GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :)

[vancefox]

45 pages of pure gaw bashing.... So you really think anyone will take you serious?

Most of my posts in BCT are in this thread.  Want to say my posts are B.S.?

Good luck with that.

[1714541419]

1714541419

[1714541419]

1714541419

[1714541419]

1714541419

[1714541419]

1714541419

[1714541419]

1714541419

[Paul Revere]

@ PC: I have actually been working for the last couple months during this ongoing saga. My current main job is remodeling this house, so I am here most of the time. What I do in between alternately being in the attic or crawlspace (both today) is my business.  I also happen to do some writing, and I see lots of rich material here. I could care less if "anybody takes me seriously" to be honest. I am just here because this whole scam was directly aimed at me, being a new guy in crypto when this whole shitstorm began. Been quite a learning experience, and I have managed to have some fun and actually am darned near at ROI on my mining gear now. Quite a bit ahead if I factor in what I have made playing the market with mined BTC. If I sold my mining gear right now I would be a fuzz ahead with a little luck, but I am thinking I will hang on to what I have, ya never know, I think it might be fun to make a coin and I would need to be able to provide minimal hash support to keep it alive.

Have fun tossing your money in the toilet and telling everyone how you are "investing", I am getting some good belly laughs out of it!  

[bananafana]

There are already hundreds if not thousands of things you can do with bitcoins and practically nothing an altcoin can do that bitcoin can't.

Can the bitcoin network provide 6 confirmations of a transaction in 6 minutes?  Nope,  Dogecoin can.  Can Bitcoin process 270 transactions per second?  Nope, Litecoin can.

More parameter changes. Your argument is like saying we need to create a whole new internet because IPV4 only supports 4 billion IP addresses.

In fact the limit on size of the IPV4 address space *is* the main reason for migrating to IPV6. That's not going to happen overnight but it's happening (contrary to what someone said yesterday) and will continue to happen.

In the analogy, the general categories being compared are cryptocurrencies and the internet. Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, ethereum, etc. are implementations of cryptocurrencies. NPC, IPV4, IPV6, etc., are implementations of internet protocols. So Bitcoin is like NPC in this analogy. IPV4 replaced NPC for good reasons, just as IPV6 will eventually overtake IPV4 for good reasons.

Bitcoin won't be that hard to replace when the time comes. It won't happen overnight, but the hard part is getting exchanges and payment processors and businesses set up to handle crypto. Most of that infrastructure already supports multiple cryptos, not just bitcoin.

A better analogy is to social networking sites. The infrastructure that allowed people to use social networking sites cost a lot of money to build, and it took time to grow the market to the point where the general public was aware of it and starting to use it. And changing wasn't easy. If you had a geocities page and wanted to move to friendster without losing your content, there was no easy way to do it. But then once all of that was in place and the market was big enough, competition exploded because the infrastructure and public awareness were ready. That's what the future of crypto will look like, IMO.

[strangerdanger101]

45 pages of pure gaw bashing.... So you really think anyone will take you serious?

Most of my posts in BCT are in this thread.  Want to say my posts are B.S.?

Good luck with that.

I take him serious and I don't take anything serious.

[Paul Revere]

45 pages of pure gaw bashing.... So you really think anyone will take you serious?

Most of my posts in BCT are in this thread.  Want to say my posts are B.S.?

Good luck with that.

I take him serious and I don't take anything serious.

Surely, you can't be cereal. 

Long as you don't take me Super Cereal everything will work out just fine. 

[paycum]

@ PC: I have actually been working for the last couple months during this ongoing saga. My current main job is remodeling this house, so I am here most of the time. What I do in between alternately being in the attic or crawlspace (both today) is my business.  I also happen to do some writing, and I see lots of rich material here. I could care less if "anybody takes me seriously" to be honest. I am just here because this whole scam was directly aimed at me, being a new guy in crypto when this whole shitstorm began. Been quite a learning experience, and I have managed to have some fun and actually am darned near at ROI on my mining gear now. Quite a bit ahead if I factor in what I have made playing the market with mined BTC. If I sold my mining gear right now I would be a fuzz ahead with a little luck, but I am thinking I will hang on to what I have, ya never know, I think it might be fun to make a coin and I would need to be able to provide minimal hash support to keep it alive.

Have fun tossing your money in the toilet and telling everyone how you are "investing", I am getting some good belly laughs out of it!  

