Bitcoin Forum
March 31, 2020, 11:07:31 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What causes you more fear? (credit:Micg)
Coronavirus - 92 (54.4%)
Bitcoin - 77 (45.6%)
Total Voters: 169

Pages: « 1 ... 17076 17077 17078 17079 17080 17081 17082 17083 17084 17085 17086 17087 17088 17089 17090 17091 17092 17093 17094 17095 17096 17097 17098 17099 17100 17101 17102 17103 17104 17105 17106 17107 17108 17109 17110 17111 17112 17113 17114 17115 17116 17117 17118 17119 17120 17121 17122 17123 17124 17125 [17126] 17127 17128 17129 17130 17131 17132 17133 17134 17135 17136 17137 17138 17139 17140 17141 17142 17143 17144 17145 17146 17147 17148 17149 17150 17151 17152 17153 17154 17155 17156 17157 17158 17159 17160 17161 17162 17163 17164 17165 17166 17167 17168 17169 17170 17171 17172 17173 17174 17175 17176 ... 26492 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21580308 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. (143 posts by 33 users deleted.)
HI-TEC99
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1125



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 12:25:40 AM

On the other hand, you seem to be assuming that there is some kind of clogging of the network that goes beyond spamming.
Is it possible that seg wit might address some of the spamming? 
However, I understand that down the road, spamming might resume because there may be some folks who remain intent on creating the impression that 2mb is actually needed - even with the implementation of segwit.

"touché"

first section : normal P2P transactions.
last section : PUMP.



Where did that chart come from? I have been searching for a service providing mempool chart like that for a long time.
1585696051
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585696051

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585696051
Reply with quote  #2

1585696051
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1585696051
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585696051

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585696051
Reply with quote  #2

1585696051
Report to moderator
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1010



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 12:33:50 AM

Knots.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8550
deepcolderwallet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 103



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 01:20:13 AM

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...
We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam.   There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive?  Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again.  At least for the moment.
Are you disagreeing that we need more throughput? Yes or no, wordy one.

I've already asked him a tl;dr everytime he posts, until then I just skip what he writes...
bitserve
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1121


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 01:24:31 AM


Don't be ridiculous: We need more throughput. And If I were to spam the network I would use non Segwit tx's even if Segwit is implemented. Or maybe I would use Segwit TX's as the signatures doesn't count for the TX fee.

Why is it so hard for people on the same boat (long on BTC) to row in the same fucking direction?



Why do we need to row in the same direction?

We have a difference of opinion about whether something is needed or not.  I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I can still give my opinion and my opinion can differ, no?

By the way, I am not alone in my opinion, and there are a lot of smart technical people in the bitcoin space who have a similar opinion to me.


Wait, What? You really asking why do we need to row in the same direction? Because we are gonna fucking sink if we don't!

Really, I prefer Segwit over Blocksize increase as Segwit is a real scaling solution and not a linear increase, BUT... If we were all agree to one solution or the other I would accept to row in that direction. It's avoiding sinking what counts here... and now we have a solution that should reasonably please most parties (Segwit +`reasonable 2MB blocksize increase that, even if you think we don't need it yet we will in near future).

If this compromise doesn't work (and I am now reasonably confident it will) then nothing will and we would be basically fucked up.

I will always prefer a not so bad agreement with an almost unanimous consensus than a "better" but contentious one.



bitserve
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1121


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 01:33:25 AM

On other news: Segwit2x signaling has just reached 80% for the last 144blocks (24 hours).... and growing.
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 01:56:39 AM

and the propaganda continues

it was good to see it disappear in the run up to 2900

now big push to drop price

but bitcoin like



JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2212
Merit: 2510


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:01:19 AM


Don't be ridiculous: We need more throughput. And If I were to spam the network I would use non Segwit tx's even if Segwit is implemented. Or maybe I would use Segwit TX's as the signatures doesn't count for the TX fee.

Why is it so hard for people on the same boat (long on BTC) to row in the same fucking direction?



Why do we need to row in the same direction?

We have a difference of opinion about whether something is needed or not.  I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I can still give my opinion and my opinion can differ, no?

By the way, I am not alone in my opinion, and there are a lot of smart technical people in the bitcoin space who have a similar opinion to me.


Wait, What? You really asking why do we need to row in the same direction? Because we are gonna fucking sink if we don't!
Yeah right.  Another Chicken little?




Really, I prefer Segwit over Blocksize increase as Segwit is a real scaling solution and not a linear increase, BUT... If we were all agree to one solution or the other I would accept to row in that direction.

