Ibian
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 09:28:51 PM |
|
I do not consider increasing blocks a good solution. It does not scale while the negative consequences for decentralisation are unclear. Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’, I support not hastily moving away from this core concept just to solve a current - perceived as immediate - issue. There is too much at stake.
Big data centers will always do better than hobby miners no matter what the code looks like. This whole fear of mining centralization is not only unfounded as it has been happening from day one, and will continue to do so, it is stupid. So let's all just use PayPal and be done with Bitcoin. It already performs much better as a currency system, yeah? I'll go on record to say that if Bitcoin's transactions are restricted to on-chain only, then regardless of block size, PayPal will ALWAYS be faster, cheaper, and more efficient. But inflate that block size to your heart's desire. How about you address the argument for once. And how about you address the fact that bigger blocks and on-chain transactions alone will never allow Bitcoin to compete with PayPal, Visa, MC, or any other digital currency based system. Not even in the short term. That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now. We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.
|
|
|
|
d_eddie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3330
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 09:30:50 PM |
|
Am I understanding it correctly that LN only works with segwit?
Why would it work only with segwit? I see no technical reason, but segwit adoption would certainly help LN to make opening/closing LN channels cheaper. LN as it is now depends on transaction malleability being fixed. That's why it was designed with segwit as a prerequisite. So yes, Ibian, you are correct as far as the real current Lightning Network goes.
|
|
|
|
keyboard warrior
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 09:31:39 PM |
|
Can your family say no after you are dead?
Dunno. Don't care. I'll be kinda dead. They can make Christmas decorations out of a bucket of my gonads for all I care. So you... don't care how your family feels about it. Alright. I doubt anyone will want his organs. They want young peoples organs for transplants. Old peoples are worn out and won't last as long, and I doubt gentlemand is a spotty school kid.
|
|
|
|
Ibian
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 09:32:44 PM |
|
Am I understanding it correctly that LN only works with segwit?
Why would it work only with segwit? I see no technical reason, but segwit adoption would certainly help LN to make opening/closing LN channels cheaper. LN as it is now depends on transaction malleability being fixed. That's why it was designed with segwit as a prerequisite. So yes, Ibian, you are correct as far as the real current Lightning Network goes. Well. Shit.
|
|
|
|
|
gentlemand
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 09:41:51 PM |
|
I doubt anyone will want his organs. They want young peoples organs for transplants. Old peoples are worn out and won't last as long, and I doubt gentlemand is a spotty school kid.
Shocking. I am a sprightly 40something with plenty of lead left in my pencil. Apart from my lungs, heart, corneas, skin, bowels and a few other things many people would be ecstatic to have my body parts floating around inside them.
|
|
|
|
AlcoHoDL
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2464
Merit: 4530
Addicted to HoDLing!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 09:51:09 PM |
|
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE! Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin Just replace Safety with Throughput. Be patient, people! The scaling problem will be solved, and it will be solved in the right way, and for the long term. Nobody wants a temporary "patch" that requires a hard fork and compromises decentralization. When there are valid reasons to increase the block size, it will be done. Except that's not even an analogy, that's just replacing one word with another in an unrelated sentence. Also define "valid reason". We dislike sophism around here. It's not a sophism. The key word here is "liberty". Are you willing to compromise Bitcoin's decentralization by HARD-FORKING it to a bigger block size, so that you can buy your coffee at Starbucks and keep a permanent record of it in the blockchain? Bitcoin's enemies will still exist, and will still spam the network. Then what? Increase the block size even more, to accumulate more garbage? Another hard fork? Where does it end? What's needed is a solution that is inherently scalable by design, such as the Lightning Network (or better ones that will surely come). It just doesn't make sense to do a hard fork that merely alleviates the problem temporarily while compromising decentralization, when a much more elegant solution does exist, has already been tested and is almost ready to implement. After LN is implemented, there may be a need for a moderate increase in block size. That's the "valid reason" you are asking. A reason that comes from scientific method, not from a thoughtless "bigger is better" mentality. The blockchain simply cannot hold every little insignificant transaction that is ever made. It is a waste of resources and totally inefficient. Back in the days when transaction volume was low/moderate, this could be tolerated. Not anymore. Have you kept every little note you've ever made in every little piece of paper since you were born? Do you keep all the shopping lists you make every time you go to the supermarket in a log book for future reference? Should every blackboard on every classroom be made to permanently preserve everything that's written on it? There has to be a garbage collection mechanism in Bitcoin. We've reached a point where the garbage has become too much for the network to keep storing. The solution is NOT to make more room for even more garbage, but to find a way to destroy them and keep them out of the network. That's what LN does. Thousands of "coffee-sized" transactions aggregated to a single transaction that only takes a small fraction of a block instead of flooding the network. No loss of significance of information, because such information is not significant. No hard fork needed! Want to do an important transaction on-chain? You can, just like today. And you will pay much less fees than today, because LN will free the network from all those millions of petty cash transactions that would otherwise flood it. Sorry for the long post. It just infuriates me when people fail to see the moon and keep staring at the finger pointing to it...
