JarzikCoin code aka segwit2xcoin already collapsing

[RealBitcoin]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

I just love the drama, seriously both sides are could be wrong.....

Meanwhile we are still forced to pay 50$/transaction, yeeeeah that is my 1 week net salary.

Keep ignoring the 2nd and 3rd world, but then don't cry when they will ignore Bitcoin and jump to ETH instead.

There is a 2nd world? I didn't know that.

Anyway, I think the fees has drastically went down already since a few weeks ago. I didn't have to pay 0.001btc for a fee anymore if there is one output and one input. But maybe you're getting a $50 (or maybe 0.002btc roughly in today's prices), because you had so much inputs and/or outputs. Minimize those and you'll be alright.

Yes it's the elitist western arrogancy that partitioned the world into 3 parts: 1st world is the west, 2nd world is the former communist countries + south america and the 3rd wold is africa + middle east. You don't have to guess how much the wages are anywhere else except the western world, they are horrible.

You have to be very stupid if you think I am that crazy to pay 50$ for a transaction when the weekly wages here are lower than this.

I just dont use Bitcoin anymore, I can't take the arrogance anymore.

[1713511330]

1713511330

[1713511330]

1713511330

[1713511330]

1713511330

[1713511330]

1713511330

[RealBitcoin]

we all know about the ongoing spam attack and the high fees but people like him are only using it to spread FUD and attack bitcoin for their personal gains.

So are you accusing me of "attacking" bitcoin without evidence? That is a very gentleman way of debating somebody.

Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.

And who in their right mind would switch to ETH? Great for pumpage and not much else. If Bitcoin is fucked then I'll be done with crypto.

I don't care who did what. It's the poor people that suffer for it. Many people got into Bitcoin in order to earn some money, so did I.

But as I see now that this was never meant to be a vehicle to save poor people, it's actually just another oligarchy to enrich the 1%, meanwhile others suffer.

[Xavofat]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

Meanwhile we are still forced to pay 50$/transaction, yeeeeah that is my 1 week net salary.

If you received your salary or part of your salary in BTC each week, most of your transactions would only have one input.  Currently, you can comfortably send transactions with fees of under 50 satoshi/byte and expect them to confirm, as you can see here.

If you use a reasonable transaction fee of 40 satoshi/byte and you multiply that by the median transaction size of 226 bytes, you would have a fee of 9040 satoshi, or 0.00009 BTC.  Doesn't sound too bad, does it?

they will ignore Bitcoin and jump to ETH instead.

ETH is not scalable.

But as I see now that this was never meant to be a vehicle to save poor people, it's actually just another oligarchy to enrich the 1%, meanwhile others suffer.

It's meant be a vehicle for financial sovereignty.  In the next financial crisis, you might regret insulting Bitcoin.

[RealBitcoin]

It's meant be a vehicle for financial sovereignty.  In the next financial crisis, you might regret insulting Bitcoin.

It meant to be many things, but currently it's just a bad joke ....

[wxa7115]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

It was to be expected, it is impossible to develop something so intricate with only one person and in such a short amount of time, it seems the miners did not foresee the devs will try UASF on them and now are trying desperate measures to try to avoid that, but it seems it is too late.

[Variogam]

The only thing collapsing is Blockstream-Core vision of crippled Bitcoin forever. The SegWit2x code worked as expected, SegWit2x nodes waited for 1st over 1M block before continuing.

[Rahar02]

Segwit is poison to bitcoin and needs to be avoided at all costs in any implementation. Boycott the Blockstream/Core bitcoin takeover attempt with segwit to turn bitcoin into a banking settlement system. Every true bitcoiner should support Satoshis vision by supporting Bitcoin ABC http://www.bitcoinabc.org

It's funny how everyone shilling their implementation claims to be "satoshi's vision".

"Support XT, it's satoshi's vision"

"Support Classic, it's satoshi's vision"

"Support Unlimited, it's satoshi's vision"

Give me a break. Satoshi didn't foresee a lot of things we are experiencing now so "satoshi's vision" (whatever that is) is irrelevant with 2017's data.

I remember someone quote about what Satoshi thought on bitcoin block size and to prevent spam attack transactions, but he stick on 1Mb size. Not sure what he wants because people speculate and stated it Satoshi's vision according to their wishes.
If segwit2x code doesn't meet the requirements, than it will be denied or fail to get support from community.
Whatever it is, let's see what will happen on August 1st, as long as my bitcoin is safe in the wallet.

