Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 01:43:37 PM *
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 ... 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 [1370] 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807134 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 09:39:18 PM
 #27381

I think that the 'proper response' from the Blockstream guys and other's of their ilk would be to take off the gloves and go bare knuckles against the attackers, but they seem to cultured and to busy doing real work.  That's probably just as well because my instinct on this could well be wrong.

Playing politics is precisely playing into the failure mode for Bitcoin. That is why I argued they should use only back channels and otherwise STFU and code.

The victory comes from code, not from talk.

Talk to explain new technologies is fine.

1481291017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481291017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481291017
Reply with quote  #2

1481291017
Report to moderator
1481291017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481291017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481291017
Reply with quote  #2

1481291017
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481291017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481291017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481291017
Reply with quote  #2

1481291017
Report to moderator
1481291017
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481291017

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481291017
Reply with quote  #2

1481291017
Report to moderator
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 12:08:54 AM
 #27382

I suppose by that argument the Russian revolution (to use one of countless examples)  was, by definition, not a 'hostile' fork since it was democratic.

In any conflict, once the first shot is fired all involved parties are are appropriately labeled 'belligerents'.  As to who 'started it', that is left to the history books and these are, as they say, 'written by the victors.'
The fundemental error here is failing to recognize the voluntary nature of currency adoption.

Gavin proposed a change to Bitcoin that users are free to accept or decline.

That some developers interpreted this as a threat and turned it into a battle only shows the weakness of their position.

The proper response would have been to convince people to not choose the change by explaning why they would be better of by doing so.

Instead, they acted with outrage over the idea that somebody proposed something without their permission and was doing a better job of convincing people that they'd benefit from his proposal instead of theirs.

This is not a sustainable position for them. Money is only as valuable as there are other people willing to accept it, and nobody is in a position to force anybody to accept Bitcoin.

People who act on the expectation that their opinions are right by default because they were there first and so aren't subject to continual validation in the marketplace of ideas are going to end up losing everything.

Well said, and I think a lot of people see it this way.

There are lots of people who understand Bitcoin well enough and back a blocksize increase. Them being simply told they are unqualified to have a view/voice and to trust the "experts" without any sensible counter arguments, has turned them off as well it should.

And lots of people will remember this when it comes time to propose the SC fork.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 12:30:39 AM
 #27383

...
There are lots of people who understand Bitcoin well enough and back a blocksize increase. Them being simply told they are unqualified to have a view/voice and to trust the "experts" without any sensible counter arguments, has turned them off as well it should.

And lots of people will remember this when it comes time to propose the SC fork.

It's hard not to notice that you guys are highly proficient at ignoring 'sensible counter arguments' as though they didn't exist.  It's OK.  I understand...which is not to say that I would stoop to your level, but anyway...

Not embracing the 'SC fork' (soft) would be a monumental mistake by anyone who is sitting on sha256 ASIC gear.  I'll let you ponder that and/or wait to find out why.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 25, 2015, 12:54:35 AM
 #27384

It's hard not to notice that you guys are highly proficient at ignoring 'sensible counter arguments' as though they didn't exist.
A lot of those 'sensible counter arguments' take the form of:

"There's a tradeoff between scaling and decentralization."

"Can you explain what exactly you mean by 'decentralization' and how to measure it?"

"...no."

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2015, 01:35:21 AM
 #27385

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-who-is-most-exposed-to-a-greek-default-2015-06-23

“The private sector “has almost no direct exposure to Greece anymore,” wrote strategists at J.P. Morgan Cazenove, in a Monday note urging clients to get back into German stocks.


So the whole 2011-2012 Greek loan restructuring was basically a strategy to move the bagholders from rich powerful bankers and investors into the hands of the general population (as taxed by their governments), wasn't it?

EDIT: the entire system is broken.  Let private lenders lend to eurozone countries at essentially no risk (that's moral hazard of bailouts).  Then bail out the country and the private lenders using public money because of political/social concepts like one unified europe.  

How about letting governments default on loans WITHOUT kicking them out of the eurozone.  How about a government bankruptcy -> elect a new govt, fire the top 10 central bankers and any other bankers the other central banks deem responsible and have a 5-10 year probationary period where their local central bank cannot give euro-creating loans.


they're lying:



Don't worry your pretty little head about ^that^ sort of gloom and doom FUD.

