Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2019, 04:08:33 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What do you think about more?
Sex - 4 (23.5%)
Bitcoin - 13 (76.5%)
Total Voters: 17

Pages: « 1 ... 16257 16258 16259 16260 16261 16262 16263 16264 16265 16266 16267 16268 16269 16270 16271 16272 16273 16274 16275 16276 16277 16278 16279 16280 16281 16282 16283 16284 16285 16286 16287 16288 16289 16290 16291 16292 16293 16294 16295 16296 16297 16298 16299 16300 16301 16302 16303 16304 16305 16306 [16307] 16308 16309 16310 16311 16312 16313 16314 16315 16316 16317 16318 16319 16320 16321 16322 16323 16324 16325 16326 16327 16328 16329 16330 16331 16332 16333 16334 16335 16336 16337 16338 16339 16340 16341 16342 16343 16344 16345 16346 16347 16348 16349 16350 16351 16352 16353 16354 16355 16356 16357 ... 24793 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21328341 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (104 posts by 20 users deleted.)
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1165



View Profile
January 30, 2017, 10:21:22 PM

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Word!

Too bad they are using Bitcoin-Mainnet as a Testbed for thair so called "alternative implementation" piece of shit.  

effective blocksize + relying on LN working out is using Mainnet as a Testbed too?

Sorry but Segwit has been tested excessively on Bitcoin Testnet and an seperate network...

and it does not even introduce such serious changes to bitcoin like BU does. BU changes the consensus mechanism, maybe the most important part of bitcoin ...

if you believe consensus mechanism = hardcoded limits

you're too far gone to be saved.

Conspiratists argumentation detected ... good bye. Ignore

How to spot a BU supporter ? Look for a tin foil hat with "blockstream"-defense engraving.

yep, looks like we flushed another one out from under the rug. Mission accomplished, troll mode off.

I wonder how much Roguer pays these guys?
1566101313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566101313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566101313
Reply with quote  #2

1566101313
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1566101313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566101313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566101313
Reply with quote  #2

1566101313
Report to moderator
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 30, 2017, 10:38:36 PM

Most Core developers but also many experts outside the Core community believe that it's important we keep nodes relatively cheap to run in order to keep the most important aspect of Bitcoin which is decentralization.

the problem comes when we try to define "relatively cheep".
BU says " just let the network of nodes define what is acceptable "

what's the problem with that?

if 1MB is the magic number the network will reflect that.
sugarbaby
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
January 30, 2017, 10:44:41 PM

Humm, I think next days will be LTC days since SegWit signaling starts in about 2 hours or so...A lot of fomo incoming
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 30, 2017, 11:25:52 PM
Last edit: January 31, 2017, 12:57:40 PM by notme

Someone took a risk and set their blocksize larger than 1mb.  It was a foolish thing to do with the current state of the blocksize debate, but it only hurt the miner who chose that setting.

Isn't it the case that this was a *bug* in BU code, rather than the pool operator going gung-ho with larger block sizes?

AFAIK it was a bug. No need to sugar coat it.

I wasn't aware at the time, but you are correct.  However, the bug did not harm anyone except the miner who chose to run BU.  There is already a fix under review, and existing clients can work around it by reducing their configured blocksize by the size of the coinbase transaction.  The bug was that the coinbase transaction wasn't included in the blocksize calculation when producing blocks.  Blocksize was counted correctly when verifying blocks, so no other BU miners would have built on the block unless their blocksize exceeded 1000000 bytes.

This incident shows us two things:
1. BU needs more testing and better code review processes.
2. The consensus mechanism works as it should and punished the miner who attempted (unintentionally) to make a larger block without agreement from the majority of the network.
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 30, 2017, 11:50:28 PM

core nodes are bugged.
1MB = 1024KB.
not 1000KB
this caused them to orphen a block that was less than 1MB

Miz4r
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 01:58:07 AM

Most Core developers but also many experts outside the Core community believe that it's important we keep nodes relatively cheap to run in order to keep the most important aspect of Bitcoin which is decentralization.

the problem comes when we try to define "relatively cheep".
BU says " just let the network of nodes define what is acceptable "

what's the problem with that?

if 1MB is the magic number the network will reflect that.

