I know that Trump via executive order on paper can ban Bitcoin. What if anything would it due to price and/or consequences of such idiocy if he attempted such? Or would it just be a big yawn and ignored? later brad Well you can't ban code, so realistically worst US can do is prohibit banks dealing with BTC and close US based exchanges. Price would instantaneously dump, and BTC market will go underground in US. But i'm a strong believer that current global financial system is a zero sum game, meaning what's bad for US would be good for the other side China, Russia, EU?, Iran etc... So the growth will just come from there |
|
|
|
Wait so Bitcoin = bad because Segwit is "indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol"
BTC is suboptimal not merely because SegWit is an alteration, but because the SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a net negative alteration. but bcash Bsv = good because their shitty changes are "legitimate claim to a protocol change"
One of the things that makes BSV good is that it is being incrementally returned to the original Bitcoin protocol. Do try to keep up. Thus coming back to my comment about original design of planes not having jet engines and cars not having air bags etc... Can you provide any other technology which was not improved and is stuck at its original design? BSv's whole premise relies on cult thinking rather than logic. The design of first car, computer, TV etc etc etc have little to do with their current revisions and no one cares about ENIAC and steam powered cars. Which, of course, brings me right back to the observation that the SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a net negative alteration. Degradation is not improvement. Who cares about your qualitative assessment of segwit (and your attempt to change its name)? Your opinion on such point does not matter. What matters is that segregated witness was passed by overwhelming consensus in August 2017 and locked in and implemented all in that same month. Ever since then, segwit has been built upon more and more and more. Segwit systems have been embedded into the current workings of bitcoin as we know it. Segwit is also an optional component, as you know. You can participate in such new segwit systems that are offered within bitcoin or you can stay with systems that do not utilize segwit. Many people are not going to know the difference between what part of the system they are using, and it is not going to matter to them, except that they will likely realize that fees and transaction times are lower through such useage of segwit.. which seems like a net positive, to me. Of course, you know that you can refuse to use bitcoin because of bitcoin's evolution in terms of better systems, such as segwit, and there are those dumbass bitcoin wannabe shitcoins that don't use segwit (yet), too, as you know. They are not really doing too well, either, in terms of adoption, are they? You dumbass (I call you a dumbass in a kind of redundant way because you remain in support of such bitcoin wannabes, and even erroneously believe them to be bitcoin.. which fairly clearly shows that you to have fucked up conceptions regarding even what is bitcoin.. that is if even you believe that crap). I doubt your whining, the whining of BIG blockers or the whining of bitcoin naysayers is going to cause consensus on that segwit included in bitcoin topic to be undone. Your lobbying does not seem to have much of any effect regarding perception about the benefits of segwit on bitcoin, but it does continue to cause you to appear as an ongoing lame-ass whiner... a whiner about an issue that has about a snowball's chance in hell of changing in your stated preferred direction. Also your ongoing whining on this segwit in bitcoin topic seems to be just another example to show that you like to focus on irrelevant issues and to attempt to describe such supposedly important issues in a way that exaggerates their actual affect on bitcoin - in other words, an example of your ongoing disingenuineness in regards to relevant and material facts in regards to bitcoin. So jbreher vacated his argument about sticking to "original" and now he's back to Segwit = bad, which JJG covered in length above. All i'll say on that topic is it's been over 2hrs and it's not going anywhere, now get over it and get on with your life. Or continue trolling from a sideline, the choice is yours, we've made ours. |
|
|
|
Wait so Bitcoin = bad because Segwit is "indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol"
BTC is suboptimal not merely because SegWit is an alteration, but because the SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a net negative alteration. but bcash Bsv = good because their shitty changes are "legitimate claim to a protocol change"