Don't be pie in the sky.  You are not going to get everyone to agree.  That is not how a decentralized system (or humans) work.

It's avoiding sinking what counts here...

Bitcoin is not sinking, and bitcoin is not broken.

Sure there are various tweaks that can make bitcoin better, but there is no emergency death situation as you seem to want to argue.





 and now we have a solution that should reasonably please most parties (Segwit +`reasonable 2MB blocksize increase that, even if you think we don't need it yet we will in near future).

I thought that I already got a consession from you that the first step is Segwit?  So, yeah the second and third steps might happen, but you gotta do the first step before you get to the second step... so even though the odds of the second step might be pretty decent, the second step is not inevitable, as you seem to continue to suggest .. and maybe you have some kind of misreading about what has to happen in order for the second step to take place... and in any event it does not seem to be inevitable.. so why do you keep getting ahead of yourself?  one step at a time, no?   

By the way, it looks like there are people who will be working on testing the second step and going through various kinds of work to carry out the second step, but that still does not make the second step inevitable, even if it has decent chances to occur. 

And, stop suggesting what I want, because I am only calling the situation as I see it, and this is not a matter about what I want or do not want, but instead a description of community dynamics and sentiment about the 2mb (second step) aspect of the segwit2x.




If this compromise doesn't work (and I am now reasonably confident it will) then nothing will and we would be basically fucked up.

I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this?  It seems pretty likely that the first step is going to occur, and even if the second step were to fall through, we still have the first step... so cross that bridge when you get there rather than getting worked up and suggesting that the whole thing might be a failure if the second step were not to occur.



I will always prefer a not so bad agreement with an almost unanimous consensus than a "better" but contentious one.


Well, it looks like you are in luck and there appears to be a largely non-contentious solution on the horizon... right?  It looks like the current variation of segwit2x that allows a softforking of segwit first is gaining pretty likely success and support.


80.6% support on coindance 24 hour marker right now.

https://coin.dance/blocks
blade87
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:15:35 AM

I'm fine with SegWit + 2mb, so long as the following 2mb hard fork code is tested extensively beforehand.
leowonderful
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1122


Bitcoin FTW!


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:23:59 AM

Support seems high for 2x ATM, a little pool luck and we could be at 85 and a few more small pools would possibly get us to 90. At this point I'm glad for any sort of consensus, though I prefer just Segwit and no 2MB.
bitserve
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1121


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:27:36 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee

Bitcoin is not sinking, and bitcoin is not broken.

Sure there are various tweaks that can make bitcoin better, but there is no emergency death situation as you seem to want to argue.

If you think going from 90% to less than 40% market dominance is not an emergency...  And scaling, or better yet, this absurd drama has played some part for that decrease of market quota.

Also, Bitcoin is not broken, that's right... And I don't know enough about blockchains as I do about networks and most networks that exceed 80-90% capacity are bound to severe issues. We would need to reduce that congestion to 50% to be safe. Segwit will largely help in the long term, a blocksize increase can aleviate some of the issues right now.

Quote

I thought that I already got a consession from you that the first step is Segwit?  So, yeah the second and third steps might happen, but you gotta do the first step before you get to the second step... so even though the odds of the second step might be pretty decent, the second step is not inevitable, as you seem to continue to suggest .. and maybe you have some kind of misreading about what has to happen in order for the second step to take place... and in any event it does not seem to be inevitable.. so why do you keep getting ahead of yourself?  one step at a time, no?  

By the way, it looks like there are people who will be working on testing the second step and going through various kinds of work to carry out the second step, but that still does not make the second step inevitable, even if it has decent chances to occur.  

And, stop suggesting what I want, because I am only calling the situation as I see it, and this is not a matter about what I want or do not want, but instead a description of community dynamics and sentiment about the 2mb (second step) aspect of the segwit2x.

What miners are signaling is Segwit2x and that includes a compromise to a blocksize increase to 2MB. Are you suggesting that after getting the Segwit part, there will be enough support for a UASF to block the 2MB HF? Good luck with that.

Quote

I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this?  It seems pretty likely that the first step is going to occur, and even if the second step were to fall through, we still have the first step... so cross that bridge when you get there rather than getting worked up and suggesting that the whole thing might be a failure if the second step were not to occur.

It would be a disaster if after getting Segwit some people insist on an UASF to avoid the 2MB hard fork. Anyway, I am pretty confident that won't happen.

I don't want a UASF, I don't want a contentios SF or HF, I don't want EC/BU no matter that... I basically don't want anything that could result on a split.

