|
jaydipmodhwadia
|
|
January 17, 2016, 08:27:31 PM |
|
Well they are making life for bitcoin very tough
|
|
|
|
CoinCidental
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000
Si vis pacem, para bellum
|
|
January 17, 2016, 08:56:35 PM |
|
Well they are making life for bitcoin very tough
If they are going to pay for spamming the network that's okay, larger block adjustments are on the way My transactions are confirming just fine as it is...
|
|
|
|
kwukduck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1937
Merit: 1001
|
|
January 18, 2016, 04:54:33 AM |
|
Well they are making life for bitcoin very tough
larger block adjustments are on the way No it's not. We've been hearing that for years now. Bitcoin development is dead. The only real action taken was Bitcoin XT, it was a chance to solve the scaling issue but it got rejected and censored by the community.
|
14b8PdeWLqK3yi3PrNHMmCvSmvDEKEBh3E
|
|
|
infofront
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2793
Shitcoin Minimalist
|
|
January 18, 2016, 05:15:37 AM |
|
Well they are making life for bitcoin very tough
The developers of bitcoin are making life very tough. That's why we'll be forking to Bitcoin Classic.
|
|
|
|
MyBTT
|
|
January 18, 2016, 06:08:32 AM |
|
Probably just some really rich guy that wants to transfer a lot of his Bitcoin into other addresses so it is safer. Or maybe an exchange.
|
▄████▄ ▄████████▄ ▄████████████▄ ▄████████████████▄ ████████████████████ ▄█▄ ▄███▄ ▄███▄ ▄████████████████▀ ▄██████████ ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ██ ▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▄█▄ ▀██████████████▄ ████████████████████████████ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀█▀ ██ ▀████████████████████████▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ▄█▄ ▀██▄ ▄██▀ ██ ▀████████████████████▀ ▀███▀ ▀███▀ ▀█▀ ▀███▀ ▄███████████████████████████████████▀ ▀████████████████▀ ▀████████████▀ ▀████████▀ ▀████▀
| ║║ ║█ ║█ ║║ | .
| .
║║ ██ ║║
| .
| .
║║ ██ ║║
| .
| ║║ █║ █║ ║║ | |
|
|
|
NorrisK
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1007
|
|
January 18, 2016, 07:46:47 AM |
|
Well they are making life for bitcoin very tough
The developers of bitcoin are making life very tough. That's why we'll be forking to Bitcoin Classic. I wish they would do something more radical.. 2MB is not like solving all current and future problems. Atleast the spammers are now paying for their attack, unlike the last attack where thousands of people were trying to multi spend at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Amph
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
|
|
January 18, 2016, 07:54:02 AM |
|
Well they are making life for bitcoin very tough
If they are going to pay for spamming the network that's okay, larger block adjustments are on the way My transactions are confirming just fine as it is... mine too, and anyway the proposal are coming, around april, one of the way to have 2mb will be settled Well they are making life for bitcoin very tough
larger block adjustments are on the way No it's not. We've been hearing that for years now. Bitcoin development is dead. The only real action taken was Bitcoin XT, it was a chance to solve the scaling issue but it got rejected and censored by the community. read the roadmap, you need to wait a bit, more they pushed it to 2016, beause there is the halving and probably a major increase in the user base, because of a major increase in the value, which already occured btw...
|
|
|
|
Loimu
|
|
January 18, 2016, 09:08:31 AM |
|
Well they are making life for bitcoin very tough
The developers of bitcoin are making life very tough. That's why we'll be forking to Bitcoin Classic. This. Bitcoin Classic seems to be the way to go for now. Hopefully they will release working client soon.
|
|
|
|
Indianacoin
|
|
January 18, 2016, 09:24:07 AM |
|
I think they are just spamming the block chain to make everyone suffer with slow transaction confirmation due to larger block size! Or, they might be just another coin doubler ponzi trying to popularize their scheme via Blockchain.
I will try to find a connection between the transactions through Wallet Explorer and will report the results soon.
|
|
|
|
zby
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1592
Merit: 1001
|
|
January 18, 2016, 09:37:21 AM |
|
I think they are just spamming the block chain to make everyone suffer with slow transaction confirmation due to larger block size! ...
The current problem with block size is about bytes and spamming is about generating lots of transactions or transactions with very big reprsentation (in bytes). This title refers to blocksize in bitcoins sent.
|
|
|
|
iikun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1062
Merit: 1003
|
|
January 18, 2016, 10:55:54 AM |
|
I think they are just spamming the block chain to make everyone suffer with slow transaction confirmation due to larger block size! Or, they might be just another coin doubler ponzi trying to popularize their scheme via Blockchain.
I will try to find a connection between the transactions through Wallet Explorer and will report the results soon.
It's probably Mike Hearn trying to prove his point about larger block sizes ^^;
|
|
|
|
zby
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1592
Merit: 1001
|
|
January 18, 2016, 11:06:32 AM |
|
I think they are just spamming the block chain to make everyone suffer with slow transaction confirmation due to larger block size! Or, they might be just another coin doubler ponzi trying to popularize their scheme via Blockchain.
I will try to find a connection between the transactions through Wallet Explorer and will report the results soon.
It's probably Mike Hearn trying to prove his point about larger block sizes ^^; Do you understand that Mike Hearn talked about block size in bytes - and this is about block size in BTC (sent)?
|
|
|
|
iikun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1062
Merit: 1003
|
|
January 18, 2016, 11:44:25 AM |
|
I think they are just spamming the block chain to make everyone suffer with slow transaction confirmation due to larger block size! Or, they might be just another coin doubler ponzi trying to popularize their scheme via Blockchain.
I will try to find a connection between the transactions through Wallet Explorer and will report the results soon.
It's probably Mike Hearn trying to prove his point about larger block sizes ^^; Do you understand that Mike Hearn talked about block size in bytes - and this is about block size in BTC (sent)? The title yes, but OP also inferred these same coins were being sent over & over which would also (admittedly by just a small amount) increase block size. How many times they were actually flushed I did not actually check. But I was hardly serious...
|
|
|
|
Indianacoin
|
|
January 18, 2016, 09:51:32 PM |
|
I think they are just spamming the block chain to make everyone suffer with slow transaction confirmation due to larger block size! ...
The current problem with block size is about bytes and spamming is about generating lots of transactions or transactions with very big reprsentation (in bytes). This title refers to blocksize in bitcoins sent. I think, sending large number of bitcoins in a transaction and sending several minute amounts of transaction is same is the final block size exceeds the appreciable limit. Moreover he was constantly trying to limit the confirmation speed by sending in his own addresses many times. This may also decrease the value of Bitcoin Days Destroyed!
|
|
|
|
|