Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 170.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: CIYAM on September 24, 2015, 11:33:13 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 24, 2015, 11:30:46 AM

I have my virtex account setup
I can send 2000$ for 7.5$ so 0.3% fee
then i buy le bitcoins for 0.8% fee
so i encounter ~1% fees
Not bad.

How much fees do you think Starbucks is charged for credit card purchases?

(hint - less than 1%)

Advantage for Starbucks to accept Bitcoin then? None.

oh idk about that some stores will not allow me to use my CC unless i buy 15$ or more of stuff.
but the use case I illustrated Starbucks isn't included with le bitcoins and bitcoin users get 20-40% off at Starbucks

you get a Starbucks gift card, but you don't want coffee you want a more potent drug?
NO PROBLEM!
liquidate your Starbucks gift card for bitcoin and buy le durg!

the person that buys the Starbucks gift card is happy he got a discount
the person that sells the Starbucks gift card is happy he got BTC fast

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 24, 2015, 11:30:46 AM

I have my virtex account setup
I can send 2000$ for 7.5$ so 0.3% fee
then i buy le bitcoins for 0.8% fee
so i encounter ~1% fees
Not bad.

How much fees do you think Starbucks is charged for credit card purchases?

(hint - less than 1%)

Advantage for Starbucks to accept Bitcoin then? None.

People that keep on saying they want to buy coffees for BTC can really only be people who are sitting on a large stash of BTC that they got for very little (say 5 USD or less).

No-one else is going to fork out the fees and the hassle to change their dollars into BTC just to pay *more* for their coffee and have a less convenient purchase.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: CIYAM on September 24, 2015, 10:49:32 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 24, 2015, 10:47:38 AM

You really don't. People can buy BTC for dollars and then buy coffee.

You are kidding aren't you?

So I pay a % in order to by BTC for dollars then I buy a coffee making my coffee actually more expensive (and it took me the time to first change my dollars into BTC which I could have instead just used to by my coffee saving me that wasted time).

Note that if I had used by credit card I could just "tap to pay" but if I use BTC they'll have to find their person that knows how to do the tx (and many stories on this forum show that places that accept BTC only have one person that even knows how to do that) and muck around with QR codes (which will take at least 5x as long as tap and go does).

And in order to get the BTC you would have most likely had to set up an account at an exchange (requiring all sorts of ID checks) or gone through an even more complicated procedure (risking being targeted as some sort of tax evader by using localbitcoins).

Why on earth would anyone do that?

It seems that a lot of people here are just living in some sort of "fantasy land" in which BTC is able to be acquired for zero fees or hassles.

circle makes it pretty easy.

but forget that for a second

I have my virtex account setup
I can send 2000$ for 7.5$ so 0.3% fee
then i buy le bitcoins for 0.8% fee
so i encounter ~1% fees
Not bad.

since i'm all setup its actually very easy.
now why would i do this???

well to get 20-40% more value out of my dollar ofcoures
by buying gift cards on https://cardforcoin.com/ at 20-40% discount Grin

... i gotta start doing this.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Lauda on September 24, 2015, 11:25:38 AM

No. I have not called you closed-minded. Please re-read my sentence.

Yup - I had edited my reply - you were too fast.

Quote from: CIYAM on September 24, 2015, 11:21:49 AM

I do realize that the majority that are using Bitpay are converting. There are ones that do not use Bitpay and ones that do not convert everything.

You need to think about the consumers not the merchants as this whole block size debate is really about that.

If everything to do with Bitcoin is just to benefit the merchants then for sure it will never take off at all (consumers are sick and tired of being ripped off).

I have tried using Bitcoin to purchase things and in general I've found it to be actually a hassle (and has saved me nothing). If it wasn't for having bought cheap BTC I doubt I would ever have even bothered so I really find it hard to believe that people are going to be convinced to transact in BTC unless they basically have no choice.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: CIYAM on September 24, 2015, 11:21:49 AM

Quote from: Lauda on September 24, 2015, 11:15:12 AM

The problem is that people are closed minded and do not like change.

Seriously - I have been using Bitcoins for years so calling me "closed minded" is completely wrong (I was paying for VPS with BTC up until this year and only changed because the service was sub-standard).

No. I have not called you closed-minded. Please re-read my sentence.

Quote from: CIYAM on September 24, 2015, 11:21:49 AM

It is actually much easier to set up a bank account with a card than it is to set up an account with an exchange. Why would anyone want to do an extra step when they save nothing (and pay more fees)?
You do realise that every retailer (well at least the vast majority of them) are using BitPay and are just converting the dollar price into BTC (so no discount for paying in BTC)?

You do make a very good point. While you have to do something to acquire Bitcoins or a credit card, with exchanges it is much harder. The last time that I was opening a bank account took about 15-20 minutes of waiting and signing on a few places. With exchanges this takes a while as one must upload more than a single piece of document.
I do realize that the majority that are using Bitpay are converting. There are ones that do not use Bitpay and ones that do not convert everything.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Lauda on September 24, 2015, 11:15:12 AM

With Bitcoin, you set up an account at a exchange. Then you proceed to load it with money and buy Bitcoin. Then you transfer back your Bitcoin and use it. There's just 1 additional step in this. It's not even complicated. The problem is that people are closed minded and do not like change.