Per Gavin, "the financial crises is over" and we can (because Netflix) all count on the current economic boom to provide us with broadband in line with the idealistic expectations of Nielsen's Law.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 02:05:07 AM
 #27386

It's hard not to notice that you guys are highly proficient at ignoring 'sensible counter arguments' as though they didn't exist.
A lot of those 'sensible counter arguments' take the form of:

"There's a tradeoff between scaling and decentralization."

"Can you explain what exactly you mean by 'decentralization' and how to measure it?"

"...no."

I want a solution which can give me something approaching the confidence I have in precious metals under times of stress.

I say that when (not if) there is another financial crisis of the type which (according to legend) incited Satoshi, and it cannot be controlled with bail-outs and such, it is a near certainty that alternates to whatever solution we are funneled into will be attacked vigorously.  This includes gold and Bitcoin.

I say that these attacks are nearly certain to include pressure on corporate internet infrastructure providers and leveraging of the monitoring framworks known to be available to entities such as our NSA.

You seem to be saying that such things are entirely fanciful.  I disagree and I simply cannot bet as much as I would like on a solution which does not have the potential to defend itself against such things.  Bitcoin with it's 1MB/block cap has this potential, but only barely by my systems analysis and the available technologies and geopolitical landscapes as I understand them.

I want a value core that is as defensible as possible, and I want it to be Bitcoin because BTC is all that I own at this time.  I'll fight for it as long as there is hope then I'll switch to something else if we lose this battle.

If XT is so great, it should be great as a sidechain.  I honestly hope that it gets your 'critical mass' and 'outruns regulation' but I'm certainly not betting my BTC stash on it.  In fact I'll work toward this because I'm happy to use such a solution for whatever I can.  I already leverage the 'kindness' of various mega-players who give me nice toys for 'free', and XT seems like it would be a shoe-in for such use.  Hopefully you guys are porting the XT 'upgrades' to your btcd as we speak, and hopefully the hooks to make the XT protocol a sidechain will be easy and freely available to you.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 25, 2015, 02:13:02 AM
 #27387

I want a solution which can give me something approaching the confidence I have in precious metals under times of stress.

I say that when (not if) there is another financial crisis of the type which (according to legend) incited Satoshi, and it cannot be controlled with bail-outs and such, it is a near certainty that alternates to whatever solution we are funneled into will be attacked vigorously.  This includes gold and Bitcoin.

I say that these attacks are nearly certain to include pressure on corporate internet infrastructure providers and leveraging of the monitoring framworks known to be available to entities such as our NSA.
There is no way to achieve the goal you want through the methods you're proposing.

If you want a currency that can store value, then it needs to be used by other people. That means it has to support the kind of usage levels that you're afraid of.

If remains too small to be effectively attacked, then it will also be too small to retain any kind of monetary value.

Safety through smallness is a dead end, which leaves safety through growth.

That might not work, but staying small for certain won't work.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 02:27:43 AM
 #27388

I want a solution which can give me something approaching the confidence I have in precious metals under times of stress.

I say that when (not if) there is another financial crisis of the type which (according to legend) incited Satoshi, and it cannot be controlled with bail-outs and such, it is a near certainty that alternates to whatever solution we are funneled into will be attacked vigorously.  This includes gold and Bitcoin.

I say that these attacks are nearly certain to include pressure on corporate internet infrastructure providers and leveraging of the monitoring framworks known to be available to entities such as our NSA.

There is no way to achieve the goal you want through the methods you're proposing.

If you want a currency that can store value, then it needs to be used by other people. That means it has to support the kind of usage levels that you're afraid of.

If remains too small to be effectively attacked, then it will also be too small to retain any kind of monetary value.

Safety through smallness is a dead end, which leaves safety through growth.

That might not work, but staying small for certain won't work.

Gold in modern societies counters your argument, but I agree that wide use is desirable.  Not necessarily for security but more for humanity.  This is exactly why sidechains are so important.  They're promise is a cryptographically strong and thus near perfect proxy for Bitcoin which is then free to hide out.  That it hides out significantly under the care of people with the skills to protect it is a good thing and a key to it's robustness.  Again, not at all unlike gold.