That sounds exploitable to me, these things can be gamed if you let nodes or miners set the limit themselves. Let's just first safely increase the limit through Segwit and see from there. What's wrong with doing that?
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1989
Merit: 1375



View Profile
January 31, 2017, 02:47:31 AM



https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/825967179463921664
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 03:04:31 AM

Most Core developers but also many experts outside the Core community believe that it's important we keep nodes relatively cheap to run in order to keep the most important aspect of Bitcoin which is decentralization.

the problem comes when we try to define "relatively cheep".
BU says " just let the network of nodes define what is acceptable "

what's the problem with that?

if 1MB is the magic number the network will reflect that.

That sounds exploitable to me, these things can be gamed if you let nodes or miners set the limit themselves. Let's just first safely increase the limit through Segwit and see from there. What's wrong with doing that?

i guess LTC might be generous enough to provide some hard data.
i dont mind segwit + LN, actually i'd prefer it as a hard fork so all aspects can be simpler/robust.
basically i want my cake and eat it too.
BU sized blocks with segwit TX fix.
most importantly i'd like to see healthy competition of ideas for all future BIPS, i feel there is somthing dangerous about 1 team getting all the "political power".
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 04:45:11 AM


 Grin
if you've been around long enough this gif is extra funny
r0ach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 05:14:09 AM
Last edit: January 31, 2017, 05:28:54 AM by r0ach

Perhaps at $10000 you will consider it a store of value rather than a processor.

You're just being irrationally biased now.  Everyone knows metals are more fungible, more anti-fragile, and less counter party risk.  This means Bitcoin can never dethrone metals as a store of value or hope to compete with them on Exter's pyramid.  If you're acting as a settlement layer, you're attempting to compete with metals as a store of value and Bitcoin CANNOT do it.  This means Bitcoin has to derive value more from raw transaction flow and being a payment processor instead.  

This is why I think Bitcoin probably doesn't have a value proposition without large scaling.  The lightning network claims to be able to do that, but I'm not convinced it can do so in a decentralized manner when economy of scale already forces centralization in the base bitcoin network in the first place.  Bitcoin did not "solve" the decentralization problem.   Bitcoin is a centralization problem waiting for someone to solve it.

As for solving that centralization problem, to do so you would likely need to engineer it so it's impossible to practice usury in bitcoin.  The only way I can think of to do that is either unprofitable PoW (which probably can't work in practice), or by some really exotic system of decentralized captchas where anyone attempting to solve blocks requires manual human intervention and can't be automated on cruise control via CPUs as I talked about in the thread below.

You cannot have decentralization without engineering bitcoin so automated usury is impossible

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1700073.0

Whether you believe "god" is a person, quantum fluctuation, whatever, metals are a blockchain created by "god"; bitcoin is a blockchain created by people.  The blockchain created by people can never compete because it will always have more flaws or side channel attacks that render it useless.  I have a feeling anything blockchain related will forever be a Rube Goldberg machine that claims to accomplish some type of task, but in reality fails to accomplish that task (decentralization) while doing it an extremely complicated manner.
bitwitt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 05:26:17 AM

Text Bubbles speak for themselves.  A little humor...

IMAGE EDIT: 





Hey Dumb ask
 I see you found a bunch of saps that listen to your BS.
You are so full of Ship...
Did your wife leave you yet?
Your son is old enough to know your a POS.
How's the Bitcoin farm going, that you bought with the wifes 401k?

Thought you you where going to Washington State ?

I Here the company your Dad started you turned into a joke, people said you are unstable. 

Keep posting your CRAP.

XOXO
Riddikulo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 31, 2017, 05:38:29 AM

This thread went full retard  Grin

Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 06:04:41 AM

Perhaps at $10000 you will consider it a store of value rather than a processor.

