macsga
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1002
Strange, yet attractive.
|
 |
August 17, 2015, 12:26:33 PM |
|
Pardon me, but this is probably pure greed behind the XT fork. From the moment that BTC laid its chance to the hands of a "chief" software engineer, that EXACT moment the aforementioned man became BTC's biggest liability. Hardfork or not, I cannot think of anything worse that this thing is done because of Gavin's stupidity (unlikely), or the even worse, somebody paid him to spread disaster. Every person has his/her price. I dare him to prove me wrong and cancel the XT fork. Yeah... Like he cares. |
Chaos could be a form of intelligence we cannot yet understand its complexity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
klee (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:36:25 PM |
|
Pardon me, but this is probably pure greed behind the XT fork. From the moment that BTC laid its chance to the hands of a "chief" software engineer, that EXACT moment the aforementioned man became BTC's biggest liability. Hardfork or not, I cannot think of anything worse that this thing is done because of Gavin's stupidity (unlikely), or the even worse, somebody paid him to spread disaster. Every person has his/her price. I dare him to prove me wrong and cancel the XT fork. Yeah... Like he cares. Yeah, unfortunately the project seems to me compromised since the CIA meeting. If you look back my posts you will find dialogues with me and Hearn urging him to do something about anonymity feature in BTC - to put it higher in the dev todo list. How naive I was... It was the wake up call (his stance) back then, I started realising that this project can only serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, NASDAQ etc (big pockets). But we have Ripple for this which is far more efficient. So why bother with PoW?? Anyways, I try to trade based on TA and not lose my mind trying to find how this can succeed based on fundamentals, politics etc. I would strongly advise anyone to avoid taking any positions until this is resolved. It only takes 1 mad whale to screw people hard (either way) and we are clearly entering an escalation phase now. Better try making money with ETH or XMR. LTC is dangerous too, I will wait for a very strong signal in order to enter a trade... Take care everyone. |
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 02:21:51 PM |
|
Pardon me, but this is probably pure greed behind the XT fork. From the moment that BTC laid its chance to the hands of a "chief" software engineer, that EXACT moment the aforementioned man became BTC's biggest liability. Hardfork or not, I cannot think of anything worse that this thing is done because of Gavin's stupidity (unlikely), or the even worse, somebody paid him to spread disaster. Every person has his/her price. I dare him to prove me wrong and cancel the XT fork. Yeah... Like he cares. Yeah, unfortunately the project seems to me compromised since the CIA meeting. If you look back my posts you will find dialogues with me and Hearn urging him to do something about anonymity feature in BTC - to put it higher in the dev todo list. How naive I was... It was the wake up call (his stance) back then, I started realising that this project can only serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, NASDAQ etc (big pockets). But we have Ripple for this which is far more efficient. So why bother with PoW?? Anyways, I try to trade based on TA and not lose my mind trying to find how this can succeed based on fundamentals, politics etc. I would strongly advise anyone to avoid taking any positions until this is resolved. It only takes 1 mad whale to screw people hard (either way) and we are clearly entering an escalation phase now. Better try making money with ETH or XMR. LTC is dangerous too, I will wait for a very strong signal in order to enter a trade... Take care everyone. heh, one can only pray for bitcoin's antifragile-ness to definitely flush down USGavin and Googlhearn out of its development ecosystem. + they can take the reddit minions army they've brainwashed with them.. im thinking of a new postbitcoin cult. USG sponsored obviously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
August 17, 2015, 06:46:05 PM
Last edit: August 17, 2015, 07:00:45 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Well the block size issue has been a gift to me. Afaik, all crypto coins have this problem with a tradeoff choice between consensus decentralization and scalability. But I solved that problem, so it is just a matter of bringing the solution to market and watch what happens.
I think a benevolent dictator or small group (say 2 like-minded peers sharing power), can be most effective in bringing a crypto coin to fruition. I think crypto coins need to be set on auto-pilot I think there needs to be built in some side-chain capability (assuming all bidirectional issues with that can be resolved, else some way to burn coins one-way to a new fork) so that HODLers can move their value out to a new fork gradually as a way to upgrade. This protects the value of the HODLers and allows for new technology. I don't agree with any changes made to the protocol of the coin after it has been stabilized (fixing bugs excepted of course). Note this depends on the eliminating the 51% attack, but I've solved that too.
Bitcoin was a first revision and the recent post from Satoshi on Aug 15, 2015, admits that Bitcoin needs to be fixed. I guess he has been reading my posts (self-patronizing hyperbole). How do you know I am not (the second reincarnation of) Satoshi? (of course not, lol)
|
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
August 17, 2015, 06:51:54 PM |
|
Well the block size issue has been a gift to me. Afaik, all crypto coins have this problem with a tradeoff choice between consensus decentralization and scalability. But I solved that problem, so it is just a matter of bringing the solution to market and watch what happens.
I think crypto coins need to be set on auto-pilot I think there needs to be built in some side-chain capability (assuming all bidirectional issues with that can be resolved, else some way to burn coins one-way to a new fork) so that HODLers can move their value out to a new fork gradually as a way to upgrade. This protects the value of the HODLers and allows for new technology. I don't agree with any changes made to the protocol of the coin after it has been stabilized.