|
|
|
|
J. Cooper
Full Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 294
Merit: 125
Alea iacta est
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 09:52:12 PM |
|
Can your family say no after you are dead?
Dunno. Don't care. I'll be kinda dead. They can make Christmas decorations out of a bucket of my gonads for all I care. So you... don't care how your family feels about it. Alright. I doubt anyone will want his organs. They want young peoples organs for transplants. Old peoples are worn out and won't last as long, and I doubt gentlemand is a spotty school kid. Well if you are unfortunate enough to be in a life threatening situation to actually be in the need of donor organs, you may not even have a choice. Atleast where I come from there are hundreds of people on waiting lists. Oh it is coming. And when it comes we will light up the world.
|
|
|
|
Ibian
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 09:58:51 PM |
|
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE! Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin Just replace Safety with Throughput. Be patient, people! The scaling problem will be solved, and it will be solved in the right way, and for the long term. Nobody wants a temporary "patch" that requires a hard fork and compromises decentralization. When there are valid reasons to increase the block size, it will be done. Except that's not even an analogy, that's just replacing one word with another in an unrelated sentence. Also define "valid reason". We dislike sophism around here. It's not a sophism. The key word here is "liberty". Are you willing to compromise Bitcoin's decentralization by HARD-FORKING it to a bigger block size, so that you can buy your coffee at Starbucks and keep a permanent record of it in the blockchain? Bitcoin's enemies will still exist, and will still spam the network. Then what? Increase the block size even more, to accumulate more garbage? Another hard fork? Where does it end? What's needed is a solution that is inherently scalable by design, such as the Lightning Network (or better ones that will surely come). It just doesn't make sense to do a hard fork that merely alleviates the problem temporarily while compromising decentralization, when a much more elegant solution does exist, has already been tested and is almost ready to implement. After LN is implemented, there may be a need for a moderate increase in block size. That's the "valid reason" you are asking. A reason that comes from scientific method, not from a thoughtless "bigger is better" mentality. The blockchain simply cannot hold every little insignificant transaction that is ever made. It is a waste of resources and totally inefficient. Back in the days when transaction volume was low/moderate, this could be tolerated. Not anymore. Have you kept every little note you've ever made in every little piece of paper since you were born? Do you keep all the shopping lists you make every time you go to the supermarket in a log book for future reference? Should every blackboard on every classroom be made to permanently preserve everything that's written on it? There has to be a garbage collection mechanism in Bitcoin. We've reached a point where the garbage has become too much for the network to keep storing. The solution is NOT to make more room for even more garbage, but to find a way to destroy them and keep them out of the network. That's what LN does. Thousands of "coffee-sized" transactions aggregated to a single transaction that only takes a small fraction of a block instead of flooding the network. No loss of significance of information, because such information is not significant. No hard fork needed! Want to do an important transaction on-chain? You can, just like today. And you will pay much less fees than today, because LN will free the network from all those millions of petty cash transactions that would otherwise flood it. Sorry for the long post. It just infuriates me when people fail to see the moon and keep staring at the finger pointing to it... I have yet to see anyone explain how increasing the blocksize increases centralization. It seems to be some idea that just took hold and that everyone believes in, because they believe in it. And it doesn't end. There will always be a need for improvements because there will always be competitors ready to take over if we stagnate. stagnation is death. Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is.
|
|
|
|
Dabs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:01:36 PM |
|
... so you can get a share of them by contributing your idle CPU time. [...]
