to a record low in November. Only 27,000 mortgages for house purchase were approved by banks and building societies, down from a revised 31,000 in October. It is the lowest level since the Bank began collecting data in 1999. The Bank’s quarterly credit conditions survey showed that banks restricted access to loans of all kinds by companies and consumers in the past quarter, and that they plan to tighten the screws more in this quarter.
Halifax reported that the price of the average house fell by more than £100 a day last year. Its quarterly figures showed that the average house ended the year down in price by £37,178, or 16.2 per cent.
PRESSING THEIR POINT
“The single most pressing challenge to economic policy is to get the banking system to get lending in any normal sense”Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, Nov 26
“They are close to cutting off their noses to spite their faces”
Lord Mandelson, Business Secretary, accuses the banks of being too conservative, Nov 30
“The banks have to understand that we have put substantial sums of public money in to support them. They, in turn, need to play their part”
Alistair Darling, Dec 10
“Quite clearly a lot more needs to be done”
Alistair Darling, Dec 15
January 3, 2009
Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor, and Gary Duncan, Economics Editor
Visa and Paypal make lots of money. They are not TBTF zombie banks. They are not even banks; as retail payment processors they have almost nothing to do with BIS money-printing and other commercial/institutional credit related matters! First you disown the core devs (and Adam Back, because Elders of Blockstream Conspiracy) who wrote and keep running the software you use for your node. Then you threw under the bus Nick Szabo, who invented not only Bitcoin and Monero (e-cash) but Ethereum (smart contracts/property) as well. Is anything too sacred to be sacrificed for the instant gratification you believe GavinCoin will provide? I am guessing the answer is no, because you are now twisting to suit your meaning the Holy Text of Satoshi's Genisis Block. blah, blah, blah from the Monero pumper. btw, i see you cleaned up your sig to hide that fact |
|
|
|
Hi guise, how's the slow-mo trainwreck going in here? everyone happy? good Notice how it went off the rails when you started crappin all over the devs? Try to keep it in your trousers, remember who's piloting this plane, who's the passengers and stop trying to grab the stick, KK? Ta, tally ho. TPTB dev goes down with a whimper and right on time, MOA dev shows up throwing hand grenades. anyone see the pattern i've already pointed out? but it's ok, there are plenty of excellent devs with the right vision. What, the "if they're not with me, then they're against me" reality pattern? it's not "with me". it's with Gavin. yes, i trust Gavin way more than the other financially conflicted Blockstream devs. i'm not the one who came up with the block size increase idea. it's a recommendation from the only guy who could have got us here since Satoshi turned over the reins to him. guys like gmax and luke were causing trouble long before this issue became a debate.Gregory Maxwell is Bitcoin core developer. He is author of CoinJoin. also Type 2 hierarchical deterministic wallet This wallet type is described in BIP 0032 and is fully implemented in TREZOR, Electrum and CarbonWallet. The seed is a random 128 bit value presented to the user as a 12 word mnemonic using common English words. The seed is used after 100,000 rounds of SHA256 to slow down attacks against weak user-chosen strings. [1]. The initial description and workings of this wallet type is credited to Gregory Maxwell. ======= You cypherdoc are an anonymous troll. You are not in same league as Blockstream guys. hey, i'm just following the Chief Scientist. he's telling me to upgrade to XT. no one's forcing you to follow this thread.  |
|
|
|
Game over, Frap.doc. Thus Saith The LORD. Amen! of course not. as long as you continue to constrain it to 1MB. Cypherdoc is correct. Nick Szabo and Oleg Andreev are both wrong. [further deranged babbling] The point Szabo retweeted (and favorited) is that it's not possible for Bitcoin's volumes to approach Visa-scale just by using gigantic blocks. no, no, we learned from the great programmer, TPTB, that he means the program will not run
We simply can't get there from here. Simply super-sizing blocks is not true scaling. We need side/tree/Lightening/alt chains to even plan the start of the long journey towards coming close to approaching in theory the subject of scaling to Visa+Paypal+gold+TBTF zombie bank levels.
Diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient blockchains are not a substitute for specialized/proprietary/centralized/optimized real-time Visa-type retail POS systems or consumer friendly Paypal-style payment systems.
what matter for digital gold is that it's supply remains fixed but gets secured by widespread adoption across the planet. everybody needs to use it to protect against gvts trying to stomp it out
The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks. It does not mention Visa or Paypal.
"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal
Szabo conceived of Bitcoin and Monero in the early 90s, so I think he knows what he's talking about in matters of e-cash.
not really. he created a piece that Satoshi joined with other pieces to form Bitcoin.