The sidechains where Bitcoin use flows among the masses are highly flexible to fill a variety of niches (e.g., a 'safe' monitored and controlled currency for use within the mandates of the state.)  They are also dispensable which addresses the single-point-of-failure problem.  What I never did envision was the crypto methods which could allow individuals using a successfully attacked sidechain to reclaim their original BTC eventually.  Brilliant!


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 25, 2015, 02:54:31 AM
 #27389

Gold in modern societies counters your argument
Gold is almost entirely propped up by central banks who control the majority of the world's supply. They never had to pay for that gold themselves, since it was obtained via the taxing powers of the respective governments.

How vaulable would gold be if all the central banks auctioned off their supplies to the highest bidder and then refused to buy any more?

In terms of ensuring Bitcoin's survival in the face of hostile and well-resourced interests, I think a better model to look at is the Tor project. Why are they able to survive in spite of a lot of powerful interests who'd like to see otherwise?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 03:44:50 AM
 #27390

...
In terms of ensuring Bitcoin's survival in the face of hostile and well-resourced interests, I think a better model to look at is the Tor project. Why are they able to survive in spite of a lot of powerful interests who'd like to see otherwise?

Last I looked TOR survives with 80% of it's financing coming directly from the U.S. government and most knowledgeable people who I find credible (in addition to my own analysis) saying that it has limited usefulness against attackers with the capabilities of the NSA.  Call me a skeptic, but the claims that TOR is funded by the govt to help Iranian dissidents avoid persecution and what-not I have a hard time swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.  That's but one of a long list of rather questionable observations as far as I am concerned.

I may use TOR for protection against certain privacy losses against certain classes of attacker, but I certainly would not trust such a solution with a great deal of my financial nest-egg.  Or at least not against a situation where the government wanted me to use a different solution for wealth preservation and transmission than I wished to.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 04:25:06 AM
 #27391

...
In terms of ensuring Bitcoin's survival in the face of hostile and well-resourced interests, I think a better model to look at is the Tor project. Why are they able to survive in spite of a lot of powerful interests who'd like to see otherwise?

Last I looked TOR survives with 80% of it's financing coming directly from the U.S. government and most knowledgeable people who I find credible (in addition to my own analysis) saying that it has limited usefulness against attackers with the capabilities of the NSA.  Call me a skeptic, but the claims that TOR is funded by the govt to help Iranian dissidents avoid persecution and what-not I have a hard time swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.  That's but one of a long list of rather questionable observations as far as I am concerned.

I may use TOR for protection against certain privacy losses against certain classes of attacker, but I certainly would not trust such a solution with a great deal of my financial nest-egg.  Or at least not against a situation where the government wanted me to use a different solution for wealth preservation and transmission than I wished to.

Onion routing was created by the US Navy.

I dug up a few links:

We must fix the internet so as to maintain the fundamental End-to-end principle. The designers forgot to build Tor into it when they designed it. And Tor has serious flaws; most importantly it can be Sybil attacked.
Tor has been praised for providing privacy and anonymity to vulnerable Internet users such as political activists fearing surveillance and arrest, ordinary web users seeking to circumvent censorship, and women who have been threatened with violence or abuse by stalkers. The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has called Tor "the king of high-secure, low-latency Internet anonymity".

americanfolklore.net/folklore/2010/07/brer_rabbit_meets_a_tar_baby.html

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/thoughts-and-concerns-about-operation-onymous

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/hidden-services-need-some-love

https://www.google.com/search?q=Tor+correlation+attack

https://www.google.com/search?q=Tor+sybil+attack

https://www.google.com/search?q=Tor+exit+node+attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29#Exit_node_eavesdropping

Furthermore, Egerstad is circumspect about the possible subversion of Tor by intelligence agencies:[101]

    
Quote
If you actually look in to where these Tor nodes are hosted and how big they are, some of these nodes cost thousands of dollars each month just to host because they're using lots of bandwidth, they're heavy-duty servers and so on. Who would pay for this and be anonymous?


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 04:34:32 AM
 #27392

"Can you explain what exactly you mean by 'decentralization' and how to measure it?"

"...no."

The concept of how political regulatory capture works is beyond the comprehension of people who choose to believe it doesn't exist. Thus it doesn't matter how many times I define a metric for decentralized mining to you related to the autonomy of ephemeral nodes on home internet connections (as a valid resilience against the regulatory capture phenomenon of the Logic of Collective Action), you will still won't acknowledge it.

Another vector of decentralization is that there should be no politics involved with the protocol. We clearly see Bitcoin has failed that metric too.

But it an enormous fucking waste of time to argue here. It would be more productive to talk to myself in a desert.

I am going to enjoy LMAO when you retards are toast.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 04:47:20 AM
 #27393

I want a solution which can give me something approaching the confidence I have in precious metals under times of stress.

I say that when (not if) there is another financial crisis of the type which (according to legend) incited Satoshi, and it cannot be controlled with bail-outs and such, it is a near certainty that alternates to whatever solution we are funneled into will be attacked vigorously.  This includes gold and Bitcoin.

I say that these attacks are nearly certain to include pressure on corporate internet infrastructure providers and leveraging of the monitoring framworks known to be available to entities such as our NSA.
There is no way to achieve the goal you want through the methods you're proposing.

If you want a currency that can store value, then it needs to be used by other people. That means it has to support the kind of usage levels that you're afraid of.

If remains too small to be effectively attacked, then it will also be too small to retain any kind of monetary value.

Safety through smallness is a dead end, which leaves safety through growth.

That might not work, but staying small for certain won't work.

The BTC peg means that tvbcof could leverage the chain which spreads BTC out to the masses, while storing his BTC on a side chain that has the attributes he wants.

And if that side chain employs my consensus algorithm, then it can not be 50% attacked. So therefor there is no risk. Even if you disbelieve I have such a solution, the side chain could perhaps use merged mining. Even if you disbelieve that both my solution won't exist and merged mining won't be sufficient, then tvbcof claims it is possible to recover your BTC from an attacked side chain (but I need to go check the white paper to learn how this claim is achieved).

Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 04:58:05 AM
 #27394


Good grief Gavin not only didn't understand the exponential function, he now explains that he apparently never learned the concept of statistical variance. For example, I can only be sure to obtain about 56 kbps here where I am when I am on a 3G (that drops down to EDGE/2G) wireless connection with my laptop.

And these are the retards you entrust the future of Bitcoin to?

Did all these Yes voters just suddenly become dumb or were they somehow fooled?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 05:30:43 AM
 #27395

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 05:39:14 AM
 #27396

Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.

Who is going to do that, some administrator? A bankruptcy trustee? No.

The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem.

For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 05:44:59 AM
 #27397

Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.

Who is going to do that, some administrator? No.

The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem.

For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario.




the way it would need to happen in normal circumstances is for the scBTC to be mined back to BTC, by reversing the proof, most likely via merge mining.  since the most common cause of a failure is likely to come from a 51% of the SC since it is inherently less secure (<100% MM'd) by definition being able to get mined back is not going to happen.  after all, that would be the purpose for the attack; to kill off everyone's scBTC while simultaneously shorting scBTC on an exchange while going long BTC on the MC.

that would be a fun attack.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 05:56:20 AM
 #27398

Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.

Who is going to do that, some administrator? A bankruptcy trustee? No.

The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem.

For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario.


The whitepaper seemed pretty basic as most of them are.  It's counter-productive to bog a reader down in minutia in such works.

The 'flash of insight' came, I think, with Maxwell's update on the various 'elements' and progress on them.  Whether he outlined it specifically or whether I half invented it, I'm not sure.  I had put my mind to the problem of incremental value pegging and mostly failed but I kinda started to see some of the possibilities when (I think) Maxwell was describing some of the time-lock primitives and such.

I never really appreciated (or even fully understood) some of the stuff about payment channels.  To me it seemed like a lot of trouble and undesirable complexity for a rather narrow use-case.  I can recognize the efficiency of controlling flows with start/stop messenging along a pre-defined channel (vs. a multitude of incremental value transactions) but it didn't (to me) translate much beyond paying for a porn movie until one finished their thing which can be difficult to predict ahead of time.  I'm starting to glimpse how such efficiency could be used in more critical contexts, and in particular how such a thing could result in a default return of value absent occasional update pings.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 06:14:22 AM
 #27399

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.


necrita
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 06:16:09 AM
 #27400

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.


I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too. 

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.
Pages: « 1 ... 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 [1370] 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 ... 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!