Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 01:22:47 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise  (Read 11044 times)
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 06:20:38 AM
 #241

Huh. This is a funny thread. Let me chime in.

But on top of that, miners are locked up into a Nash equilibrium of steady-state.  It is not simple for them to leave the existing consensus unless they can be in a cartel and decide upon something.

And what exactly locks them up into this equilibrium?


The thing that defines it to be a Nash equilibrium: namely, a Nash equilibrium is such, that for any individual entity, deviating from the strategy that consists of the Nash equilibrium is less advantageous than keeping with it.  So once a system is in a Nash equilibrium, no individual entity has any incentive to leave it if it acts alone without collusion.

Quote
Core was the central authority until a few years ago, writing the only code out there.  So there was no game theory, it was a totally centralized system until recently.    The only "game-theoretical" aspect that was in there for miners, was the signalling system, which was essentially Core taking the lead in the cartel formation.  And ONLY miners voted on signalling.  In other words, Core being the software monopolist, had total power over the rules.

So had Core released a version with a 1000 BTC block subsidy everyone would have followed along?

Well, if miners adopted it, there would be not much choice but to follow along or leave your holdings for what it is.  Miners might be divided over the question, though.  Core could only have pulled that trick if it had build obsolescence in its previous version so that people would have been forced to upgrade (like monero does: hard forks are programmed in advance: you simply cannot continue to run the old version, it has a limit to it).  

Of course, the pressure would maybe be great to break the software monopoly (like now, with segwit).  But as long as Core would hold the monopoly, there wouldn't be much discussion about what to do.

Quote
On one hand you propose that miners are kings and rulers, disparage the role of validating nodes but then suggest that the economic actors have a choice of whether or not to follow miners.

Yes, because "validating nodes" and "economic actors" have nothing to do with one another.

Validating nodes are (maybe Sybiled) Joe's that have software running in their basement.  Economic actors are those that buy coins on exchanges.  Different beasts all together.  Visibly they are so poor that they can't afford a $30.- disk investment per year in their node, so as an economic actor, they are insignificant.

Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 06:36:47 AM
 #242

In fact dinofelis it seems clear to me you are simply suffering from a strong Mining Delusion

If miners are decentralized, that means, many of them, each with a small hash rate, variable (today you are a miner, tomorrow, you aren't) and anonymous, then miners are locked into the Nash equilibrium of immutability.   In a truly decentralized system, there's no way to "come to an agreement" because the entities are supposed not to collude, not to make agreements !  The only way to have agreements in a large decentralized system, is to have a central authority proposing a SPECIFIC change, and no other, and have people come to a from of "voting": both are centralized protocols.

However, what is wrong in bitcoin is this:
"Because the miners do not form an identifiable set, they cannot have discretion over the rules determining transaction validity. " (from your link)

But miners DO form an identifiable set right now.  There are 20 of them, of which 5 are majority already.  People are cursing them, or begging them, to "do" something. 

I fully agree that if the statement in your link were true, the miners being locked up into a Nash equilibrium, cannot change the rules, and the rules are immutable ; the only solution is someone forking off with a new coin, if he thinks it will be successful in the market.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 07:30:27 AM
 #243

The thing that defines it to be a Nash equilibrium: namely, a Nash equilibrium is such, that for any individual entity, deviating from the strategy that consists of the Nash equilibrium is less advantageous than keeping with it.  So once a system is in a Nash equilibrium, no individual entity has any incentive to leave it if it acts alone without collusion.

A Nash Equilibruim suggests there are different strategy profiles. In the context you present there are only ONE set of players, the miners.

Everyone else are blind users, correct?

Well, if miners adopted it, there would be not much choice but to follow along or leave your holdings for what it is.

 Roll Eyes

Yes, because "validating nodes" and "economic actors" have nothing to do with one another.

Validating nodes are (maybe Sybiled) Joe's that have software running in their basement.  Economic actors are those that buy coins on exchanges.  Different beasts all together.  Visibly they are so poor that they can't afford a $30.- disk investment per year in their node, so as an economic actor, they are insignificant.

Pray tell me sir how economic actors weight the value of the coins they purchase and whether or not the monetary base has not been inflated to oblivion?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 07:35:11 AM
 #244

In fact dinofelis it seems clear to me you are simply suffering from a strong Mining Delusion

If miners are decentralized, that means, many of them, each with a small hash rate, variable (today you are a miner, tomorrow, you aren't) and anonymous, then miners are locked into the Nash equilibrium of immutability.   In a truly decentralized system, there's no way to "come to an agreement" because the entities are supposed not to collude, not to make agreements !  The only way to have agreements in a large decentralized system, is to have a central authority proposing a SPECIFIC change, and no other, and have people come to a from of "voting": both are centralized protocols.

