Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[findftp]

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...



http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

[craked5]

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...



http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Whaou that's really cool to see that, it's a bit like a saint coming back to give the Good Word ^^

I suppose they're talking about btcClassic. They can do nothing no? I don't really understand what a hardfork is :-/

[Fatman3001]

@BMB your flip flopping is only slightly less frustrating. Marcus might have the correct view on that.  

That one hurt.

It ain't cut and dry. Just look at Adam! He freaked out! But he got better. IDK.

You're canadians. That's what you do. Ever wondered why your brand of americans still worships the Queen?

Not to mention Quebecs never ending secession flip flop. They're not french at all. They're canadians.

You whine a bit and then you go with the flow.

[molecular]

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...



http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Whaou that's really cool to see that, it's a bit like a saint coming back to give the Good Word ^^

I suppose they're talking about btcClassic. They can do nothing no? I don't really understand what a hardfork is :-/

They're talking about XT (look at the date) and it's clearly fake.

stop the FUD guys

EDIT: a hardforking change is a change of the consensus rules that makes old nodes incompatible. It's only "dangerous" because core nodecount will go down.

[Fatman3001]

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...



http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Whaou that's really cool to see that, it's a bit like a saint coming back to give the Good Word ^^

I suppose they're talking about btcClassic. They can do nothing no? I don't really understand what a hardfork is :-/

Bitcoin Classic didn't exist back then. We already know at least some of Satoshis accounts have been compromised. So that message is worthless.

[JayJuanGee]

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...



http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Whaou that's really cool to see that, it's a bit like a saint coming back to give the Good Word ^^

I suppose they're talking about btcClassic. They can do nothing no? I don't really understand what a hardfork is :-/

They're talking about XT (look at the date) and it's clearly fake.

stop the FUD guys

EDIT: a hardforking change is a change of the consensus rules that makes old nodes incompatible. It's only "dangerous" because core nodecount will go down.

Seems to be a form of desperation to be either fabricating that kind of information or selectively finding such fabricated misinformation to spread in these threads.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Seems to be a form of desperation to be either fabricating that kind of information or selectively finding such fabricated misinformation to spread in these threads.

This used to be my favourite thread on the forum. Now it's like a cheap, tabloid newspaper, full of shit.

[hdbuck]

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...



http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Whaou that's really cool to see that, it's a bit like a saint coming back to give the Good Word ^^

I suppose they're talking about btcClassic. They can do nothing no? I don't really understand what a hardfork is :-/

They're talking about XT (look at the date) and it's clearly fake.

stop the FUD guys

EDIT: a hardforking change is a change of the consensus rules that makes old nodes incompatible. It's only "dangerous" because core nodecount will go down.

Seems to be a form of desperation to be either fabricating that kind of information or selectively finding such fabricated misinformation to spread in these threads.

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

[molecular]

Seems to be a form of desperation to be either fabricating that kind of information or selectively finding such fabricated misinformation to spread in these threads.

This used to be my favourite thread on the forum. Now it's like a cheap, tabloid newspaper, full of shit.

True. Good analogy.

Shit with an agenda interspersed with paid ads.

[molecular]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

[craked5]

Ok seems than even after being scammed countless number of times I still don't have enough circonspection xD
Thanks for the precision though!

[findftp]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

 
Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

I agree,  only if the moon landing and nuclear bombs are fake as well!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[hdbuck]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

[Fatman3001]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

[hdbuck]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1613#msg1613


Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake.

[Fatman3001]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1613#msg1613


Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake.

Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago.

[hdbuck]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1613#msg1613


Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake.

Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago.

Do you have reading issues also? Don't you see the irony?

It is exaclty what gavin and his wingmen whether toomim or hearn tried to do.
Highjack the protocol and fork it off to meet whatever the USG told them to and/or to simply flood it.

[molecular]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

did someone say satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

If you (hdbuck) are going to argue through authority (illegit anyways), at least do it with some honesty.

[hdbuck]

satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.