Quote
Well, it looks like you are in luck and there appears to be a largely non-contentious solution on the horizon... right?  It looks like the current variation of segwit2x that allows a softforking of segwit first is gaining pretty likely success and support.


80.6% support on coindance 24 hour marker right now.

https://coin.dance/blocks


Yep, and that makes me REALLY happy. Maybe you don't want to celebrate it... But you will when you see the outcome. Wink



Heater
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 332
Merit: 270


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:29:00 AM

I'm fine with SegWit + 2mb, so long as the following 2mb hard fork code is tested extensively beforehand.
If there is going to be a software bug, it will be in SegWit not in the 2mb hard fork. The hard fork is just a few lines, SegWit is a massive and complex change and probably will have bugs.
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1747



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:32:07 AM

I'm fine with SegWit + 2mb, so long as the following 2mb hard fork code is tested extensively beforehand.

Miners wont HF with buggy code even the market will refuse it with overwhelming support. Jihan wants to rush it to try to be ahead of the waves of new people after sewitt. Those side-chains will scale Bitcoin beyond expectations wich making a HF unnecessary. Miners will still be making more than enough profits on-chain tx. If the code is ok and with full support than we they can land a save HF, i'm ok with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


$3000 inc  Smiley
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3052
Merit: 1657


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2017, 02:33:42 AM

So I was thinking about the price and how it relates to velocity of money. As we get more transactions and LN which will allow for very fast velocity of bitcoin, would that send the price up or down?
bitserve
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1121


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:45:55 AM

So I was thinking about the price and how it relates to velocity of money. As we get more transactions and LN which will allow for very fast velocity of bitcoin, would that send the price up or down?

Negligible if we only consider the velecity factor. I could get a number out of my ass, but if you want to calculate it you just need to take two figures:

1- The delay that most transactions have right now. Say 1 hour to be conservative?
2- The total of payments (withdraws from Bitcoin to FIAT) that happen in a day / 24

Or just get a rough idea of what those delayed payments represent, and that is the figure.

But then, inputs are also somewhat delayed. Considering the price is currently rising and not the opposite the net result means that instant transactions would mean more (1 hour equivalent) money in than out. So it could be argued that it would influence the price in a (completely negligible) positive way.

Now, if we consider what influence other factors like media attention for having finally solved this absurd drama, or how Bitcoin recovers its dominance as a payment method and not just store of value.... well... thats not negligeable.

Usually when someone refers to velocity of money, it doesn't mean the (almost negligible) time the transactions needs for settling but this:

Quote
It can refer to the income velocity of money, which is the frequency at which the average same unit of currency is used to purchase newly domestically-produced goods and services within a given time period. In other words, it is the number of times one unit of money is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time.

And that has more to do with what usage people do with their money/bitcoins/whatever.

TL;DR: Negligible. Irrelevant.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2212
Merit: 2510


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:49:09 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee

Bitcoin is not sinking, and bitcoin is not broken.

Sure there are various tweaks that can make bitcoin better, but there is no emergency death situation as you seem to want to argue.

If you think going from 90% to less than 40% market dominance is not an emergency...  And scaling, or better yet, this absurd drama has played some part for that decrease of market quota.

Yep.. you are getting caught up on irrelevant facts.  Bitcoin has been going up in amazing ways during this whole time, and the fact that various alts, including ethereum and ripple, were pumped 2x to 50x more than bitcoin does not cause a logical conclusion that bitcoin is broken but instead some kind of false narrative that you seem to want to buy into... and measure "success" of bitcoin based on term and pumping that has been created by others.

You seem to be getting distracted by bullshit and nonsense.




Also, Bitcoin is not broken, that's right... And I don't know enough about blockchains as I do about networks and most networks that reach 80% capacity are bound to severe issues. We would need to reduce that congestion to 50% to be safe. Segwit will largely help in the long term, a blocksize increase can aleviate some of the issues right now.

Look at you.  Admitting that you do not know, but at the same time prescribing something based on whatever you know about networks.

Do you know about the technology of seg wit?  Do you know about spam attacks?  do you now about economics and market behavior?


Quote

I thought that I already got a consession from you that the first step is Segwit?  So, yeah the second and third steps might happen, but you gotta do the first step before you get to the second step... so even though the odds of the second step might be pretty decent, the second step is not inevitable, as you seem to continue to suggest .. and maybe you have some kind of misreading about what has to happen in order for the second step to take place... and in any event it does not seem to be inevitable.. so why do you keep getting ahead of yourself?  one step at a time, no?  