Miners all have the same strategy: maximize their profits. Why do they not increase the subsidy back to 50BTC? I'm sure they can all unilaterally agree to do that.

However, what is wrong in bitcoin is this:
"Because the miners do not form an identifiable set, they cannot have discretion over the rules determining transaction validity. " (from your link)

But miners DO form an identifiable set right now.  There are 20 of them, of which 5 are majority already.  People are cursing them, or begging them, to "do" something.

Hashrate is fluid, remember Ghash? Mining pools are identifiable, yes but they will not make any decision that risks endangering the bottom line of hashers.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 09:13:47 AM
 #245

The thing that defines it to be a Nash equilibrium: namely, a Nash equilibrium is such, that for any individual entity, deviating from the strategy that consists of the Nash equilibrium is less advantageous than keeping with it.  So once a system is in a Nash equilibrium, no individual entity has any incentive to leave it if it acts alone without collusion.

A Nash Equilibruim suggests there are different strategy profiles. In the context you present there are only ONE set of players, the miners.

Yes, you are right, the system is more complex, and there are also the users (people buying and selling coins essentially). But the Nash equilibrium is essentially this one, where the miners can only stick to the original protocol, and the users need to follow the miners.

In such an equilibrium, a single user not following the miner consensus is simply not going to be able to transact or to receive transactions: there's only one chain out there and he doesn't want to use it.  And in the same way, a single miner forking away, without other miners following him, or other users following him, is a losing proposition.

Of course, this equilibrium can be broken, which is exactly the case of "forking away" and hoping for success in the market, but it needs a form of collusion between certain miners, and enough users.

As I said many times, this is a NATURAL way of evolving crypto: forking away, taking the risk in the market.  With a PoW coin, this has to be initiated by miners.

Quote
Well, if miners adopted it, there would be not much choice but to follow along or leave your holdings for what it is.

 Roll Eyes


What else could you do ?  There's only one chain out there, your holdings are on it, and it gives 1000 BTC block reward.  What are you going to do ?

Quote
Pray tell me sir how economic actors weight the value of the coins they purchase and whether or not the monetary base has not been inflated to oblivion?

Economic actors do technical analysis on coinmarketcap, or use any other betting strategy.  The debasement is never part of these considerations apart psychologically maybe. The market price includes already all debasement.  Of course, if you have some inner knowledge of WHEN these block rewards would hit the market, you might make a lot of money by shorting ; and as such, you've brought the information to the market.  All information is included in the price.  And secret information can indeed make you rich.

dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 09:18:47 AM
 #246

Hashrate is fluid, remember Ghash? Mining pools are identifiable, yes but they will not make any decision that risks endangering the bottom line of hashers.

But I never claimed differently.  Mining pools will act in the advantage of miners, but them being not very numerous, can form easier a cartel.  You could see mining pools as the "worker unions" of miners: there are a number of worker union delegates that can form a worker union cartel, and hence push modifications in the advantage of themselves and their members ; something the individual members wouldn't be able to do because they are, exactly, too numerous, too decentralized.  Mining pools are the way miners have found to break decentralization and get the power of modifying the rules on their side.  However, as long as  one can maintain dissent between mining pools, effective decentralization is still working, and keeps the old protocol immutable / or imposes still the will of the central code monopolist.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 12:47:52 PM
 #247

The thing that defines it to be a Nash equilibrium: namely, a Nash equilibrium is such, that for any individual entity, deviating from the strategy that consists of the Nash equilibrium is less advantageous than keeping with it.  So once a system is in a Nash equilibrium, no individual entity has any incentive to leave it if it acts alone without collusion.

A Nash Equilibruim suggests there are different strategy profiles. In the context you present there are only ONE set of players, the miners.

Yes, you are right, the system is more complex, and there are also the users (people buying and selling coins essentially). But the Nash equilibrium is essentially this one, where the miners can only stick to the original protocol

Why? Who evaluates that they have done so?

Of course, this equilibrium can be broken, which is exactly the case of "forking away" and hoping for success in the market, but it needs a form of collusion between certain miners, and enough users.

As I said many times, this is a NATURAL way of evolving crypto: forking away, taking the risk in the market.  With a PoW coin, this has to be initiated by miners.

Yeah? Watch UASF


Economic actors do technical analysis on coinmarketcap, or use any other betting strategy.  The debasement is never part of these considerations apart psychologically maybe. The market price includes already all debasement

How does the market come to learn about debasement?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
kimoice
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 21


View Profile
June 06, 2017, 06:42:42 PM
 #248

If you cash your BC in a different country with no cap. gain tax, do you still need to report? If you buy a house with your BC, do you need to report the gain on the currency?
Searing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554


Tips for help? 1BzbfMHCrTeLjc7eCGrYVhH3QXSRodSuke


View Profile
June 06, 2017, 11:16:48 PM
 #249

If you cash your BC in a different country with no cap. gain tax, do you still need to report? If you buy a house with your BC, do you need to report the gain on the currency?

