Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[brg444]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

[VeritasSapere]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

[brg444]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

You claim that more adoption is going to lead to an increase in node count.

I've demonstrated this to be patently false and that it could get worse farther down the road.

Seriously get lost, you are pathetic.

[VeritasSapere]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

You claim that more adoption is going to lead to an increase in node count.

I've demonstrated this to be patently false and that it could get worse farther down the road.

Seriously get lost, you are pathetic.

You have not demonstrated this to be false, furthermore this would be impossible to demonstrate false with a high degree of certainty. A simple counter example would be me introducing my friend to Bitcoin, he bought some Bitcoin and now he is running a full node from his home. This is a clear example of adoption directly leading to increasing the node count, this does not imply that node count is therefore overall increased since there are other factors and variables at work. However you can not say that adoption does not lead to increasing the node count since it only takes one example to prove your claim wrong as I have just done so.

Your insults and attacks only reveal the weakness of your position.

[brg444]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

You claim that more adoption is going to lead to an increase in node count.

I've demonstrated this to be patently false and that it could get worse farther down the road.

Seriously get lost, you are pathetic.

You have not demonstrated this to be false, furthermore this would be impossible to demonstrate false with a high degree of certainty. A simple counter example would be me introducing my friend to Bitcoin, he bought some Bitcoin and now he is running a full node from his home. This is a clear example of adoption directly leading to increasing the node count, this does not imply that node count is therefore overall increased since there are other factors and variables at work. However you can not say that adoption does not lead to increasing the node count since it only takes one example to prove your claim wrong as I have just done so.

Your insults and attacks only reveal the weakness of your position.

Please explain why we have less nodes than we've ever had. Do you consider this an anomaly? Should we expect the trend to reverse in the future?

[iCEBREAKER]

MOAR sweet cream of comedy from the lolcows at the rump forum:

Gavin Andresen's post got censored "moderated" @ bitcoin-dev mailing list.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/censorship-at-bitcoin-dev.154/

I don't even know where to start... what a sadness.

TIL the definition of "censorship" is "moderation with which I disagree."   

[VeritasSapere]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

You claim that more adoption is going to lead to an increase in node count.

I've demonstrated this to be patently false and that it could get worse farther down the road.

Seriously get lost, you are pathetic.

You have not demonstrated this to be false, furthermore this would be impossible to demonstrate false with a high degree of certainty. A simple counter example would be me introducing my friend to Bitcoin, he bought some Bitcoin and now he is running a full node from his home. This is a clear example of adoption directly leading to increasing the node count, this does not imply that node count is therefore overall increased since there are other factors and variables at work. However you can not say that adoption does not lead to increasing the node count since it only takes one example to prove your claim wrong as I have just done so.

Your insults and attacks only reveal the weakness of your position.

Please explain why we have less nodes than we've ever had. Do you consider this an anomaly? Should we expect the trend to reverse in the future?

I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.

We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.

[brg444]

Moreover this is really beside the point as node count in itself is pretty much useless as a statistic.

The real numbers we should be concerned about is the cost of the option to run a full node.

This cost unequivocally increases as Bitcoin grows.

[brg444]

I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.

We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.

Yes we are.

https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=365

Individual cases such as the one of your friend don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The concern is with the trend. Now the trend clearly shows that the total node count, whatever the reason is, has progressively declined from its historic heights despite a clear increase in Bitcoin adoption.

[hdbuck]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

lel 4 pages thread!

such consensus..

sry, BIP 101 is dead, dead and deader.

now let us have fun in our 100+ pages thread.

Because your thread has more pages it means you are right? I am not convinced, you will have to come up with a better argument then that.

Err im so not tryin to convince you about anything..
Im merely making fun of you.
If you cant even see this, man you are one specimen of a pathetic fool troll.

[VeritasSapere]

I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.

We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.

Yes we are.

https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=365

Individual cases such as the one of your friend don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The concern is with the trend. Now the trend clearly shows that the total node count, whatever the reason is, has progressively declined from its historic heights despite a clear increase in Bitcoin adoption.

Factually speaking we are not at a all time low today. In the grand scheme of things it can often be these type of individual cases that as a whole can effect the trend.

[VeritasSapere]

Moreover this is really beside the point as node count in itself is pretty much useless as a statistic.

The real numbers we should be concerned about is the cost of the option to run a full node.

This cost unequivocally increases as Bitcoin grows.

In terms of the cost of running a full node it would still be negligible for most people in the developed world to run a full node under the BIP100 regime. Which is why I find the cost of running a full node in this case not a compelling argument for why we should not increase the blocksize.

[hdbuck]

MOAR sweet cream of comedy from the lolcows at the rump forum:

Gavin Andresen's post got censored "moderated" @ bitcoin-dev mailing list.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/censorship-at-bitcoin-dev.154/

I don't even know where to start... what a sadness.

TIL the definition of "censorship" is "moderation with which I disagree."  

Gavin cens0red, bitcoin up!