Ok, i didnt know that and im sorry to hear it didnt turn out well for you. i jumped to conclusions a bit too fast. I just got a bit irritated due to negative vibe which suddenly was pointed to my direction.

[Paul Revere]

@ PC: I have actually been working for the last couple months during this ongoing saga. My current main job is remodeling this house, so I am here most of the time. What I do in between alternately being in the attic or crawlspace (both today) is my business.  I also happen to do some writing, and I see lots of rich material here. I could care less if "anybody takes me seriously" to be honest. I am just here because this whole scam was directly aimed at me, being a new guy in crypto when this whole shitstorm began. Been quite a learning experience, and I have managed to have some fun and actually am darned near at ROI on my mining gear now. Quite a bit ahead if I factor in what I have made playing the market with mined BTC. If I sold my mining gear right now I would be a fuzz ahead with a little luck, but I am thinking I will hang on to what I have, ya never know, I think it might be fun to make a coin and I would need to be able to provide minimal hash support to keep it alive.

Have fun tossing your money in the toilet and telling everyone how you are "investing", I am getting some good belly laughs out of it!  

Ok, i didnt know that and im sorry to hear it didnt turn out well for you. i jumped to conclusions a bit too fast. I just got a bit irritated due to negative vibe which suddenly was pointed to my direction.

Sorry? For what? I have no idea what you are talking about. Everything has worked out way better than I expected when I entered the Crypto world. But then, I never had any expectations of buying in and then being handed a huge profit in no time flat for no work. If you sense a "negative vibe" it is because you are here pissing all over the place and telling everyone that it is raining. That tends to generate a "negative vibe" in people.

[buddhamangler]

You don't know what you are talking about.  Faster blocks doesn't mean anything.  If bitcoin forked to 1 minute block times, then a transaction with 10 confirmations would be just as secure as one with one confirmation how it is now.  It's not the number of confirmations, its TIME.

That's not true. Each block race is a discrete event, so the chance of a specific miner beating the world to a set of, say, six blocks in a row should be roughly the same regardless of the time between blocks. Difficulty might change the curve a little, but, for the most part, it's the chance of winning a set of races cumulatively that matters.

This is wrong 100%.  The hash power needed to race the network is the same in both cases.  The thing that secures the network is TIME, the block time is merely chosen as a number that minimizes forks and allows for propogation, that's it.

[buddhamangler]

You don't know what you are talking about.  Faster blocks doesn't mean anything.  If bitcoin forked to 1 minute block times, then a transaction with 10 confirmations would be just as secure as one with one confirmation how it is now.  It's not the number of confirmations, its TIME.

That's not true. Each block race is a discrete event, so the chance of a specific miner beating the world to a set of, say, six blocks in a row should be roughly the same regardless of the time between blocks. Difficulty might change the curve a little, but, for the most part, it's the chance of winning a set of races cumulatively that matters.

Given X amount of hashpower and Y difficulty, the time to find a block on average is 10 minutes.  The block time is manipulated by adjusting the difficulty, so your statement is incorrect.  If you want 1 minute bitcoin blocktimes with the same amount of hashpower that exists today, you must decrease the difficulty by a factor of 10, you can't get around that.  So you see, decreasing the time between blocks does nothing, it just decreases the difficulty and thus the security.

So I say again..security of the blockchain given X amount of hashpower is proportional to time, not blocks.

Your belief is a common misconception.

[bumpershot]

Given X amount of hashpower and Y difficulty, the time to find a block on average is 10 minutes.  The block time is manipulated by adjusting the difficulty, so your statement is incorrect.  If you want 1 minute bitcoin blocktimes with the same amount of hashpower that exists today, you must decrease the difficulty by a factor of 10, you can't get around that.  So you see, decreasing the time between blocks does nothing, it just decreases the difficulty and thus the security.

So I say again..security of the blockchain given X amount of hashpower is proportional to time, not blocks.

Your belief is a common misconception.

Higher block frequency should make the network more secure because, basically, there's more "samples" so the appropriate winner wins more quickly. It's easier for someone with, say, 30% of the hashpower on the network to get lucky a couple of times than to get lucky 20 times. Higher block frequency means less time with the rebel chain in power because things will regulate more quickly.

Higher frequency should also make a 51% attack more effective, but the network's kind of screwed then, anyway.