If USA citizen you always have to pay IRS capital gains and foreign income. Anyway
What I was told anyway. Sucks indeed.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
CoinPayments
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
June 07, 2017, 03:50:30 AM
 #250

The thing that defines it to be a Nash equilibrium: namely, a Nash equilibrium is such, that for any individual entity, deviating from the strategy that consists of the Nash equilibrium is less advantageous than keeping with it.  So once a system is in a Nash equilibrium, no individual entity has any incentive to leave it if it acts alone without collusion.

A Nash Equilibruim suggests there are different strategy profiles. In the context you present there are only ONE set of players, the miners.

Yes, you are right, the system is more complex, and there are also the users (people buying and selling coins essentially). But the Nash equilibrium is essentially this one, where the miners can only stick to the original protocol

Why? Who evaluates that they have done so?

The miners amongst themselves.

Quote
Of course, this equilibrium can be broken, which is exactly the case of "forking away" and hoping for success in the market, but it needs a form of collusion between certain miners, and enough users.

As I said many times, this is a NATURAL way of evolving crypto: forking away, taking the risk in the market.  With a PoW coin, this has to be initiated by miners.

Yeah? Watch UASF

Obviously, a UASF node comes to a grinding halt UNLESS miners decided to fork off.  The whole UASF is nothing else but a kind of shouting contest to put some psychological pressure on some miners to go ahead and make them decide to fork off.  Without miners deciding to fork, UASF has not much to it.   The "user" part in UASF is similar to the "democratic" part in the old Eastern-Germany name: "Deutsche Democratische Republik".

Users only come into play with a UASF after:
1) miners decided to fork off
2) exchanges decided to list both coins.

Only at that point, the users can vote with their money on the exchanges to pump up one of the coins, and to dump the other one (taking the risk that they are betting on the wrong horse in doing so).


Quote

Economic actors do technical analysis on coinmarketcap, or use any other betting strategy.  The debasement is never part of these considerations apart psychologically maybe. The market price includes already all debasement

How does the market come to learn about debasement?

Increasing offer should decrease the price.
o3wallet
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2017, 11:47:57 PM
 #251

Lightning and Segwit are great peace of technologies. But we also need to be very open about potential future issues:
1. Lightning hub - can censor transactions, can enforce AML/KYC.
2. Lightning hub - If user launder his bitcoins or tokens through the hub, since hub provider is committing his bitcoins and the way payment channels are setup it might technically seems like node provider is also part of the money laundering scheme. So can companies provide this service without legal issues?
3. Lightning hub - it'll act just like a bank, so what is stopping banks or someone with deep pockets to start node, provide fees free service and vacuum up large number of direct channels. Bitcoin community(small number of people) might think this is a issue but you have to consider average user doesn't care so long they save money, because we are dealing with people who are willing to give all their personal information to get reward/shopping points and in the process getting tracked. This will also have impact on privacy minded people.

On chain scaling is also important even  with lightning network. We need to start looking at areas where this technology can have biggest impact. i.e developing countries. Now, can anyone explain how someone with $2.00 a day wage can afford $2.00 transaction fees? Internet and phones are getting even cheaper but it all comes down to affordability, if transaction cost is too height then no matter which technology is in use, poor people can't use it. Lightning nodes might not be accessible due to regulatory or other technical issue(e.g service down, censorship)

Segwit is temporary solution until blocks are full again and fees will go down just to rise again
Lightning will support offchain transaction but this will be hub and spoke model not decentralized. and it can be regulated/censored
2MB rise will not be backward compatible. but if Bitcoin cash can safely hardfork then there is no issue hard forking bitcoin with only one parameter change. On the positive side we can monitor bitcoin cash hardfork for few more months and learn from it. storage and bandwidth are relatively much cheaper when we compare 1MB 2010-2011 and 2MB 2017

Dev's need to control their egos and work together. No one is expert, we have allot of uncharted territory. Expert in certain field in the past doesn't automatically translate into expert in every field. We need to work together. Stop charter assassinating each others!! Scaling offchain and onchain both have pros and cons.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
August 04, 2017, 07:10:32 AM
 #252

Transaction Business is Miner Business (per design)

Miners are securing your bitcoin over 8 years now and may include (or not) your specific tx - on-chain.
They are the final bottleneck of that control and get payed for to do so.

If you add some other boy's business on top and try to work against miners (orthogonal competition) than miners might skip these other's txs  (if they can detect)  and this even despite they provide a very high fee (because human rational - safe miner's reputation of on-chain business).

I do not see the orgcoin scale with that 2nd layer (orthogonal) model fast (safety needs to be shown for some years) and with same security (miners have reason to attack).