[iCEBREAKER]

More laughs courtesy of Frap.doc's Island of Misfit Gavinistas, as they continue their bizarre transformation from Monopolist Maximalist Supremacists to Buttcoiners.

I am still so disgusted by this that is it hard to get excited about bitcoin finally re-entering a bull phase.

What is also disgusting is how Peter and the rest of the BS crew are now happily talking on reddit about forking bitcoin to include their new op codes, op codes for which there neither is consensus for or full understanding on the implications. But they get to claim consensus because they've banned/censored everyone on reddit and the bitcoin-dev board.

Since this happened a few months ago I've started to re-read about various points in history when a minority of a population was able to radically re-form a society and crush all opposition. It is always the same, a small 5% somehow are able to claim authority, they then use that authority to silence/kill/drive away the 5-10% that is willing to fight back, and the other 90% just go along. The Russian revolution and following White emigre is one example, the Iranian revolution and following emigration of secular intellectuals is another (there are many more in just the past 150 years).

According to our old pal rocks, Peter Todd's CLTV soft fork is EXACTLY LIKE the Bolsheviks murdering the Czar and plunging Russia into 100 years of terror, starvation, and darkness.

And also LITERALLY THE SAME THING AS the brutal fundamentalist regime of the mullahs lobotomizing Iran's 3000 years of accumulated intellectual capital, dontcha know!

Wow, so much butt-rage...that many solar masses of butt-rage will probably collapse into a butt hole!

[brg444]

I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.

We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.

Yes we are.

https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=365

Individual cases such as the one of your friend don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The concern is with the trend. Now the trend clearly shows that the total node count, whatever the reason is, has progressively declined from its historic heights despite a clear increase in Bitcoin adoption.

Factually speaking we are not at a all time low today. In the grand scheme of things it can often be these type of individual cases that as a whole can effect the trend.

You are one sad individual.... 

[VeritasSapere]

I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.

We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.

Yes we are.

https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=365

Individual cases such as the one of your friend don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The concern is with the trend. Now the trend clearly shows that the total node count, whatever the reason is, has progressively declined from its historic heights despite a clear increase in Bitcoin adoption.

Factually speaking we are not at a all time low today. In the grand scheme of things it can often be these type of individual cases that as a whole can effect the trend.

You are one sad individual....  

Of course back to ad hominem again.

The truth speaks for its self.

[hdbuck]

I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.

We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.

Yes we are.

https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=365

Individual cases such as the one of your friend don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The concern is with the trend. Now the trend clearly shows that the total node count, whatever the reason is, has progressively declined from its historic heights despite a clear increase in Bitcoin adoption.

Factually speaking we are not at a all time low today. In the grand scheme of things it can often be these type of individual cases that as a whole can effect the trend.

You are one sad individual.... 

Of course back to ad hominem again.

hmyea.

[Meuh6879]

i prefer dokuro-chan ...

[RoadTrain]

I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.

We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.

You are hopeless. Yes, that's an ad hominem and a non-argument. Still, yours are non-arguments as well.

A simple counter example would be me introducing my friend to Bitcoin, he bought some Bitcoin and now he is running a full node from his home.

Anecdotal fallacy.

This is a clear example of adoption directly leading to increasing the node count, this does not imply that node count is therefore overall increased since there are other factors and variables at work. However you can not say that adoption does not lead to increasing the node count since it only takes one example to prove your claim wrong as I have just done so.

Ha-ha. Splitting hairs aside, your friend might as well stop running his node today in favor of SPV, and the node count would go back to the previous level. Can I conclude that adoption does not lead to increasing node counts? If I fine-tune my statement, I can actually make it true. But relevance is more important than winning an argument.

What's funny about your 'argument': if we raise blocksizes, see increased adoption, and the node count trend doesn't reverse, you can still argue the same: "I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.". And I guess you will.

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Argument from ignorance/silence.

There's no way Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto is 6 foot.
On a serious note, I still do not understand how big blockers still don't seem to get it. We already have centralized mining, im still waiting for a convincing explanation of how centralizing the nodes would be a good idea (and this is what would happen once the blocks become too big and they will). Having to rely on offchain transactions isn't ideal, but the world isn't ideal, and it's certainly better than a group of 4 or 5 private companies owning most of the nodes.

Increasing the blocksize would not make mining more centralized. The blocksize has no impact on mining centralization whatsoever. I am not advocating centralizing the nodes either. You are correct in thinking that no solution is ideal which is why I think that increasing the blocksize is the best solution which maximizes decentralization and financial freedom compared to the other alternatives. If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Proof by assertion. That you continue repeating your opinions doesn't make them arguments.

I clearly remember discussing mining centralization with you, where you insisted it's not worsened by larger blocks, because mining centralization != pool centralization, and miners have a choice selecting a pool. Well, in the spherical cows world, I could even agree. In reality, shit gets centralized.

[muyuu]

29/oct/2015

Monthly average closing down into <1 per thousand.