Bitcoin was a first revision and the recent post from Satoshi on Aug 15, 2015, admits that Bitcoin needs to be fixed. I guess he has been reading my posts. How do you know I am not (the second reincarnation of) Satoshi? (of course not, lol)
Satoshi has released a white paper. Something you'll never do in your life. |
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
August 17, 2015, 06:54:59 PM |
|
Satoshi has released a white paper. Something you'll never do in your life.
Haha. Nice one. But is there some way you can eat your screen? You will need to eat those words (quite soon in fact). (are the VanillaCoin fanboiz still stalking me even into the PnF thread, lol  ) |
|
|
|
klee (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2015, 07:18:20 PM |
|
Well the block size issue has been a gift to me. Afaik, all crypto coins have this problem with a tradeoff choice between consensus decentralization and scalability. But I solved that problem, so it is just a matter of bringing the solution to market and watch what happens.
I think crypto coins need to be set on auto-pilot I think there needs to be built in some side-chain capability (assuming all bidirectional issues with that can be resolved, else some way to burn coins one-way to a new fork) so that HODLers can move their value out to a new fork gradually as a way to upgrade. This protects the value of the HODLers and allows for new technology. I don't agree with any changes made to the protocol of the coin after it has been stabilized.
Bitcoin was a first revision and the recent post from Satoshi on Aug 15, 2015, admits that Bitcoin needs to be fixed. I guess he has been reading my posts. How do you know I am not (the second reincarnation of) Satoshi? (of course not, lol)
Satoshi has released a white paper. Something you'll never do in your life. Actually he has... Now another block size post: http://hackingdistributed.com/2015/08/17/coin-needs-a-board/ |
|
|
|
|
|
altcoinUK
|
|
August 18, 2015, 12:25:07 AM |
|
Satoshi has released a white paper. Something you'll never do in your life.
Haha. Nice one. But is there some way you can eat your screen? You will need to eat those words (quite soon in fact). (are the VanillaCoin fanboiz still stalking me even into the PnF thread, lol ) AnonyMint, Sorry for intruding with this here, could you let me know where you described in more details your theory about the needs for anonymity and that one of the issues with Bitcoin is that it did not address anonymity. I understand Bitcoin does not addresses anonymity, I am after why is that an issue in your opinion and why anonymity is so important for the economy in your opinion? I am a technical guy, knows little about economics and I'm just interested in that subject and your theory. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
klee (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 18, 2015, 06:04:50 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wexlike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1473
Merit: 1086
|
|
August 18, 2015, 08:05:27 AM |
|
I just want to post the full quote and not ripping a small part completely out of context like a paid shill: ...
People want to maximize the price paid to miners as fees when the block reward drops to zero-- or, at least, have some assurance that there is enough diverse mining to protect the chain against potential attackers.
And people believe the way to accomplish that is to artificially limit the number of transactions below the technical capabilities of the network.
But production quotas don't work. Limit the number of transactions that can happen on the Bitcoin blockchain, and instead of paying higher fees people will perform their transactions somewhere else. I have no idea whether that would be Western Union, an alt-coin, a sidechain, or good old fashioned SWIFT wire transfers, but I do know that nobody besides a central government can force people to use product with higher costs, if there is a lower-cost option available.
So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?
I honestly don't know. I think it is possible blocks containing tens of thousands of transactions, each paying a few millibits in fees (maybe because wallets round up change amounts to avoid creating dust and improve privacy) will be enough to secure the chain.
It is also possible big merchants and exchanges, who have a collective interest in a secure, well-functioning blockchain, will get together and establish assurance contracts to reward honest miners.
I'm confident that if the Bitcoin system is valuable, then the participants in that market will make sure it keeps functioning securely and reliably.
And I'm very confident that the best way to make Bitcoin more valuable is to make it work well for both large and small value transactions. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
August 18, 2015, 09:19:29 AM |
|
altcoinUK, I think at this point it is better to talk in more formal language in whitepapers than to continue the forum postings. I am trying to get organized on that. Less time expended posting in forums will help me.
|
|
|
|
|
altcoinUK
|
|
August 18, 2015, 12:06:11 PM |
|
altcoinUK, I think at this point it is better to talk in more formal language in whitepapers than to continue the forum postings. I am trying to get organized on that. Less time expended posting in forums will help me.
In any form, white paper or forum posting will be great. Many of us are very interested in your theories and thanks for sharing! |
|
|
|
|
klee (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 18, 2015, 01:07:46 PM |
|
256$  |
|
|
|
|
klee (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 18, 2015, 02:08:08 PM |
|
Triple bottom at 254$ - will it hodl?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bassclef
|
|
August 18, 2015, 03:20:59 PM |
|
Hie brings up some good points. The positive is that if there's a sliver of doubt, XT will not come to fruition and the consensus mechanism will have worked as intended. 75% of miners will not vote for a change that has even a 1% chance to undermine Bitcoin. Technically speaking, I'm a buyer at these prices. The 200 day MA as support is my entry zone for a nice long if it holds. |
|
|
|
|
klee (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 18, 2015, 03:22:12 PM |
|
My buy zone is 242-252. Stop if 238 is broken
|
|
|
|
|
|
