Author

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 103. (Read 378996 times)

legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1014
In Satoshi I Trust
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
Edit your super-nested quotes. Your posts are insufferable enough without the extra text.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.
"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.
Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!
You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.
Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  Wink

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.
If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning. Smiley
The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node.
I disagree, I think that the blocksize should be determined by the technological limitations in terms of not compromising the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. Which are metrics which can not be measured by only considering a single variable like the cost of running a full node, since there are many variables and factors at work which can influence and effect the different possible outcomes to this question.
Another worthless post full of meaningless verbiage
XD Veritas, so you don't care if for make a full node there will be a budget of 100,000$ only in eletricity? I agree with brg444 in this case because all what you just wrote not only is meaningless but even stupid
I do not go around calling people stupid if you have not noticed, though you saying that a node would cost that much to run just in electricity would certainly qualify. Such extremist rhetoric is not helpful, eight megabyte blocks would still allow most people in the developed world to run full nodes. It certainly would not cost $100,000 as you claim it would.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
The amount of FUD just for pushing back the temporary anti-spam limit is astonishing. It really is.

Economic reality is not FUD.

Now hush child, the adults are talking.

full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.
Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!
You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.
Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  Wink

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.
If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning. Smiley
The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node.
I disagree, I think that the blocksize should be determined by the technological limitations in terms of not compromising the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. Which are metrics which can not be measured by only considering a single variable like the cost of running a full node, since there are many variables and factors that determine the possible outcomes.

Another worthless post full of meaningless verbiage

XD Veritas, so you don't care if for make a full node there will be a budget of 100,000$ only in eletricity? I agree with brg444 in this case because all what you just wrote not only is meaningless but even stupid
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.
Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!
You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.
Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  Wink

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.
If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning. Smiley
The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node.
I disagree, I think that the blocksize should be determined by the technological limitations in terms of not compromising the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. Which are metrics which can not be measured by only considering a single variable like the cost of running a full node, since there are many variables and factors that determine the possible outcomes.

Another worthless post full of meaningless verbiage
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.
Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!
You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.
Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  Wink

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.
If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning. Smiley
The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node.
I disagree, I think that the blocksize should be determined by the technological limitations in terms of not compromising the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. Which are metrics which can not be measured by only considering a single variable like the cost of running a full node, since there are many variables and factors at work which can influence and effect the different possible outcomes to this question.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
I wonder if Coinbase has been caught net short a significant number of bitcoins (that it holds in custody for it's users) and is now wanting to lower the price to buy back it's obligations? Creating angst over blocksize has been used as a convenient vehicle for driving price lower in the past.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.
Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!
You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.
Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  Wink

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.
If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning. Smiley

The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node.  Smiley
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.
Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!
You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.
Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  Wink

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.
If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be able to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning. Smiley
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.
Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!
You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  Wink

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

LOL everybody is running to pay thousands of dollars of fees and fill up 1MB, when they don't even fill them up at a measly 5c/tx rate.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.
Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!
You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks, payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.



False analogy.

There is no alternative to run a full node. There will be plenty of alternatives to transact bitcoins.

My friend and I can each give up our full node and share in the cost of running a full node between us.  

If you trust your friend then sure.
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.



False analogy.

There is no alternative to run a full node. There will be plenty of alternatives to transact bitcoins.

My friend and I can each give up our full node and share in the cost of running a full node between us.  
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.



You should change your name to 'ToDumbForQuotes'

To your point, it is perfectly possible to enjoy the strength of real Bitcoin without ever touching one if one is to indigent to be able to own a pot to piss in.  Just use straight sidechains.

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.



False analogy.

There is no alternative to run a full node. There will be plenty of alternatives to transact bitcoins.


probably too dumb for bitcoin.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.



False analogy.

There is no alternative to run a full node. There will be plenty of alternatives to transact bitcoins.
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.


legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283

Am I the only person reading this thread who has concluded that most of the small-block posts are made by paid shills?

Doubt it.  I'm sure there are other tards reading this board.

Jump to: