things are reaching a boiling point

[iCEBREAKER]

ZOMG things are reaching a boiling point!!!!!!!1111!!

i dont think this is a joke11!!!11!!ONEELEVENTYONE 

 

( *FALSE SENSE OF URGENCY INTENSIFIES, IS STILL FALSE* )

[Marma Kalari]

The signalling is going to be 100% segwit soon I'm sure. Test them out, see which is best then switch. If it's done with Litecoins it'll be done with bitcoins.

How do you figure out that segwit will be taking over,how do you evaluate these things as i am not sure how to verify those,what i know is litecoin has already activated segwit in its testnet in January and i am glad to see the price of litecoin moving up atleast now ,do they run the segwit in testnet before activating,since i am not aware of these i would like to know about this. 

[iamnotback]

While some of you waste your time trying to figure out what all the irrelevant noise of signaling on Bitcoin doesn't mean, the reality is something that will require re-orienting your thinking.

Bitcoin will never scale without Litecoin. No significant protocol changes will ever be made to Bitcoin. Bitcoiners need to get this nailed into their thick skulls. Read the following:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663070.msg18424568#msg18424568

Bitcoin will achieve maximum value by enabling SegWit on Litecoin. There is no other option going forward. The above linked post explains why in detail.

Bitcoin was designed by Satoshi such that the vested interests would be that no one can change the protocol. No change is ever coming to Bitcoin. The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can get unstuck from the mud. Those of you who continue to facilitate this illusion of change coming to Bitcoin's protocol are obstacles in the way of progress.

Altcoins are good competitors to Bitcoin and I think it just needs it.

Incorrect. Most of the speculation value from altcoins ends up in BTC, not in the altcoins. Altcoins are complementary to BTC. The reason BTC percentage of market cap is diving lately is because Bitcoiners are trying to force protocol changes to Bitcoin, instead of doing it on Litecoin, and so no progress is being made at all. Stuck in the mud.

Bitcoiners need to re-orient their thinking. Read my prior post and click the link and read more.

[gentlemand]

Bitcoin will never scale without Litecoin. No significant protocol changes will ever be made to Bitcoin. Bitcoiners need to get this nailed into their thick skulls. Read the following:

Bitcoin will achieve maximum value by enabling SegWit on Litecoin. There is no other option going forward. The above linked post explains why in detail.

How would this be possible without some type of protocol change that allows stuff such as atomic swaps? Without that the chains are stuck as separate entities.

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin will never scale without Litecoin. No significant protocol changes will ever be made to Bitcoin. Bitcoiners need to get this nailed into their thick skulls. Read the following:

Bitcoin will achieve maximum value by enabling SegWit on Litecoin. There is no other option going forward. The above linked post explains why in detail.

How would this be possible without some type of protocol change that allows stuff such as atomic swaps? Without that the chains are stuck as separate entities.

You apparently don't understand finance. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

You guys don't read all of my posts, thus you force me to post copies of my posts all over the place:

Once I realized Bitcoin is never going to allow any major changes to its protocol, then I started to think about what would Blockstream do. That is when I was ripe for realizing what the LTC spike in price is probably about. Of course most of the Bitcoiners are stuck on this concept that Bitcoin has to scale, which I have realized is entirely unnecessary (and you still need to understand this) because Litecoin can scale yet Bitcoin will still capture the lion's share of the value of the scaling of Litecoin.

I explained why days ago. But y'all don't pay attention.

Any way, I don't mind providing you the link above.

Bitcoin is a currency not money.

Incorrect. You don't understand finance. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Read this.

Bitcoin is not a medium-of-exchange. It is a unit-of-account and a store-of-value. Litecoin will be the medium-of-exchange. Small blocks will make Bitcoin for settlement amongst power brokers of finance.

[JanpriX]

Well, at some point, they need to leave the middle ground and make a decision. I think it will be better if this will made as soon as possible. People are getting tired because of these and it will not be healthy if they will drag this for so long. Or maybe, they are just playing with both BU and SegWit while at the end of the day, nothing will happen? 

[Zarathustra]

Who ever mines BU will lose all the money they spent on mining it. So that 50% threshold means nothing. Any fork of Bitcoin will be attacked ruthlessly by those who have enough resources to destroy any miners foolish enough to try.

The large miners/pools know this. The April's fool joke is on anyone who believes that signaling means anything on Bitcoin. It doesn't.