One of the things that makes BSV good is that it is being incrementally returned to the original Bitcoin protocol. Do try to keep up. Thus coming back to my comment about original design of planes not having jet engines and cars not having air bags etc... Can you provide any other technology which was not improved and is stuck at its original design? BSv's whole premise relies on cult thinking rather than logic. The design of first car, computer, TV etc etc etc have little to do with their current revisions and no one cares about ENIAC and steam powered cars. U in principle say that original Bitcoin (pre alterations incl Segwit) didn't work, had no enjines, no proper script whatsoever But that is the cult, that core / BS created , i.o. to sell u 2nd layer and script 'engines' cause it s still on the cult ticker btc. Take a step back, not Back, but back to the roots (yeah, it could get a cult) Jackass Guess this is a full agree in ur lang. Cheers I didn't say it didn't work for it's time, but all things change, and improve for the better, deal with it. Trying to stick to original design because it's somehow divine and refuse changes citing code v0.1 as some kind of bible is cult thinking, not engineering. Like i said no one cares about specs for ENIAC just as no one cares about BSv or bcash. |
|
|
|
Wait so Bitcoin = bad because Segwit is "indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol"
BTC is suboptimal not merely because SegWit is an alteration, but because the SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a net negative alteration. but bcash Bsv = good because their shitty changes are "legitimate claim to a protocol change"
One of the things that makes BSV good is that it is being incrementally returned to the original Bitcoin protocol. Do try to keep up. Thus coming back to my comment about original design of planes not having jet engines and cars not having air bags etc... Can you provide any other technology which was not improved and is stuck at its original design? BSv's whole premise relies on cult thinking rather than logic. The design of first car, computer, TV etc etc etc have little to do with their current revisions and no one cares about ENIAC and steam powered cars. |
|
|
|
JayJuanGee, as the smartest person in the thread and the one we generally delegate all decisions to, do you believe women should be allowed to vote when they're genetically incapable of practicing utilitarianism - the foundation of modern civilization - and only exist to practice provider targeting, acquisition, and resource extraction?
Utilitarianism you say? If it's an action that can bring joy to vast number of people, then let's base on the saying that charity beginnings at home, women(some are the opposite though) are the back bone of joy in the family trying had to make necessary changes to bring about joy and overall well being in the family. This is 2019 and every individual irrespective of the gender, race, religion etc is qualified to Vote and be voted for. However every qualifications or criticism should be based on the individual not a general view of the person sect, race gender, background an so on. We don't feed roach in here. He's never been the same since that accident with his boyfriend  |
|
|
|
How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change? I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya. See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No? Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness. SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise. I am pretty confident the white paper doesn’t say anything about Turing completeness, legally enforceable smart contracts, token protocols, large data storage capability and all the other shit in Bitcoin SV marketing Yet interestingly, all fully supported in the 0.1 version of the Bitcoin protocol. You know, before the Cripple Rangers took control of the codebase. SegWit, on the other hand... Funny, eh?So what's the point you are trying to make? Hey jbreher how would you spin EDA and bcash and BSv's current difficulty adjustment algos? what version did that come in?
Well, there's really no way to spin that. That's a change indeed. Of course, SV is the project where the majority of vocal participants are stating a desire to return to the 0.1 protocol. So if this will come to pass, that will be rolled back. Of course there is no guarantee of future developments. Meantime, that is a legitimate claim to a protocol change. Wait so Bitcoin = bad because Segwit is "indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol" but bcash Bsv = good because their shitty changes are "legitimate claim to a protocol change" That is indeed pretty f'ing funny. If not for your constant desperate shilling of shitcoins, you almost passed as an intelligent person, a shame really. |
|
|
|
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahhaaa. I should let this one go, but this is just too funny. Call me weak, I don't care. I am intimately familiar with the contents of the underlying documents which officially define half of those protocols. I'm quite sure that neither rfc791, nor rfc793 nor rfc2460 nor rfc5321 nor any of their subsequent amplifications or revisions say doodly-squat about smart contracts. But then again, I'm always up for learning something new. Where in each of those standards is the smart contract funcitonality hidden? Hmmmm? You should be proud of yourself in deed. IOW, You managed to fail on all levels. Ok let me spell it out. My simple argument was that no one cares about the original design, all things change and improve all the time, and even hv_ link proposed long standing standards have indeed went through few revisions as well. Apologies if it went over your had, didn't mean to make you look for smart contracts in IPv6 specs  |
|
|
|
|
Hey jbreher how would you spin EDA and bcash and BSv's current difficulty adjustment algos? what version did that come in?
