the prices delay on that site thought... You got a better source? |
|
|
|
|
Did we lose feed from Whoboi? Did China finally ban BTC?
|
|
|
|
|
We still in triple digits? That was like so 2016
|
|
|
|
|
So China's back at it with it's shenanigans i see
|
|
|
|
if you care about bitcoin miners continuing to provide a high level of power to mine and secure bitcoin...
then give them the means to control blocksize
with some control over blocksize miners can balance the fee pressure to maximize fees.
And if we don't? If we think of them as a tool, sort of like hiring people and asking half of them to dig holes and the other half to cover those holes up just to prove some work was done. If too many line up willing to do that you reduce their compensation, if not enough show up you raise the salary. But now these people keep showing up and asking that they control how many holes they dig. And then hire shills to run ads and try to influence your decision  if you dont care about maximum fee revenue for miner, which in turn provides a greater incentive to secure bitcoin. ... another blockchain will. Yes finally!! We are fine with that. Please start another blockchain as soon as you wish, let us know if you need any help in the alt section of this forum. |
|
|
|
if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"
idk... sounds nutty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspectioni think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"
you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end. the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority. many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way. but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered. Why not just call it as it is?? Think majority can probably agree to a >1MB block...as in a 2MB block. The problem is that's not enough for a BU crowd and really never was. They want their Unlimited block size. Think at the minimum it's misleading to say you just want a >1MB block when in reality you want a whole new system for a "dynamically adjustable blocksize". And that will never happen |
|
|
|
The big-blockers ...
Ahh those bloody idiots are back  I don't know who you are referring to as 'idiots', but we 'big blockers' have been here the whole time, and don't plan on leaving. Deal with it. How big will the blocks need to be to "handle an increase in 100 million+ users"  Do you run a node? Do you ever stream video content? Are you aware that hypothetical 100MB blocks are no more resource intensive than SD video content? yeah maths are hard.
Arithmetic ain't hard. It appears, however, that for some, thinking through the implications of the arithmetic calculations are out of their grasp. Are you seriously trying to imply that 100MB are sustainable? Or just randomly stating propagation bandwidth of one 100MB block while ignoring all other effects on the network for no apparent reason and not trying to sway anyone? |
|
|
|
The big-blockers need to fork off already so that we can get on with Project Bitcoin, Satoshi's Vision and not this twisted Kore-Coin crapola.
If we don't, price will continue to stagnate.
Bitcoin has the potential to benefit in infinite ways from the global economic turmoil that is around the corner. In this way, BTC's price could spike to unimaginable highs. But it will never happen with no scaling solution, BTC simply could not handle an increase in 100 million+ users. There is no time to wait 5 years for this imaginary "Lightning Network" to suddenly manifest from vaporware into reality.
FORK IT ALREADY.
Ahh those bloody idiots are back Can you do no maths? How big will the blocks need to be to "handle an increase in 100 million+ users" yeah maths are hard. Please fork off already to your alt and have fun just don't call it bitcoin to confuse people Stop pretending that the present technology couldn't handle large blocks. Perhaps the solution is to do both (blocksize increase and off-chain LN type deal) But you can't just do one, or the other. Core has refused to compromise over and over, they refuse to raise the blocksize to even 2mb which pretty much everyone agrees could be very EASILY handled. Core has shown they have no leadership skills, no vision and are motivated primarily to their own self-serving egos. They do not serve the greater whole. Furthermore, they engage in a deceptive campaign of censorship and other shady tactics to force their own side to "win", this has needlessly damaged the Bitcoin community itself by refusing to even allow certain discussions. The community has been effectively divided in this way. Can you even quantify the damage that has been done to all of us as a result of this? You can ignore it all if you want, but it will hurt you in the end. +1! LN is inevitable and desirable ( very desirable ) and same goes for bigger blocks... the solution is so obviously "both" its not even funny. segwit softfork is a magic trick, if you dont know how its done you're amazed, if you do you're unimpressed. we need simple incress and simple segwit. we need these things hardforked in, and we need to utilize synthetic forks to do that gracefully.
we need a to foster an dev environment which enables free choice, not free to use core0.12.1 or core0.13.1 the devs are here to service the network, not the other way around. what the world wants the world gets. only question is who will provide.  Is that the latest keyword for BU? Or would you be happy with 2MB block+segwit? Edit: Or why not get your nick back and put up a new poll? For or against 2MB HF + segwit |
|
|
|
The big-blockers need to fork off already so that we can get on with Project Bitcoin, Satoshi's Vision and not this twisted Kore-Coin crapola.