[pinkflower]

You keep missing the point: Garzik is setting a precedent by wanting to hardfork with unsafe code and unsafe time.

and core wanted a november code activated by christmas without giving a damn about usernodes symbiotic relationship validating said blocks..

Youre right! What do you think of the UASF, doing the reverse and giving the miners a choice to join with them or not to. And what do you think will happen to the miners who are signaling for Segwit BIP 141 this coming August?

[aesma]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

This is not a good excuse. When you use buggy Microsoft software, you dont have thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands or more invested in it. It might be easy for you to say that because you might only have a small investment in BTC, but make that investment large enough and you find yourself on the conservative side of things with development.

Surely you must be joking ? Millions of companies have thousands, millions and billions relying on Microsoft software ! The ransomware attack stopped the plants of automakers, banks, insurance companies, etc.

I work in the 200th biggest company on the planet and we are full of Microsoft shit, the IT bosses are all huge fans of Microsoft. Only a few servers were contaminated by the ransomware virus, but this confirms what I suspected all along, that the NSA can spy on everything we do, and that US companies are probably profiting from stolen information given by the NSA on their competitors.

[franky1]

when bscartel and their fanboys use the word conservative, you can tell they read reddit but never read a dictionary.

core are NOT conservative

"averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values."

segwit: NEW key pairs, new network topology, new block template
nothing traditional about that.

as for segwit being 'innovative' pfft.
their fixes/promises are empty and cannot be fully forfilled

there are many ways to solve the problems but core decided to go with the political definition not the literal definition
"just pay more"

[Tigggger]

Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.

Fees may have plummeted from their highs, but they are still considerably higher than they were 6 months ago namely 5x higher.

Anyway, I always thought that it was the 'big block' side that was doing the spamming. It seemed to be the consensus on these forums and made logical sense, look there are too many transactions and fees are high we need bigger blocks.

But the timing of it stopping could now equally point to it being the 'small block' side doing it to force their solution of segwit through, now that it's highly likely that it's going through either with UASF or Segit2x no need to continue.

The 2mb part is still to come, if it's just a lull and resumes again post segwit, it will point back to the big blockers, because there will be zero reasons then for the small block side to do it. At least the question will be answered.

[Proton2233]

It seems to me that the miners exaggerate their losses. They want more profits, and so are all being blackmailed. I heard a lot of talk about the price of a transaction is so high because the work miners do not generate revenue, but we see the deficiency of equipment all over the world and this means that the miners are lying.

[The One]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

This is not a good excuse. When you use buggy Microsoft software, you dont have thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands or more invested in it. It might be easy for you to say that because you might only have a small investment in BTC, but make that investment large enough and you find yourself on the conservative side of things with development.

That's irrelevant as usual people miss the point. All software have bugs. There are bugs that are minor, sometimes "terrible bugs" that can be costly. It is the "terrible bugs" that bitcoin need to avoid. So long testing is being done, bugs fixed, more testing... i'm ok with it. No need to panic. Minor bugs are a fact of life when running softwares.

[hv_]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

This is not a good excuse. When you use buggy Microsoft software, you dont have thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands or more invested in it. It might be easy for you to say that because you might only have a small investment in BTC, but make that investment large enough and you find yourself on the conservative side of things with development.

That's irrelevant as usual people miss the point. All software have bugs. There are bugs that are minor, sometimes "terrible bugs" that can be costly. It is the "terrible bugs" that bitcoin need to avoid. So long testing is being done, bugs fixed, more testing... i'm ok with it. No need to panic. Minor bugs are a fact of life when running softwares.

Good that you picking up that one.

Yes there are always bugs in every code line.

Most of the 'terrible' or 'show stoppers' you can find in UAT testing phases. But in bitcoin there is no bounty for attackers in testnets,
so in production you can be sure, any code line added is getting to increase the risk!

But I'm also very concerned about design 'bugs' like we have in SW -> e.g. moving the witnesses out of the blocks. This is next critical level nobody can tell you it works in production. It can be more terrible than your code bugs.