By the way, it looks like there are people who will be working on testing the second step and going through various kinds of work to carry out the second step, but that still does not make the second step inevitable, even if it has decent chances to occur.  

And, stop suggesting what I want, because I am only calling the situation as I see it, and this is not a matter about what I want or do not want, but instead a description of community dynamics and sentiment about the 2mb (second step) aspect of the segwit2x.

What miners are signaling is Segwit2x and that includes a compromise to a blocksize increase to 2MB. Are you suggesting that after getting the Segwit part, there will be enough support for a UASF to block the 2MB HF? Good luck with that.

I don't how it is going to play out, and I already stated what I think.  I think that there is consensus to get segwit first in the form of a softfork, and that is what is seeming to excite the market and the signaling at the moment.  I don't know how the rest plays out because I do not know how the results of the code testing is going to play out and I do not know the level of consensus that will be sustainable in reference to the 2mb aspect of the compound question...

Yeah people seem to agree about the first part of the compound question and that seems to be what is causing the signaling and the market excitement, but still a question regarding how the second part is going out play out, no?




Quote

I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this?  It seems pretty likely that the first step is going to occur, and even if the second step were to fall through, we still have the first step... so cross that bridge when you get there rather than getting worked up and suggesting that the whole thing might be a failure if the second step were not to occur.

It would be a disaster if after getting Segwit some people insist on an UASF to avoid the 2MB hard fork. Anyway, I am pretty confident that won't happen.

I don't know if any kind of USAF would be required.  We get segwit going and then there is not enough support for the rest.  Why would a UASD be needed in order to block the 2mb part from getting activated?  It seems that if there is not enough support for the 2mb aspect then it would not get implemented, right?



I don't want a UASF, I don't want a contentios SF or HF, I don't want EC/BU no matter that... I basically don't want anything that could result on a split.

Why does it matter what you want?  The situation is going to play out however, it wants.  Why do people continue to want to project what they want?  Either you like what bitcoin is and you invest or you do not like it and you invest in something else.. why does the rest regarding what you want matter?




Quote
Well, it looks like you are in luck and there appears to be a largely non-contentious solution on the horizon... right?  It looks like the current variation of segwit2x that allows a softforking of segwit first is gaining pretty likely success and support.


80.6% support on coindance 24 hour marker right now.

https://coin.dance/blocks


Yep, and that makes me REALLY happy. Maybe you don't want to celebrate it... But you will when you see the outcome. Wink



I don't know what the fuck you are talking about?  I see the segwit2x support and it appears like it has a good chance of going to the next step.  It seems to be a very bullish development.  I am invested in bitcoin, so I like bullish developments because I become more wealthy as the price goes up, as long as my coins don't get hacked and as long as I don't sell too many of them.   Wink Cheesy
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1049



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 03:23:55 AM



so we already got a lot of folks out there screaming that segwit2x is a kind of package, when the first part of segwit seems to be agreed upon; however, the second part of the deal (the 2mb aspect) seems to have contingencies.  So, if it ends up that the second part does not go through, then then a large number of folks will be whining that Core broke the agreement, blah blah blah.. and the 2mb aspect was supposed to be "guaranteed", just like (and maybe even worse) they were mischaracterizing and whining about the Hong Kong agreement. 

Where am I going wrong in my thinking, here?

It's a package deal SegWit first followed by 2MB later. Those signalling are agreeing to activate SegWit and also support a later hard fork to increase the block size.

Now it is true that major players could lie and later retract their support for 2MB sort of a "ha ha I got mine" approach to negotiation but this would be utterly destructive to trust and kill any chance for future upgrades to the protocol for the foreseeable future.

You can't build a consensus on falsehood. Once commitments are made they should be honored. Otherwise it is very bad news for all of us as the consensus system will become nonfunctional.
elite3000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1074
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 03:27:18 AM

I don't care who wins, I just want this discussion ended, so there will be less fuel for the FUDsters and people will invest more.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2212
Merit: 2510


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 03:52:20 AM




so we already got a lot of folks out there screaming that segwit2x is a kind of package, when the first part of segwit seems to be agreed upon; however, the second part of the deal (the 2mb aspect) seems to have contingencies.  So, if it ends up that the second part does not go through, then then a large number of folks will be whining that Core broke the agreement, blah blah blah.. and the 2mb aspect was supposed to be "guaranteed", just like (and maybe even worse) they were mischaracterizing and whining about the Hong Kong agreement. 

Where am I going wrong in my thinking, here?