If we don't, price will continue to stagnate.
Bitcoin has the potential to benefit in infinite ways from the global economic turmoil that is around the corner. In this way, BTC's price could spike to unimaginable highs. But it will never happen with no scaling solution, BTC simply could not handle an increase in 100 million+ users. There is no time to wait 5 years for this imaginary "Lightning Network" to suddenly manifest from vaporware into reality.
FORK IT ALREADY.
Ahh those bloody idiots are back Can you do no maths? How big will the blocks need to be to "handle an increase in 100 million+ users" yeah maths are hard. Please fork off already to your alt and have fun just don't call it bitcoin to confuse people Stop pretending that the present technology couldn't handle large blocks. Perhaps the solution is to do both (blocksize increase and off-chain LN type deal) But you can't just do one, or the other. Core has refused to compromise over and over, they refuse to raise the blocksize to even 2mb which pretty much everyone agrees could be very EASILY handled. Core has shown they have no leadership skills, no vision and are motivated primarily to their own self-serving egos. They do not serve the greater whole. Furthermore, they engage in a deceptive campaign of censorship and other shady tactics to force their own side to "win", this has needlessly damaged the Bitcoin community itself by refusing to even allow certain discussions. The community has been effectively divided in this way. Can you even quantify the damage that has been done to all of us as a result of this? You can ignore it all if you want, but it will hurt you in the end. Again no maths on blocksize that can "handle an increase in 100 million+ users". Sound like a butthurt miner shill. PS: I'm all for a 2mb blocks + segwit. Let's just enable it already. Only something telling me that miners won't be happy with that either |
|
|
|
The big-blockers need to fork off already so that we can get on with Project Bitcoin, Satoshi's Vision and not this twisted Kore-Coin crapola.
If we don't, price will continue to stagnate.
Bitcoin has the potential to benefit in infinite ways from the global economic turmoil that is around the corner. In this way, BTC's price could spike to unimaginable highs. But it will never happen with no scaling solution, BTC simply could not handle an increase in 100 million+ users. There is no time to wait 5 years for this imaginary "Lightning Network" to suddenly manifest from vaporware into reality.
FORK IT ALREADY.
Ahh those bloody idiots are back Can you do no maths? How big will the blocks need to be to "handle an increase in 100 million+ users" yeah maths are hard. Please fork off already to your alt and have fun just don't call it bitcoin to confuse people |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone remember when BTC was worth in $800s? I member like it was yesterday
|
|
|
|
i don't either. all i can verify from his btc signature is that he probably owns at least 40,000 coins.
Does it really matter at that point whether it's 40k or 100k Plus i'm pretty sure he's managing some of that |
|
|
|
Soon.
Whoa it is like 2013, just need rpietila and his castles now |
|
|
|
Ok, fine. I'm here. Now what?
Really hoping you didn't practice what you preached or what you were getting paid for |
|
|
|
|
Is that $1k party still on? Or everyone died of old age there?
|
|
|
|
 Oh it's only $900 sorry mistook it for $1900, cancel all the memes |
|
|
|
In this article they state that 4/5 banks will be using blockchain tech (not bitcoin) in 2017. But if they have their own blockchain it'll be centralized and not have the "bitcoin network." Is it inevitable that they will turn to bitcoin in the end?
Who really cares? Horse renting companies will not be using gasoline engines, instead they will train horses to drink gasoline because it's hip and everybody does that. Will they turn and replace all their horses when they start to explode spontaneously? I really do not know, but I am sure by that time they will be completely irrelevant anyway  Nah they still use horses to give rides around parks. I'm sure we can find some niche for them |
|
|
|
Woo hoo $800 now i'm only $400 down  wake me up when we're past $1200 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