I've awoken from my inactivity period to take my part in this pursuit.
Although economically we all understand BU has and never shall have any standing, a fork is incumbent and it's outcome is still obscure.
Core hasn't been keeping the system updated, and their refusal of further updates and generally increasing the Block size is alarming and drives support away. The bitcoin unlimited bound failure doesn't lift any responsibility away from the core devs...
That said, I am here to pledge my computing power and spare time onto the complete disruption of the forked blockchain, transaction, nodes and miners. I will play my role, when the day comes I expect others to join me.

[iamnotback]

Well, at some point, they need to leave the middle ground and make a decision. I think it will be better if this will made as soon as possible. People are getting tired because of these and it will not be healthy if they will drag this for so long. Or maybe, they are just playing with both BU and SegWit while at the end of the day, nothing will happen?  

There will never be a middle ground.

Correct, nothing will ever change on Bitcoin. But Litecoin...

Core hasn't been keeping the system updated, and their refusal of further updates and generally increasing the Block size is alarming and drives support away. The bitcoin unlimited bound failure doesn't lift any responsibility away from the core devs..

Entirely incorrect.

Bitcoin will never be updated and doesn't need to be updated.

Please read my posts in this thread and click the links do some extensive reading and thinking. You will learn about the absolute importance of Litecoin for Bitcoin's future.

Until you re-orient your thinking to the reality, you will be hopelessly confused.

No disrespect intended. I am trying to guide you to the truth, but you have to be willing to click and read a lot.

Core hasn't been keeping the system updated,

There's a very steady stream of updates from Core. They've also provided the protocol change that they think is best. It's sitting there waiting to be used right now.

Waiting to be used on Litecoin. Never will be activated on Bitcoin. Satoshi designed the game theory of Bitcoin so that the vested interests would never be able to agree on modifying the protocol. Otherwise Bitcoin would have no value as power broker money. Please learn that the tail does not wag the dog in finance. Go read please.

[gentlemand]

Core hasn't been keeping the system updated,

There's a very steady stream of updates from Core. They've also provided the protocol change that they think is best. It's sitting there waiting to be used right now.

[Zarathustra]

~

The scaling issue shouldn't be outright dismissed. I'm basing this conclusion on the huge amount of comment's I've read regarding this ordeal, which I know aren't the best resource but offer a wide scope and some times decently stated points. Furthermore what convinced me the most among my research is this video: https://youtu.be/rZi86_ovB3Y which basically outlines the fork as a mere attack on the network rather than an economically lucrative move.
As I see it, the more shaken the community and the market, the more their (The malignant Illuminaty's) goal is achieved.

I do comprehend to the extent I can, that forks comport a variety of issues and are technically, economically and socially inconceivable. Nevertheless the whole argument of "Satoshi's design" doesn't quite stand when stood in opposition of possible government or corporate interests. An investment in view of destabilizing the concept rather than anything else.

Just to add: I admit my superficial knowledge and ignorance of in depth implications. It will be my pleasure to do some more research especially in your quality posts.

[r0ach]

My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Bitcoin is a currency not money.  If you don't agree, YOU don't understand finance.  It's a Rube Goldberg machine and nothing more.  No random bullshit made up of completely arbitary variables created by humans is money.  Money represents goods and services or the ability to do work.  It's required to be connected to some type of commodity or energy resource if you're abstracting the system away from barter, otherwise the system is easily gamed and implodes as always.

Bitcoin is not a real commodity, it's a poor immitation like some type of tranny.  The sunk cost in so called "creating" a bitcoin in the past does not transfer into delivering anything tangible into the future.  It's more like a steady state system that can catastrophically fail and vaporize all imaginary "wealth" attached to it at any time - the glaring trait of all currencies past and future.  One of the main reasons the noble metals are valued (gold and silver) are the anti-corrosive properties to defeat time itself, which guarantees you the ability to transfer that unit of account from the past to future, UNLIKE bitcoin.

[iamnotback]

My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Bitcoin is not a real commodity

@r0ach was already referred to the relevant work of Nash and he is quite proficient at ignoring the reality:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18394149#msg18394149
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18422543#msg18422543

Because @r0ach is an obstinate fool who wears a tinfoil hat blindfold that prevents him from comprehending (and perhaps even reading) what Nash wrote, especially what Nash wrote about what makes gold valuable and why it is not as ideal as Bitcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Bitcoin is a currency not money.  If you don't agree, YOU don't understand finance.  It's a Rube Goldberg machine and nothing more.  No random bullshit made up of completely arbitary variables created by humans is money.  Money represents goods and services or the ability to do work.  It's required to be connected to some type of commodity or energy resource if you're abstracting the system away from barter, otherwise the system is easily gamed and implodes as always.