[strangerdanger101]

[bananafana]

You don't know what you are talking about.  Faster blocks doesn't mean anything.  If bitcoin forked to 1 minute block times, then a transaction with 10 confirmations would be just as secure as one with one confirmation how it is now.  It's not the number of confirmations, its TIME.

That's not true. Each block race is a discrete event, so the chance of a specific miner beating the world to a set of, say, six blocks in a row should be roughly the same regardless of the time between blocks. Difficulty might change the curve a little, but, for the most part, it's the chance of winning a set of races cumulatively that matters.

Given X amount of hashpower and Y difficulty, the time to find a block on average is 10 minutes.  The block time is manipulated by adjusting the difficulty, so your statement is incorrect.  If you want 1 minute bitcoin blocktimes with the same amount of hashpower that exists today, you must decrease the difficulty by a factor of 10, you can't get around that.  So you see, decreasing the time between blocks does nothing, it just decreases the difficulty and thus the security.

So I say again..security of the blockchain given X amount of hashpower is proportional to time, not blocks.

Your belief is a common misconception.

If I understand it correctly, this paper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
on page 8 argues that the probability of an attacker generating an alternate chain depends on the number of confirmations (z), not on the time between confirmations. Is the analysis wrong?

[MinermanNC]

You don't know what you are talking about.  Faster blocks doesn't mean anything.  If bitcoin forked to 1 minute block times, then a transaction with 10 confirmations would be just as secure as one with one confirmation how it is now.  It's not the number of confirmations, its TIME.

That's not true. Each block race is a discrete event, so the chance of a specific miner beating the world to a set of, say, six blocks in a row should be roughly the same regardless of the time between blocks. Difficulty might change the curve a little, but, for the most part, it's the chance of winning a set of races cumulatively that matters.

Given X amount of hashpower and Y difficulty, the time to find a block on average is 10 minutes.  The block time is manipulated by adjusting the difficulty, so your statement is incorrect.  If you want 1 minute bitcoin blocktimes with the same amount of hashpower that exists today, you must decrease the difficulty by a factor of 10, you can't get around that.  So you see, decreasing the time between blocks does nothing, it just decreases the difficulty and thus the security.

So I say again..security of the blockchain given X amount of hashpower is proportional to time, not blocks.

Your belief is a common misconception.

The above is correct, and simple enough for most to understand... hash vs. difficulty = block average.  

[Paul Revere]

Is this like the FBI/CIA creating terrorists so they can destroy them? What the fuck is this retarded fucking asshole saying, and why do these idiots believe him after so many blatant lies? My threshold for branding someone a liar and never believing them again is 1 lie, apparently these morons have somehow been programmed to think the threshold for identifying a liar is ~100,000 blatant lies.



We have to make the coins so we can destroy them! I am soooo Super Cereal!

[bumpershot]

The above is correct, and simple enough for most to understand... hash vs. difficulty = block average.  

Yeah, average. More blocks = more opportunities for the blockchain to rectify itself. You're fighting deviation, as attackers can select times when they get lucky to doublespend or whatever, and higher block frequency reduces the variance.

[Paul Revere]

HT'r "Clem" seems to have it all figgered out: https://hashtalk.org/topic/32170/let-s-squash-the-inflation-theories/57



Who cares if the value goes down ~50%/week and all you can use it for is buying hot sauce? It stakes! This is soooo NEW and INNOVATIVE!

[MinermanNC]

HT'r "Clem" seems to have it all figgered out: https://hashtalk.org/topic/32170/let-s-squash-the-inflation-theories/57



Who cares if the value goes down ~50%/week and all you can use it for is buying hot sauce? It stakes! This is soooo NEW and INNOVATIVE!

lol, some of those people truly don't know their arse" from a hole in the ground. Faster and it stakes, wow

PS: I like the neck beard lol

[SkyValeey]

Xpy is backed not by gold but neck beard! 

[Paul Revere]

Man, these poor fools are getting clowned hardcore with these silly announcement pumps. I watched this shit all day and no decent Buy Bids were accumulating. At all. And then the asshole has this weird announcement that he has to create coins so that he can destroy them, then does a blatant pump and draws up a solid ~3,000 Buys into the .00325 range and BAM! Puts them in his pocket. What a bunch of SUCKERS!

[MinermanNC]

Ya, xpy at .77 cents ,,, I feel for those who bought in at $4.. or higher.... I am still scratching my head at all of this