Oh! Stupid Satoshi, you were so wrong. When GPUs came out by 2011, ... Yes.
|
|
|
|
mymenace
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061
Smile
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:01:56 PM |
|
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE! Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin Just replace Safety with Throughput. Be patient, people! The scaling problem will be solved, and it will be solved in the right way, and for the long term. Nobody wants a temporary "patch" that requires a hard fork and compromises decentralization. When there are valid reasons to increase the block size, it will be done. Except that's not even an analogy, that's just replacing one word with another in an unrelated sentence. Also define "valid reason". We dislike sophism around here. It's not a sophism. The key word here is "liberty". Are you willing to compromise Bitcoin's decentralization by HARD-FORKING it to a bigger block size, so that you can buy your coffee at Starbucks and keep a permanent record of it in the blockchain? Bitcoin's enemies will still exist, and will still spam the network. Then what? Increase the block size even more, to accumulate more garbage? Another hard fork? Where does it end? What's needed is a solution that is inherently scalable by design, such as the Lightning Network (or better ones that will surely come). It just doesn't make sense to do a hard fork that merely alleviates the problem temporarily while compromising decentralization, when a much more elegant solution does exist, has already been tested and is almost ready to implement. After LN is implemented, there may be a need for a moderate increase in block size. That's the "valid reason" you are asking. A reason that comes from scientific method, not from a thoughtless "bigger is better" mentality. The blockchain simply cannot hold every little insignificant transaction that is ever made. It is a waste of resources and totally inefficient. Back in the days when transaction volume was low/moderate, this could be tolerated. Not anymore. Have you kept every little note you've ever made in every little piece of paper since you were born? Do you keep all the shopping lists you make every time you go to the supermarket in a log book for future reference? Should every blackboard on every classroom be made to permanently preserve everything that's written on it? There has to be a garbage collection mechanism in Bitcoin. We've reached a point where the garbage has become too much for the network to keep storing. The solution is NOT to make more room for even more garbage, but to find a way to destroy them and keep them out of the network. That's what LN does. Thousands of "coffee-sized" transactions aggregated to a single transaction that only takes a small fraction of a block instead of flooding the network. No loss of significance of information, because such information is not significant. No hard fork needed! Want to do an important transaction on-chain? You can, just like today. And you will pay much less fees than today, because LN will free the network from all those millions of petty cash transactions that would otherwise flood it. Sorry for the long post. It just infuriates me when people fail to see the moon and keep staring at the finger pointing to it... I have yet to see anyone explain how increasing the blocksize increases centralization. It seems to be some idea that just took hold and that everyone believes in, because they believe in it. And it doesn't end. There will always be a need for improvements because there will always be competitors ready to take over if we stagnate. stagnation is death. Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is. When a small group can change the narrative and code, it can then happen anytime - centralize to gain control 1) Find a talking point that is critical to the object in question 2) Promote Fear 3) Provide alternative 4) Go ahead with alternative 5) All the while more fear blocksize debate has been going on for 7 years same tool is used to legalize spying on you monitor money transactions mandatory vaccines etc etc etc nearly everything you do there is a law because of fear classic socialism it is not the better alternative that is the narrative the fear is the narrative (busted)
|
|
|
|
Ibian
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:05:28 PM |
|