Bitcoin is not a real commodity, it's a poor immitation like some type of tranny.  The sunk cost in so called "creating" a bitcoin in the past does not transfer into delivering anything tangible into the future.  It's more like a steady state system that can catastrophically fail and vaporize all imaginary "wealth" attached to it at any time - the glaring trait of all currencies past and future.  One of the main reasons the noble metals are valued (gold and silver) are the anti-corrosive properties to defeat time itself, which guarantees you the ability to transfer that unit of account from the past to future, UNLIKE bitcoin.

fiat paper funny money isn't a real commoddity either but yet the world calls it money

[corebob]

I wonder if BU is aware of the legal implications of a hard fork, forcing a community of investors to accept an incompatible change to the technology they invested in.

If BU succeeds, every Bitcoin holder can probably sue them for their losses.

[jonald_fyookball]

so this was all a big joke by f2pool..haha very funny, more stalling, great...

[jonald_fyookball]

I wonder if BU is aware of the legal implications of a hard fork, forcing a community of investors to accept an incompatible change to the technology they invested in.

If BU succeeds, every Bitcoin holder can probably sue them for their losses.

cool story.

can i sue Blockstream if Bitcoin loses marketshare to Ethereum
due to the high fees they are promoting?

[corebob]

I wonder if BU is aware of the legal implications of a hard fork, forcing a community of investors to accept an incompatible change to the technology they invested in.

If BU succeeds, every Bitcoin holder can probably sue them for their losses.

cool story.

can i sue Blockstream if Bitcoin loses marketshare to Ethereum
due to the high fees they are promoting?

No, they are not changing the commodity, and they are open about what they are doing.

From what I hear, there could be legal implications to pool mining as well

[jonald_fyookball]

I wonder if BU is aware of the legal implications of a hard fork, forcing a community of investors to accept an incompatible change to the technology they invested in.

If BU succeeds, every Bitcoin holder can probably sue them for their losses.

cool story.

can i sue Blockstream if Bitcoin loses marketshare to Ethereum
due to the high fees they are promoting?

No, they are not changing the commodity, and they are open about what they are doing

changing bitcoin from p2p cash as envisioned by Satoshi into a settlement network, nah thats not changing it at all

[Variogam]

I wonder if BU is aware of the legal implications of a hard fork, forcing a community of investors to accept an incompatible change to the technology they invested in.

If BU succeeds, every Bitcoin holder can probably sue them for their losses.

This is not how Bitcoin works, miners are free to mine whatever they want, investors who just invested and holding can only choose when to sell, so no change for them. If it worked as you claim, Core could be sued for crippling the Bitcoin because many who own Bitcoin cannot use it anymore.

[rik_khaos]

Who ever mines BU will lose all the money they spent on mining it. So that 50% threshold means nothing. Any fork of Bitcoin will be attacked ruthlessly by those who have enough resources to destroy any miners foolish enough to try.

The large miners/pools know this. The April's fool joke is on anyone who believes that signaling means anything on Bitcoin. It doesn't.

I've awoken from my inactivity period to take my part in this pursuit.
Although economically we all understand BU has and never shall have any standing, a fork is incumbent and it's outcome is still obscure.
Core hasn't been keeping the system updated, and their refusal of further updates and generally increasing the Block size is alarming and drives support away. The bitcoin unlimited bound failure doesn't lift any responsibility away from the core devs...
That said, I am here to pledge my computing power and spare time onto the complete disruption of the forked blockchain, transaction, nodes and miners. I will play my role, when the day comes I expect others to join me.

Just to side-step here, I am of the opinion this form has gone a bit nutty on this whole fork partisanship and ideology.

Pledging to commit basically crimes and exploits is a tad extreme for a mere cryptocurrency. Like most early adopters I feel my allegiance going towards this new concept, the anonymous decentralized peer to peer market and economy.

The meme has sprouted and the revolution begun. Advocating for the founder's "view" is almost laughable, satoshi would have never thought of such widespread adoption and implying so is absurd.
Conservationism in revolution is an oxymoron. As much as you can be emotionally attached with whatever made early adopters millionaires and gave you a platform for incredible and astonishing innovation, the technology is bound to become obsolete and if you don't simply move on you're in fault...

Please all bear in mind I am not stating this is the end, or idk giving technical opinions in evaluation of the bitcoin's intrinsic value, forks or whichever.
All I'm stating that as sacks of silver carried on your belt, bitcoin too will one day fade away in favor of something more efficient.