Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 09:56:07 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 [612] 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803500 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 02:22:39 AM
 #12221

You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem).  You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x.  Why?  Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something.  You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.

First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.

apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT. 

not quite the same maths.
1480758967
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758967

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758967
Reply with quote  #2

1480758967
Report to moderator
1480758967
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758967

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758967
Reply with quote  #2

1480758967
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480758967
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758967

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758967
Reply with quote  #2

1480758967
Report to moderator
1480758967
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758967

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758967
Reply with quote  #2

1480758967
Report to moderator
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
September 17, 2014, 02:26:40 AM
 #12222

You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem).  You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x.  Why?  Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something.  You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.

First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.

apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT. 

not quite the same maths.
That's a month's rent in NYC:
http://observer.com/2014/07/5-nyc-apartments-that-rent-for-more-than-100000-a-month/

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 04:28:56 AM
 #12223

You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem).  You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x.  Why?  Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something.  You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.

First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.

apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT. 

not quite the same maths.

lol, the bter hacker was under pressure, this wasn't a normal purchase of NXT, it was Bter paying the ransom. It's notable that you guys twist facts to your advantage like that. It means there is really nothing you can find to attack NXT with and catching at straws here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 04:41:00 AM
 #12224

You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem).  You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x.  Why?  Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something.  You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.

First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.

apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT.  

not quite the same maths.

lol, the bter hacker was under pressure, this wasn't a normal purchase of NXT, it was Bter paying the ransom. It's notable that you guys twist facts to your advantage like that. It means there is really nothing you can find to attack NXT with and catching at straws here.

what's even more ridiculous is your claim of $50 bln.  lol.

if the hacker had dumped that much NXT on the open mkt, the price would've tanked.
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 05:09:07 AM
 #12225

what's even more ridiculous is your claim of $50 bln.  lol.

if the hacker had dumped that much NXT on the open mkt, the price would've tanked.

It's not a claim, it's math. Purchasing 1% of all available NXT drives price 10% higher, from observations of the bter market. If you start buying NXT to get a sizeable portion (51% of all available supply), you'll quickly drain all supply at exchanges and drive the price through the roof and still won't get enough.

Yeah, DeathAndTaxes presented the same 'argument' about hacker dumping NXT. Well, my answer was, the hacker could do it in two ways: 1) all at once, which would drive the price to ~200 satoshi and there all the 50m would be bought in 1 day, as at that price and all the way to 200 satoshi would be the daily trading volume of NXT in Bitcoins. 2) gradually, 1m per day which would depress price for a couple of months at most.

The second scenario obviously would hurt more as it would be prolonged, but even that wouldn't be dramatic. After all, whales have been dumping for 9 months now, and NXT has survived that, although the price doesn't go much higher due to that extensive selling. The hacker could not do anything to the security of NXT itself, he could only hurt the price temporarily, and he realized it's best to get Bitcoins which could be mixed easier, even though he would only get a small number of Bitcoins.
User705
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 06:58:25 AM
 #12226

I would argue that the "lazy" people who download and run the JAR rather than compiling their own are probably similar in proportion to the lazy people who download bitcoin-qt without checking the hashes match.. i.e. nearly everyone..

Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used Smiley



i routinely check binary hashes  Cheesy

as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled.  i think it's a telling lesson.  the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %.  i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism.  the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch.  it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs.  what if 51% of users accepted the patch?  what would the community have done then?  the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch.  with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions.  eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC.  and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome.  i see it as a failure.
You've invested in Nxt.  That's great interesting news.  Tell us why?
valarmg
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 237


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 08:16:31 AM
 #12227


i routinely check binary hashes  Cheesy

as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled.  i think it's a telling lesson.  the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %.  i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism.  the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch.  it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs.  what if 51% of users accepted the patch?  what would the community have done then?  the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch.  with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions.  eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC.  and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome.  i see it as a failure.

The consensus method was releasing two versions of Nxt, one patched to reject the 5% theft, one not. All stakeholders/investors in Nxt then had a choice, stake on the patched or unpatched version. This used the proof of stake as consensus which makes perfect sense for a PoS coin. If 50%+ of stake had switched to patched version, that would have become the main chain. As it turned out, no where close to 50% voted with their stake for the patched version so the blockchain reorg didn't happen.

▓▓▓▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀                        Uniting crypto, Rewarding talent, Sharing benefits.                                       ▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓         S   U   P   E   R    N   E   T
                                                                                                                        ▓▓▓
▓▓▓▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     
  Blockchain Technology.        ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▓▓▓
nexern
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 597



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 09:34:18 AM
 #12228

I would argue that the "lazy" people who download and run the JAR rather than compiling their own are probably similar in proportion to the lazy people who download bitcoin-qt without checking the hashes match.. i.e. nearly everyone..

Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used Smiley



i routinely check binary hashes  Cheesy

as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled.  i think it's a telling lesson.  the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %.  i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism.  the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch.  it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs.  what if 51% of users accepted the patch?  what would the community have done then?  the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch.  with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions.  eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC.  and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome.  i see it as a failure.

what you state here is pure censorship and reveals that you don't understand that the nxt community prefers THE CHOICE instead isolated, above driven decisions,
jean-luc (nxt core dev) did great here. he saw there are voices and therefore demand within the community. as a result he provides (btw, superfast) the tools for an independent,
consensus based FREE decision, based on common sense by the community. i call this a demonstration of strength, with a healthy portion of common sense, exactly as it has to be.
isn't this at least one reason why we are here cypherdoc, able to make free decisons?
Damelon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
 #12229

Please don't equate the forum community with the people that forge Nxt, either.
There were two levels of decision making here, and it was reflected on both the forums and in the forging.