|
|
|
|
How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change? I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya. See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No? Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness. SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise. I am pretty confident the white paper doesn’t say anything about Turing completeness, legally enforceable smart contracts, token protocols, large data storage capability and all the other shit in Bitcoin SV marketing Yet interestingly, all fully supported in the 0.1 version of the Bitcoin protocol. You know, before the Cripple Rangers took control of the codebase. SegWit, on the other hand... Funny, eh? So what's the point you are trying to make? My mistake. I couldn't see any evidence of them in the white paper. Thank you for clarifying that it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper. That is not what I said at all. Are you really that blind that you do not see what I am getting at? Even with your introduction of demonstrably flawed sidebars? The initial implementation of Bitcoin - 0.1 supports all the features you list. Without recourse to explicit enabling code. The initial implementation of Bitcoin -- and including up to and through the SegWit Omnibus Changeset Release -- did not support SegWit. Neither explicitly nor as an external implementation. Indeed, the implementation of SegWit was predicated on the most egregious change to the Bitcoin protocol ever enacted. The features you list did not / do not require a change to the Bitcoin protocol. SegWit did / does require a change to the Bitcoin protocol. So when you say "it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper", you're neither right nor wrong. What matters is the protocol itself. SegWit was undeniably a change to that protocol. A rather significant one. Therefore, somewhat 'less Bitcoin-y' -- at least on this axis -- than other implementations which hew to the original. On the other hand, if some element is decidedly counter to the white paper (chain of digital signatures, anyone?), then that indeed does matter. It’s hard to keep track of what you were saying when you keep changing it. Bullshit. I've been consistent. You've been persistent in finding new words to stick in my mouth. wtf these new planes have jet engines, and cars have airbags?!?! But but none of this was in the original design!!! OMG - but still TCP/IP , smtp, SWIFT, FIX have not built in smart contracts - or did I miss u mix apples and crap? Congrats you managed to fail on all levels, this is truly an accomplishment you should be proud of yourself TCP/IP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6smtp - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_SMTPSWIFT - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication#SWIFTNet_Phase_2FIX - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAST_protocol |
|
|
|
How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change? I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya. See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No? Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness. SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise. I am pretty confident the white paper doesn’t say anything about Turing completeness, legally enforceable smart contracts, token protocols, large data storage capability and all the other shit in Bitcoin SV marketing Yet interestingly, all fully supported in the 0.1 version of the Bitcoin protocol. You know, before the Cripple Rangers took control of the codebase. SegWit, on the other hand... Funny, eh? So what's the point you are trying to make? My mistake. I couldn't see any evidence of them in the white paper. Thank you for clarifying that it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper. That is not what I said at all. Are you really that blind that you do not see what I am getting at? Even with your introduction of demonstrably flawed sidebars? The initial implementation of Bitcoin - 0.1 supports all the features you list. Without recourse to explicit enabling code. The initial implementation of Bitcoin -- and including up to and through the SegWit Omnibus Changeset Release -- did not support SegWit. Neither explicitly nor as an external implementation. Indeed, the implementation of SegWit was predicated on the most egregious change to the Bitcoin protocol ever enacted. The features you list did not / do not require a change to the Bitcoin protocol. SegWit did / does require a change to the Bitcoin protocol. So when you say "it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper", you're neither right nor wrong. What matters is the protocol itself. SegWit was undeniably a change to that protocol. A rather significant one. Therefore, somewhat 'less Bitcoin-y' -- at least on this axis -- than other implementations which hew to the original. On the other hand, if some element is decidedly counter to the white paper (chain of digital signatures, anyone?), then that indeed does matter. It’s hard to keep track of what you were saying when you keep changing it. Bullshit. I've been consistent. You've been persistent in finding new words to stick in my mouth. wtf these new planes have jet engines, and cars have airbags?!?! But but none of this was in the original design!!! |
|
|
|
That's their only option to hold off against Libra. While BTC gets popcorn |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah XRP blah blah bcash shilling blah blah please put me on ignore
Bitconnect pulled bigger crowds. Your whole market cap is our hourly variance, now go away no one cares |
|
|
|
but I haven't seen any execution attempts
You haven't seen because there is no freedom of speech. What did happen to Assange when he exposed not only execution attempts but real executions? In the land of the free you're free to be homeless and unemployed. You're free to talk whatever you want if nobody is listening to you. As soon as you apply logic and facts and gather some crowd around that is listening you're accused of using hate speech. To ask questions and be critical is already a synonym of hate speech. Your Visa and Mastercard are blocked, your Facebook, Youtube and Twitter accounts removed. Would be interesting to see what Alex Jones has to say about freedom of speech and freedom of press? This is not a democracy, this is a pure blend of hypocrisy! It is amusing to see how brainwashed people react to reality, but lets not use this forum for political arguments. Lets stick to bitcoin! WTF did roach get to you or you trolling? Even with all that i still miss the part where China is somehow better?? They do the same shit *100. Social scores, religious camps, missing prisoners and soon to be without fiat (replaced by cryptoCNY) |
|
|
|
Anyone here feels this Sunday is going to bring the price of bitcoin into over 10K again?