BIG BLOCKER nutjobs REEEEEEEEE! Suggest a better (implementable in the real world) alternative for getting more throughput. Any of you. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin Just replace Safety with Throughput. Be patient, people! The scaling problem will be solved, and it will be solved in the right way, and for the long term. Nobody wants a temporary "patch" that requires a hard fork and compromises decentralization. When there are valid reasons to increase the block size, it will be done. Except that's not even an analogy, that's just replacing one word with another in an unrelated sentence. Also define "valid reason". We dislike sophism around here. It's not a sophism. The key word here is "liberty". Are you willing to compromise Bitcoin's decentralization by HARD-FORKING it to a bigger block size, so that you can buy your coffee at Starbucks and keep a permanent record of it in the blockchain? Bitcoin's enemies will still exist, and will still spam the network. Then what? Increase the block size even more, to accumulate more garbage? Another hard fork? Where does it end? What's needed is a solution that is inherently scalable by design, such as the Lightning Network (or better ones that will surely come). It just doesn't make sense to do a hard fork that merely alleviates the problem temporarily while compromising decentralization, when a much more elegant solution does exist, has already been tested and is almost ready to implement. After LN is implemented, there may be a need for a moderate increase in block size. That's the "valid reason" you are asking. A reason that comes from scientific method, not from a thoughtless "bigger is better" mentality. The blockchain simply cannot hold every little insignificant transaction that is ever made. It is a waste of resources and totally inefficient. Back in the days when transaction volume was low/moderate, this could be tolerated. Not anymore. Have you kept every little note you've ever made in every little piece of paper since you were born? Do you keep all the shopping lists you make every time you go to the supermarket in a log book for future reference? Should every blackboard on every classroom be made to permanently preserve everything that's written on it? There has to be a garbage collection mechanism in Bitcoin. We've reached a point where the garbage has become too much for the network to keep storing. The solution is NOT to make more room for even more garbage, but to find a way to destroy them and keep them out of the network. That's what LN does. Thousands of "coffee-sized" transactions aggregated to a single transaction that only takes a small fraction of a block instead of flooding the network. No loss of significance of information, because such information is not significant. No hard fork needed! Want to do an important transaction on-chain? You can, just like today. And you will pay much less fees than today, because LN will free the network from all those millions of petty cash transactions that would otherwise flood it. Sorry for the long post. It just infuriates me when people fail to see the moon and keep staring at the finger pointing to it... I have yet to see anyone explain how increasing the blocksize increases centralization. It seems to be some idea that just took hold and that everyone believes in, because they believe in it. And it doesn't end. There will always be a need for improvements because there will always be competitors ready to take over if we stagnate. stagnation is death. Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is. When a small group can change the narrative and code, it can then happen anytime - centralize to gain control 1) Find a talking point that is critical to the object in question 2) Promote Fear 3) Provide alternative 4) Go ahead with alternative 5) All the while more fear blocksize debate has been going on for 7 years What are you trying to address here?
|
|
|
|
El duderino_
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2604
Merit: 12744
BTC + Crossfit, living life.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:06:47 PM |
|
Breaking 24777$ prediction game FINAL LIST 27/12/2017 bikerleszno ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 29/12/2018 cAPSLOCK ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 30/12/2017 digithusiast ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 31/12/2017 Raja_MBZ ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 01/01/2018 elg ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 02/01/2018 wachtwoord ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 03/01/2018 JimboToronto ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 04/01/2018 d_eddie ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 05/01/2018 BTCMILLIONAIRE ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 06/01/2018 HanvanBitcoin ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) 07/01/2018 ghandi 08/01/2018 savetherainforrest 09/01/2018 explorer 10/01/2018 bicoinpsycho 11/01/2018 Bitcoinaire 12/01/2018 speedwheel 13/01/2018 undeadbitcoiner 14/01/2018 northypole 15/01/2018 ivomm 16/01/2018 maca068 17/01/2018 bitcoinvest 18/01/2018 last of the v8s 19/01/2018 mfort312 20/01/2018 1982dre 21/01/2018 