Finally we have economics working in Bitcoin >  a Nash equilibrium to save


Look at SW-  It is full of new code, other design, we hear it might change the Nash equilibrium - >  RISK , RISK, RISK

A simple block increase is a no-brainer!

Cut the down side!

[Herbert2020]

Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.

Fees may have plummeted from their highs, but they are still considerably higher than they were 6 months ago namely 5x higher.

Anyway, I always thought that it was the 'big block' side that was doing the spamming. It seemed to be the consensus on these forums and made logical sense, look there are too many transactions and fees are high we need bigger blocks.

But the timing of it stopping could now equally point to it being the 'small block' side doing it to force their solution of segwit through, now that it's highly likely that it's going through either with UASF or Segit2x no need to continue.

The 2mb part is still to come, if it's just a lull and resumes again post segwit, it will point back to the big blockers, because there will be zero reasons then for the small block side to do it. At least the question will be answered.

there has been some speculation about who is spamming and why, but i personally think it was the miners all along!
they had the incentive: increasing fees and making more profit, also showing we need scaling solution
they also had the money to do it: the extra fees helped a lot! up to 3.5BTC fees per block is 10 times more than what you use for spamming.

[hv_]

Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.

Fees may have plummeted from their highs, but they are still considerably higher than they were 6 months ago namely 5x higher.

Anyway, I always thought that it was the 'big block' side that was doing the spamming. It seemed to be the consensus on these forums and made logical sense, look there are too many transactions and fees are high we need bigger blocks.

But the timing of it stopping could now equally point to it being the 'small block' side doing it to force their solution of segwit through, now that it's highly likely that it's going through either with UASF or Segit2x no need to continue.

The 2mb part is still to come, if it's just a lull and resumes again post segwit, it will point back to the big blockers, because there will be zero reasons then for the small block side to do it. At least the question will be answered.

there has been some speculation about who is spamming and why, but i personally think it was the miners all along!
they had the incentive: increasing fees and making more profit, also showing we need scaling solution
they also had the money to do it: the extra fees helped a lot! up to 3.5BTC fees per block is 10 times more than what you use for spamming.

.... and it is soooo eays and cheap with 1MB .......

[franky1]

there has been some speculation about who is spamming and why, but i personally think it was the miners all along!
they had the incentive: increasing fees and making more profit, also showing we need scaling solution
they also had the money to do it: the extra fees helped a lot! up to 3.5BTC fees per block is 10 times more than what you use for spamming.

.... and it is soooo eays and cheap with 1MB .......

BTCC used to offer free transactions to its customers as did xapo. all because they had control/links to pools, so could name their own price of what gets accepted into blocks.

obviously IF other pools were causing issues BTCC would still of remained the cheapest pools.. still offering free transactions and helping... but...

when looking at the stats.. it wasnt BTCC being "conservative".. it was actually Via and bitmain which had the average cheapest blocks. meaning while BTCC decided to get greedy and go for the highest tx's and screw even their own customers as well as being part of the "just pay more" crowd.. there were other pools still offering blockspace for free or even blocks with no fee's

btcc- DCG portfolio and BScartel supporter

[DooMAD]

Boycott the Blockstream/Core bitcoin takeover attempt

I've already outlined in other threads why people on both sides of the debate need to stop all this nonsense about "hostile takeovers" / "coups" / "benevolent dictators" / "changes in governance" / "taking control" / etc, when talking specifically about Developers (and that's any developers), what they may or may not be trying to do and how good or bad that thing might be.  Developers do not, should not and can not dictate governance.  Only the consensus of those securing the chain can do that.  It's therefore irrelevant to speculate on motives of developers or anyone deemed to be financially influencing developers, because those are not the people calling the shots.  Full nodes and miners are.  And again, this is aimed at people levelling the same accusations at alternative clients and competing development groups.

[pinkflower]

when bscartel and their fanboys use the word conservative, you can tell they read reddit but never read a dictionary.

core are NOT conservative

"averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values."

segwit: NEW key pairs, new network topology, new block template
nothing traditional about that.

as for segwit being 'innovative' pfft.
their fixes/promises are empty and cannot be fully forfilled

there are many ways to solve the problems but core decided to go with the political definition not the literal definition
"just pay more"

Thats your opinion. Do you want for BTC to stay the same with Bitcoin Core or do you have a better solution or implementation in mind? If you have one, care to tell us what it is and why?