It's a package deal SegWit first followed by 2MB later. Those signalling are agreeing to activate SegWit and also support a later hard fork to increase the block size.

Now it is true that major players could lie and later retract their support for 2MB sort of a "ha ha I got mine" approach to negotiation but this would be utterly destructive to trust and kill any chance for future upgrades to the protocol for the foreseeable future.

Your framework seems to be wrong.


This is not a situation about being disingenuous later and withdrawing from the agreement.


The first part of the agreement (implement segwit) does not have any contingencies.  The first part is to implement a softfork of segwit, and almost everyone seems to agree to that first part.

The second part of the agreement involving 2mb and a hardfork has at least two contingencies.  The first part of the contingencies is the testing out of the 2mb code, and the second part is having consensus to implement that portion.  There might even be a third part which is whether it is better to implement the second part (if it is done) as a hardfork or as a softfork.  Of course a hardfork is not too problematic when you have 100% consensus, but we already know that both the 2mb portion and the hardfork portion are filled with folks who believe that neither of those are necessary... so both of those components might lose support along the way, so it is not a matter of being disingenuous at all.  You can act in good faith, but if the 2mb does not test out well and does not achieve consensus and if a hardfork seems too problematic, then the second part might not go through.  That is not disingenuousness.



You can't build a consensus on falsehood. Once commitments are made they should be honored.

Do you understand the concept of a compound question?

Do you understand the concept of contingencies?

You keep trying to suggest that the situation is cut and dry, and it is not.  There is both a compound subject matter and there are contingencies that are connected with the second part of the implementation that have not been worked out and are subject to mustering support for the testing and for the outcome of the testing leading to the implementation of the second part.


Otherwise it is very bad news for all of us as the consensus system will become nonfunctional.

I doubt it.  There will still be progress being made.  Why would you conclude that it is a bad thing that the second part might not get implemented?  If the second part cannot achieve consensus at a later date, then it is likely not worthy of being implemented...and anyhow it should not be easy to just make a whole bunch of unvetted changes to bitcoin... if changes are going to be made, then there needs to be consensus about whatever new code is being implemented. 

In regards to segwit, the code is already there and already ready to go live... in the matter of the 2mb aspect the code is not there, and I am a bit unclear whether a hardfork would be the necessary way of accomplishing the matter in order to ensure that there is consensus about how to implement the 2mb if it does get implemented.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2212
Merit: 2510


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 03:54:07 AM

I don't care who wins, I just want this discussion ended, so there will be less fuel for the FUDsters and people will invest more.


Bitcoin is a decentralized system, so there is always going to be disagreement and there is always going to be battles and there is always going to be folks attempting to sabotage bitcoin in various ways.  The higher the value, the more battles.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1049



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 04:25:48 AM


You can't build a consensus on falsehood. Once commitments are made they should be honored.

Do you understand the concept of a compound question?

Do you understand the concept of contingencies?

You keep trying to suggest that the situation is cut and dry, and it is not.  There is both a compound subject matter and there are contingencies that are connected with the second part of the implementation that have not been worked out and are subject to mustering support for the testing and for the outcome of the testing leading to the implementation of the second part.


The miners who are signalling NYA should abide by their agreement to support both SegWit and a later unspecified 2MB hard fork. This is essentially a contract if an unenforceable one and following through with ones agreements is necessary to achieve anything in a consensus system.

That said Core had not agreed to 2MB hard fork so they are not bound to this like the NYA signalling folks are.
Thus there will still be a need for further negotiations.

Core will insist on their being the source of code updates and their typical 6 month testing period for new code. The miners will want a fork with some especially Bitmain wanting to use non-Core code and faster roll out time.

The two sides will be so close at this point that fracturing the network as opposed to coming to some kind of agreement would be silly.
Pages: « 1 ... 17076 17077 17078 17079 17080 17081 17082 17083 17084 17085 17086 17087 17088 17089 17090 17091 17092 17093 17094 17095 17096 17097 17098 17099 17100 17101 17102 17103 17104 17105 17106 17107 17108 17109 17110 17111 17112 17113 17114 17115 17116 17117 17118 17119 17120 17121 17122 17123 17124 17125 [17126] 17127 17128 17129 17130 17131 17132 17133 17134 17135 17136 17137 17138 17139 17140 17141 17142 17143 17144 17145 17146 17147 17148 17149 17150 17151 17152 17153 17154 17155 17156 17157 17158 17159 17160 17161 17162 17163 17164 17165 17166 17167 17168 17169 17170 17171 17172 17173 17174 17175 17176 ... 26492 »
  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!