flamast2 22/01/2018 RealMachasm 23/01/2018 willope 24/01/2018 kartala 25/01/2018 orpington 26/01/2018 rolling 27/01/2018 LFC_bitcoin 28/01/2018 jojo69 29/01/2018 CristiTCM 30/01/2018 rayX12 31/01/2018 realsteelboy 01/02/2018 twocorn 02/02/2018 mancroofer 03/02/2018 True Myth 04/02/2018 poolminor 05/02/2018 itod 06/02/2018 scheptan 07/02/2018 vapourminer 08/02/2018 alexeft 09/02/2018 siera 10/02/2018 AlcoHoDL 11/02/2018 Dunkelheit667 12/02/2018 yonton 13/02/2018 Wekkel 14/02/2018 Thekool1s 15/02/2018 starmman 16/02/2018 Globb0 17/02/2018 leveldkrypto 18/02/2018 olesh 19/02/2018 BitCoinBurger 20/02/2018 Paashaas 21/02/2018 flynn 22/02/2018 icygreen 23/02/2018 erisdiscordia 24/02/2018 phil_s 25/02/2018 sirazimuth 26/02/2018 Arriemoller 27/02/2018 yonton 28/02/2018 Muttley 01/03/2018 bones261 02/03/2018 heater 03/03/2018 soullyG 04/03/2018 InvoKing 05/03/2018 Notme 06/03/2018 sa_94 07/03/2018 NUFCrichard 08/03/2018 Imbatman 09/03/2018 Roombot 10/03/2018 STT 11/03/2018 badream 13/03/2018 erre 14/03/2018 julian071 15/03/2018 podyx 17/03/2018 fragout 18/03/2018 fabiorem 21/03/2018 dakustaking76 23/03/2018 nikauforest 31/03/2018 vroom 01/04/2018 somac. 02/04/2018 kurious 04/04/2018 fluidjax 05/04/2018 bitcoinbunny 08/04/2018 tyler1890 10/04/2018 ludwigvon 11/04/2018 hairymaclairy 16/04/2018 practicaldreamer 18/04/2018 free-bit.co.in 27/04/2018 drbrockoin 01/05/2018 sprinkles 02/06/2018 oblox 07/07/2018 IntroVert 03/08/2018 toxic2040 28/08/2018 bitserve 15/10/2018 Yefi 05/11/2018 mikenz 31/12/2018 melman2002 01/01/2019 Spaceman_Spiff_Original 12/02/2019 FractalUniverse 21/04/2019 gentlemand 20/02/2020 romneymoney 18/12/2021 luckygenough56 UPDATE AND GOOD LUCK
|
|
|
|
mike4001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:11:24 PM |
|
Meanwhile in Bitcoin-price-land 17k broken again. 850 BTC left for 18k @Bitstamp 1150 BTC left for 19k 1850 BTC left for 20k (though this shifts obviously once the price rises) ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) EDIT: 100 BTC sellwall at 17,1k just eaten in 30 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Rosewater Foundation
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:16:23 PM |
|
I doubt anyone will want his organs. They want young peoples organs for transplants. Old peoples are worn out and won't last as long, and I doubt gentlemand is a spotty school kid.
Shocking. I am a sprightly 40something with plenty of lead left in my pencil. Apart from my lungs, heart, corneas, skin, bowels and a few other things many people would be ecstatic to have my body parts floating around inside them. That may be so, but your pelvis will always belong to us. PS. Can I call dibs on that corduroy pillow?
|
|
|
|
gentlemand
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:27:08 PM |
|
That may be so, but your pelvis will always belong to us.
PS. Can I call dibs on that corduroy pillow?
What a memory. It's going to cost rather a lot to haul it to you but I'll leave the shipping in my will. Or medical file.
|
|
|
|
Rosewater Foundation
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:30:08 PM |
|
That may be so, but your pelvis will always belong to us.
PS. Can I call dibs on that corduroy pillow?
What a memory. It's going to cost rather a lot to haul it to you but I'll leave the shipping in my will. Or medical file. I've been glued to this wall for almost 4 years. For better and/or worse. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
gentlemand
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:31:14 PM |
|
That may be so, but your pelvis will always belong to us.
PS. Can I call dibs on that corduroy pillow?
What a memory. It's going to cost rather a lot to haul it to you but I'll leave the shipping in my will. Or medical file. I've been glued to this wall for almost 4 years. For better and/or worse. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) You may even receive a surprise body part for a loved one.
|
|
|
|
Rosewater Foundation
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:32:27 PM |
|
That may be so, but your pelvis will always belong to us.
PS. Can I call dibs on that corduroy pillow?
What a memory. It's going to cost rather a lot to haul it to you but I'll leave the shipping in my will. Or medical file. I've been glued to this wall for almost 4 years. For better and/or worse. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) You may even receive a surprise body part for a loved one. For better then. Splendid!
|
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 06, 2018, 10:33:25 PM |
|
Oh it is coming. And when it comes we will light up the world.
Even then I am sure that all the bigblocker trolls will remain here. If having their own fork did not satisfy them nothing will -except of course destroying bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|