I feels yes, anyone got analysis for this weekend?
price is irrelevant Current price movement of bitcoin is not that much important to the long term holders(like you) but it is something always connected with holding bitcoin. If the price of bitcoin go back to few cents then no one will be holding that right now. If the price of Bitcoin went back to a few cents, the members of this board would likely buy all of them.... We are the buyers of last resort. If people buying the bitcoin when it reaches few cents means they feels that the price will increase in the future that is what I meant to say price is related to cryptos. price is irrelevant, bitcoin is inevitable, in due time it'll become obvious |
|
|
|
hate the West and the US all you want but it's much more open and free than china
That doesn't correspond to facts, my friend. Here is one: The United States of America is home to 4% of world's population and home to 25% of the world's PRISON population. The US is the most totalitarian state nowadays! Second fact: Yellow vest movement in France. Many protesters were severely injured broken arms and legs. Some have lost eyes in result of the police brutality. How many protesters in Hong Kong have lost eyes or ended up in hospitals with broken arms and legs? Facts are stubborn things, right? How many in China have lost their lives for protesting? Tiananmen Square anyone? Youtube and twitter etc... might have issues but at least they're available. Are you seriously trying to argue that there's more freedom in China than the west? Hope your social credit will go up for this, and you can continue to enjoy chinese banking and their public transportation  |
|
|
|
China could launch its cryptocurrencyCBDC as soon as November 11... Speaking under terms of anonymity, the source, who previously worked for the Chinese government, confirmed that the technology behind the cryptocurrency has been ready since last year and that the cryptocurrency could launch as soon as November 11, China’s busiest shopping day, known as Singles Day.
Paul Schulte, who worked as global head of financial strategy for China Construction Bank until 2012, says the largest bank in the world, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the second largest bank in the world, his former employer, the Bank of China, the Agricultural Bank of China; two of China’s largest financial technology companies, Alibaba and Tencent; and Union Pay, an association of Chinese banks, will receive the cryptocurrency.
At the time of launch, the recipient institutions will then be responsible for dispersing the cryptocurrency to 1.3 billion Chinese citizens and others doing business in the renminbi, China’s fiat currency, according to the source.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2019/08/27/alibaba-tencent-five-others-to-recieve-first-chinese-government-cryptocurrency/Mu says, the DC/EP is being designed to replace the physical notes and coins in circulation, not the renminbi sitting in bank accounts in a digital form. Oh how Europe would love to get rid of their dirty dirty fiat which is screwing with their negative interest rates So the next stage finally begins! Big players will have to start their own cryptocurrency pretty soon, next will be cryptoRuble, cryptoEuro etc... Small players will have an option of going for BTC or get pwned to libra. Unfortunately by the time they react half of their population will already be holding libras. Next stage would be when cryptoUSD/libra/renminbi/ruble/rupee/euro suddenly devalues and population realizes that they can preserve their buying power by switching to BTC. That's when the war against BTC will really begin. All in due time |
|
|
|
Yeah i'm aware that Hal hasn't been with us for past 5yrs now, meant his descendants/whoever has access to his frozen brain |
|
|
|
|
Who i'd prefer to have BTC1MM:
1-Me
2-Burner address
3-Hal, Andreas, some core devs... (people who deserve it)
...
7.530.000.000 - Faketoshi / BSV camp
7.530.000.001 - Ver and Bcash camp
|
|
|
|
Left out a 0 there. Maths are hard
0 is the only number that counts. None of these coins exist. I can't believe anyone's wasting their time doing sums regarding pure fiction. Nothing is a true 0, i consider it a black swan event, and this black swan just got halved  |
|
|
|
Left out a 0 there. Maths are hard |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