But some devs might collude with these other boy's business and are trapped.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
Searing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554


Tips for help? 1BzbfMHCrTeLjc7eCGrYVhH3QXSRodSuke


View Profile
August 04, 2017, 01:08:43 PM
 #253

What are the dangers of the 2mb hard fork part of this whole seq witness consensus?

Can core or others block this....or is it a done deal?

curious....just when I think it is unlikely to go "pear shaped' ..it not only goes 'pear shaped' it rolls over in the asic seas......floods and sinks Smiley

Welcome to my world..why I'm asking

anyway thoughts ..or am I fretting over nothing? Smiley




       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
CoinPayments
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


GUNBOT Licenses -15% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2017, 01:14:33 PM
 #254

What are the dangers of the 2mb hard fork part of this whole seq witness consensus?
Are you talking about the 2 MB, flag day fork, from Segwit2x?

Can core or others block this....or is it a done deal?
Most of the Bitcoin Core contributors think that the idea is a joke. There is practically zero community support for that hard fork. Even the "big blockers" abandoned Segwit2x and run their own altcoin with an increase block size now. I think that fork in November can not, and will not happen. It is too fast, and too soon.


▄██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████
████████████████
████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████████
████████████████████
█████████████████████
▀████████████████████
Bazista®
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██

██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
|||
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
August 04, 2017, 02:21:46 PM
 #255

What are the dangers of the 2mb hard fork part of this whole seq witness consensus?
Are you talking about the 2 MB, flag day fork, from Segwit2x?

Can core or others block this....or is it a done deal?
Most of the Bitcoin Core contributors think that the idea is a joke. There is practically zero community support for that hard fork. Even the "big blockers" abandoned Segwit2x and run their own altcoin with an increase block size now. I think that fork in November can not, and will not happen. It is too fast, and too soon.

Most of core devs also assumed some super techy stuff will just do as always and lead to great consensus.

This 'great' consensus we can watch now...

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


GUNBOT Licenses -15% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2017, 04:51:35 PM
 #256

Most of core devs also assumed some super techy stuff will just do as always and lead to great consensus.

This 'great' consensus we can watch now...
They have assumed that miners would act rationally at all times, which isn't the case. Rusty apologized for his flawed idea of BIP 9 IIRC. Anyhow, consensus has been reached on Segwit and it is happening for sure. Whatever the Bitcoin Core developers have provided is by far superior to any other alternatives. Do I have to remind you why they kept using BU and went with "EC" instead and then another rename to ABC? Roll Eyes


▄██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████
████████████████
████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████████
████████████████████
█████████████████████
▀████████████████████
Bazista®
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██

██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
|||
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
August 04, 2017, 05:11:13 PM
 #257

Most of core devs also assumed some super techy stuff will just do as always and lead to great consensus.

This 'great' consensus we can watch now...
They have assumed that miners would act rationally at all times, which isn't the case. Rusty apologized for his flawed idea of BIP 9 IIRC. Anyhow, consensus has been reached on Segwit and it is happening for sure. Whatever the Bitcoin Core developers have provided is by far superior to any other alternatives. Do I have to remind you why they kept using BU and went with "EC" instead and then another rename to ABC? Roll Eyes

The miners have just done a standard risk/ reward analysis and have acted very rational.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


GUNBOT Licenses -15% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2017, 05:14:30 PM
 #258

The miners have just done a standard risk/ reward analysis and have acted very rational.
Absolute bullshit. Stalling Segwit for random, non technical reasons, is not rational. Then again, who knows who is controlling Ver and Jihan. Smiley


▄██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████
████████████████
████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████████
████████████████████
█████████████████████
▀████████████████████
Bazista®
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██

██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
|||
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
August 04, 2017, 05:28:09 PM
 #259

The miners have just done a standard risk/ reward analysis and have acted very rational.
Absolute bullshit. Stalling Segwit for random, non technical reasons, is not rational. Then again, who knows who is controlling Ver and Jihan. Smiley

Ok. So you attest that the miners do bullshit.

Why are you here then? Trolling only?

Give up.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile
A feature that needs more than one convincing argument is no and Satoshi owes me no proof.
My coding style is legendary but limited to 1MB, sorry but cannot come much over my C64, Bill Gates and Tom Bombadil
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


GUNBOT Licenses -15% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2017, 05:42:25 PM
 #260

Why are you here then? Trolling only?
I am here to prevent the cancerous, paid shills to mislead newbies and newcommers with fake information (and gather more, real, Bitcoin of course Cheesy, among other things). More specifically, to prevent the spread of the scams such as XT, Classic, BU, ABC, BCash, w/e. If you do not support the real Bitcoin, why are you here then?


▄██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████
████████████████
████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████████
████████████████████
█████████████████████
▀████████████████████
Bazista®
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██

██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
|||
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 »  All
  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!