You're just being irrationally biased now.  Everyone knows metals are more fungible, more anti-fragile, and less counter party risk.  This means Bitcoin can never dethrone metals as a store of value or hope to compete with them on Exter's pyramid.  If you're acting as a settlement layer, you're attempting to compete with metals as a store of value and Bitcoin CANNOT do it.  This means Bitcoin has to derive value more from raw transaction flow and being a payment processor instead.  

This is why I think Bitcoin probably doesn't have a value proposition without large scaling.  The lightning network claims to be able to do that, but I'm not convinced it can do so in a decentralized manner when economy of scale already forces centralization in the base bitcoin network in the first place.  Bitcoin did not "solve" the decentralization problem.   Bitcoin is a centralization problem waiting for someone to solve it.

As for solving that centralization problem, to do so you would likely need to engineer it so it's impossible to practice usury in bitcoin.  The only way I can think of to do that is either unprofitable PoW (which probably can't work in practice), or by some really exotic system of decentralized captchas where anyone attempting to solve blocks requires manual human intervention and can't be automated on cruise control via CPUs as I talked about in the thread below.

You cannot have decentralization without engineering bitcoin so automated usury is impossible

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1700073.0

Whether you believe "god" is a person, quantum fluctuation, whatever, metals are a blockchain created by "god"; bitcoin is a blockchain created by people.  The blockchain created by people can never compete because it will always have more flaws or side channel attacks that render it useless.  I have a feeling anything blockchain related will forever be a Rube Goldberg machine that claims to accomplish some type of task, but in reality fails to accomplish that task (decentralization) while doing it an extremely complicated manner.


point me to the central authority which governs bitcoin TX, or stfu.
 
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1925


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 07:39:45 AM

Finally, some decent ACTION!!!!


And in the right direction, too.

Hahahahaha...

hopefully there is a sufficient quantity of push behind this that could maybe get us into the upper $900s, at least.

 Wink
rjclarke2000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1009



View Profile
January 31, 2017, 07:47:25 AM

I believe this is most definitely gentleman
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1182



View Profile
January 31, 2017, 08:33:50 AM

Everyone knows
Argument invalid.

I have no dog in this fight, but taking your own opinion as an axiom annoys me wherever it pops up.
600watt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1301



View Profile
January 31, 2017, 08:45:46 AM

Everyone knows
Argument invalid.

I have no dog in this fight, but taking your own opinion as an axiom annoys me wherever it pops up.

you are right and we all know it.  Cheesy
Ted E. Bare
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 503


Bear with me


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 09:12:44 AM

Yes everyone that is experienced has already bought back in. The latest all-in moment was like a week ago.
Karartma1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1070


Be Revolutionary Or Die Trying


View Profile WWW
January 31, 2017, 10:24:06 AM

After a bit of sideways another nice leg up. Cool
gembitz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 353


*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*


View Profile
January 31, 2017, 11:17:15 AM

After a bit of sideways another nice leg up. Cool

^yessir the new bitcoin movement is picking up thanks to the UBQ team!  Wink
Pages: « 1 ... 16257 16258 16259 16260 16261 16262 16263 16264 16265 16266 16267 16268 16269 16270 16271 16272 16273 16274 16275 16276 16277 16278 16279 16280 16281 16282 16283 16284 16285 16286 16287 16288 16289 16290 16291 16292 16293 16294 16295 16296 16297 16298 16299 16300 16301 16302 16303 16304 16305 16306 [16307] 16308 16309 16310 16311 16312 16313 16314 16315 16316 16317 16318 16319 16320 16321 16322 16323 16324 16325 16326 16327 16328 16329 16330 16331 16332 16333 16334 16335 16336 16337 16338 16339 16340 16341 16342 16343 16344 16345 16346 16347 16348 16349 16350 16351 16352 16353 16354 16355 16356 16357 ... 24793 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!