The forums are not always a reflection of the Nxt Community, just as BCT is in no way a reflection of the Bitcoin Community as a whole.

In PoS, it's the stakeholders that make the choice. Otherwise, we could just hold votes on the forums. Cheesy

The devs provided a choice. Not providing that choice in this case would also have been a means of control.

As this was the first time something of this magnitude happened, there is no clear roadmap and it's important to offer the choice.

I really cannot see how it's better for the dev team nót to open up that choice, even if it means the possibility of opening up a can of worms.

The devs did not push for a choice either way: the forgers had freedom to choose. They chose not to roll back.

Only releasing a patch after you know it will be accepted by conventional consensus on a forum (!) is just silly.


█████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
  | GET YOUR STAKE IN THE ARDOR PLATFORM! | SNAPSHOTTING UNTIL 13 OCTOBER
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 11:18:03 AM
 #12230

User705,

 You read that wrong. I meant as an investor in cryptocurrencies in general.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 11:53:51 AM
 #12231

Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a  fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because  of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption.  A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT  community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT  Wink  

valarmg
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 237


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 12:10:55 PM
 #12232

Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a  fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because  of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption.  A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT  community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT  Wink 

I don't understand. Where was the principle of a fixed supply ever in question? The question was about reorganizing the blockchain so that the single transaction was invalidated.

There has been talk about blacklisting addresses in bitcoin which is a similar idea.

And how is giving a choice a bad thing? You think the devs should have made up their mind and decided to hell with the community, I don't like this, so I won't allow it? No, a better idea was offering a choice in this extreme case. And the Nxt community decided overwhelmingly against invalidating that single transaction based on precedent. Shows a strong mindset and commitment to the ideas of cryptocurrency. Without the choice, you wouldn't have had any idea what they'll do in Nxt. Now you know Wink.

▓▓▓▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀                        Uniting crypto, Rewarding talent, Sharing benefits.                                       ▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓         S   U   P   E   R    N   E   T
                                                                                                                        ▓▓▓
▓▓▓▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     
  Blockchain Technology.        ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▓▓▓
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 12:21:07 PM
 #12233

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.
Damelon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:00:43 PM
 #12234

Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a  fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because  of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption.  A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT  community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT  Wink  

The whole situation has lead to a fierce and good discussion in the Nxt Community, as it should be within a young community, according to me.
There are definitely people in the Nxt community that take the same position that you take here.

I, in *this case*, am glad that the choice was offered, for the reason valarmg gave:

And how is giving a choice a bad thing? You think the devs should have made up their mind and decided to hell with the community, I don't like this, so I won't allow it? No, a better idea was offering a choice in this extreme case. And the Nxt community decided overwhelmingly against invalidating that single transaction based on precedent. Shows a strong mindset and commitment to the ideas of cryptocurrency. Without the choice, you wouldn't have had any idea what they'll do in Nxt. Now you know Wink.

It lead to a fundamental discussion in any new coin community about where you stand.
In an ideal world, every crypto community would be made up of people who actually know anything about the ideals and ideas behind crypto.
However, this is not the case, not in Bitcoin and not in Nxt. To think otherwise is not wanting to look the facts in the face.

So this discussion and testing is necessary, and I am very happy that it turned out as it did. If there would have been a rollback, I would not be in the Nxt community anymore at this point.
However, to force that ón the community, is crossing a line that should never be crossed, IMO.


█████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
  | GET YOUR STAKE IN THE ARDOR PLATFORM! | SNAPSHOTTING UNTIL 13 OCTOBER
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:31:27 PM
 #12235

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.

I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs which is just as bad when dealing with what is supposed to be currency.

But my point still stands.  When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered.  Don't pretend your patch  wasn't controversial.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:44:03 PM
 #12236

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.

I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs.

But my point still stands.  When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered.  Don't pretend your patch  wasn't controversial.

Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be.

And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:53:05 PM
 #12237

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.

I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs.

But my point still stands.  When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered.  Don't pretend your patch  wasn't controversial.

Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be.

And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible.

The roll backs or reversions in Bitcoin were due to code bugs and not simply wanting  to rewrite history.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:54:18 PM
 #12238

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.

I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs.

But my point still stands.  When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered.  Don't pretend your patch  wasn't controversial.

Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be.

And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible.

The roll backs or reversions in Bitcoin were due to code bugs and not simply wanting  to rewrite history.

That's great, and there was no rollback of nxt either so it's time to stop hanging on to something that never occurred, or was even close to occurring, just because one lone man offered a choice.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 02:01:00 PM
 #12239

Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.
Damelon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 02:06:27 PM
 #12240

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.

I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs which is just as bad when dealing with what is supposed to be currency.

But my point still stands.  When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered.  Don't pretend your patch  wasn't controversial.

Yes, of course it was controversial, and rightly so.
However, controversial does not necessarily mean "bad".
Bitcoin has quite a long history behind it, and has had it's fair share of tense situations.
How you weather these situations are what's important.

You take the position that even considering it is inherently bad. Fine, that's a position.
Other people, including me, take the position that these testing grounds are a way to learn and determine who and what you are.
I find that much more important that aiming at an ideal situation that is arrived at by not having a choice at all (once more, in this specific situation), especially in the crypto space.  Smiley


█████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
  | GET YOUR STAKE IN THE ARDOR PLATFORM! | SNAPSHOTTING UNTIL 13 OCTOBER
Pages: « 1 ... 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 [612] 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 ... 1560 »
  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!