-
Bitcoin is revolution, not yet another trendy new payment rail for impressing your yuppie friends at the hipster micro-roastery.
it is a revolution. but it needs to be widely adopted. |
|
|
|
Hi guise, how's the slow-mo trainwreck going in here? everyone happy? good Notice how it went off the rails when you started crappin all over the devs? Try to keep it in your trousers, remember who's piloting this plane, who's the passengers and stop trying to grab the stick, KK? Ta, tally ho. What are you, some kind of mafia enforcer? Are you're saying that if anyone dares to question the #bitcoin-wizards they'll send their sockpuppets around to vandalize conversations as retaliation? that'd be him. MOA is an extremist. the worst of the bunch. |
|
|
|
Hi guise, how's the slow-mo trainwreck going in here? everyone happy? good Notice how it went off the rails when you started crappin all over the devs? Try to keep it in your trousers, remember who's piloting this plane, who's the passengers and stop trying to grab the stick, KK? Ta, tally ho. TPTB dev goes down with a whimper and right on time, MOA dev shows up throwing hand grenades. anyone see the pattern i've already pointed out? but it's ok, there are plenty of excellent devs with the right vision. What, the "if they're not with me, then they're against me" reality pattern? it's not "with me". it's with Gavin. yes, i trust Gavin way more than the other financially conflicted Blockstream devs. i'm not the one who came up with the block size increase idea. it's a recommendation from the only guy who could have got us here since Satoshi turned over the reins to him. guys like gmax and luke were causing trouble long before this issue became a debate. |
|
|
|
Hi guise, how's the slow-mo trainwreck going in here? everyone happy? good Notice how it went off the rails when you started crappin all over the devs? Try to keep it in your trousers, remember who's piloting this plane, who's the passengers and stop trying to grab the stick, KK? Ta, tally ho. TPTB dev goes down with a whimper and right on time, MOA dev shows up throwing hand grenades. anyone see the pattern i've already pointed out? but it's ok, there are plenty of excellent devs with the right vision. |
|
|
|
but i don't think you are a programmer. i think you're Armstrong.
You are losing your sanity dude. It is really pitiful to watch you go on this delusional tirade. Me not a programmer, hahaha. Btw, Armstrong is a very skilled programmer.
there you go again. every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have. every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have. Martin Armstrong ' s writing typically includes numerous spelling and grammatical errors that we don't see with Anonymint et AL. MA'S speech and writing are patterned very much the same, while very unlike Anonymint's consistent writing style. I try not to stick my oar into this swirling pool of egos and childish arguments but sometimes I guess I like to waste time too! that's possible altho from what i recall those grammatical problems were confined to the time when he was in prison. remember, he was beat up, probably malnourished, mentally ill, and who knows, maybe faking mistakes to make his condition appear worse for when he appealed. |
|
|
|
every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have. every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.
His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops. This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange. I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused. pm'd Next day. I will sleep. i'm not interested in talking. one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong. I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location. I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me. "i need to sleep", whimper, whimper. "i need to travel to another location", whimper, whimper. ROFLMAO! what a jackass. TPTB_need_war, he may be able to check out your eye "but he may construct a civil lawsuit against me", whimper, whimper. "oh wait, i'm in the Phillipines! or am i?", whimper, whimper. |
|
|
|
every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have. every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.
His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops. This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange. I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused. pm'd Next day. I will sleep. i'm not interested in talking. one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong. I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location. I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me. "i need to sleep", whimper, whimper. "i need to travel to another location", whimper, whimper. ROFLMAO! what a jackass. |
|
|
|
every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have. every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.
His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops. This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange. I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused. pm'd Next day. I will sleep. i'm not interested in talking. one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong. I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location. I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me. lol, see i knew it. all blow and no go. |
|
|
|
every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have. every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.
His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops. This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange. I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused. pm'd Next day. I will sleep. i'm not interested in talking. one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong. I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location. i call your bluff and now you can't deliver? |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin does not compete with Paypal and Visa then it will NEVER compete with gold and central banks.
The reason is that physical presence matters. Gold is physical and has only two serious rival metals: platinum and silver. CB fiat is made physical by government power: legal tender for printed cash and debt-money backed by taxation and guns (although through incompetence, fiat is proving a failed experiment).
Bitcoin also has a physical presence: its ecosystem of users, companies, on-line services and large mining network. Take those away and it becomes just another Worldcoin, Yacoin, Litecoin or Auroracoin.
Bitcoin, the software can be copied many times, and its principles can be adapted in new ways e.g. NXT and Monero.
There is no useful scarcity for a digital currency unless that scarcity is backed by a physical presence, an ecosystem.
Capping the Bitcoin network at 1MB blocks is an assumption that enough of an ecosystem has been established that this particular instance of digital currency cannot be overtaken by a larger ecosystem, a larger physical presence, by one of the alternatives. This is a huge assumption which is not viable because the Bitcoin ecosystem footprint in the world economy is miniscule. Only when volumes approach Visa-scale can people sit back and consider that Bitcoin is seriously competing with gold and central banks. Even then, it can't remain standing still.
Possibly correct but irrelevant because they said it won't start (won't run) on their home computers if you move to VISA scale. But if it requires centralization to reach mass, then it won't compete with CBs any more as it will be controlled by the State. Dilemma. Check mate. Failure. Bitcoin is fundamental flawed. (you guys have very slow logic. I figured this out 100 pages back and you still haven't gotten the point) you're still wrong. both as a programmer stuck on "start" and with your economic assessment. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