It is still easier to set up a bank account with a card than it is to set up an account with an exchange (even if only one step difference) because you have to first have set up your fiat banking account in order to set up your BTC exchange account!

Also you do realise that every retailer (well at least the vast majority of them) are using BitPay and are just converting the dollar price into BTC (so no discount for paying in BTC)?

The only people benefiting from using BTC for purchases are those that got BTC back when it was very cheap (as I did) and many of those people have now stopped purchasing things (as I have done) in order to keep the value of their remaining BTC.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: CIYAM on September 24, 2015, 10:49:32 AM

-snip-
Note that if I had used by credit card I could just "tap to pay" but if I use BTC they'll have to find their person that knows how to do the tx (and many stories on this forum show that places that accept BTC only have one person that even knows how to do that) and muck around with QR codes (which will take at least 5x as long as tap and go does).

And in order to get the BTC you would have most likely had to set up an account at an exchange (requiring all sorts of ID checks) or gone through an even more complicated procedure (risking being targeted as some sort of tax evader by using localbitcoins).
Why on earth would anyone do that?

Your post makes zero logical sense to me. What are you talking about? Are you telling me that you did not have to set up an back account to receive your credit card? Did it fall from the sky loaded with money? The procedure is seemingly similar aside from some fees when buying. Basically you had to set up a bank account and receive your CC. Then you proceed to load it with money and use it.
With Bitcoin, you set up an account at a exchange. Then you proceed to load it with money and buy Bitcoin. Then you transfer back your Bitcoin and use it. There's just 1 additional step in this. It's not even complicated. The problem is that people are closed minded and do not like change.

Quote from: CIYAM on September 24, 2015, 10:49:32 AM

It seems that a lot of people here are just living in some sort of "fantasy land" in which BTC is able to be acquired for zero fees or hassles.

I do agree with this though.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

scalability and taxability resolved: http://taler.net/

Taxable Anonymous Libre Electronic Reserves

go for it n00bs! Grin

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 24, 2015, 10:47:38 AM

You really don't. People can buy BTC for dollars and then buy coffee.

You are kidding aren't you?

So I pay a % in order to by BTC for dollars then I buy a coffee making my coffee actually more expensive (and it took me the time to first change my dollars into BTC which I could have instead just used to by my coffee saving me that wasted time).

Note that if I had used by credit card I could just "tap to pay" but if I use BTC they'll have to find their person that knows how to do the tx (and many stories on this forum show that places that accept BTC only have one person that even knows how to do that) and muck around with QR codes (which will take at least 5x as long as tap and go does).

And in order to get the BTC you would have most likely had to set up an account at an exchange (requiring all sorts of ID checks) or gone through an even more complicated procedure (risking being targeted as some sort of tax evader by using localbitcoins).

Why on earth would anyone do that?

It seems that a lot of people here are just living in some sort of "fantasy land" in which BTC is able to be acquired for zero fees or hassles.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: CIYAM on September 24, 2015, 10:33:56 AM

You need to pay people in BTC before they can buy coffees with them.

You really don't. People can buy BTC for dollars and then buy coffee.

If you're arguing that adoption needs to be necessarily spearheaded by BTC payroll,
I don't agree with that either.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

It seems to me the entire block size debate is a bit like this:

Quote

Alice: "The sky is falling down because I can't buy my morning coffee with Bitcoin!"

Bob: "Oh - so you are paid in Bitcoin then or you just happen to have a big stash of Bitcoin?"

Alice: "Hmm... well actually just some cents for spamming this forum mostly."

Bob: "So how many coffees would you expect to buy with Bitcoin then?"

Alice: "At least one per year."

How many people in the world are being paid wages in BTC at the moment?

So the importance of being able to buy your morning coffee with BTC is for exactly what reason?

You need to pay people in BTC before they can buy coffees with them. If every website accepted payments in LTC do you think suddenly everyone is going to adopt LTC (or any other alt)?

I find that most websites accept payments in PayPal - but guess what - I don't use PayPal (so adding another payment option won't result in that payment option being used just because it exists).

It is putting "the cart before the horse" to even worry about this. If Bitcoin can't even make a "dent" in the remittance market then the dreams of buying coffees with it are really just ridiculous (and so far it appears that Bitcoin hasn't even made a "dent" in the remittance market).

The "low hanging fruit" that Bitcoin should be gobbling up is the remittance market and other banking settlement transfers.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: tvbcof on September 24, 2015, 12:01:09 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 23, 2015, 11:40:42 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 11:20:52 PM

of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america Undecided

much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty

have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!?

In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining.

So you anticipate that if Bitcoin starts to get traction and take food out of the mouths of the mainstream financial system beneficiaries (financial system corporate, govt, etc) they are going to say: 'Drat! Those darned geeky hodlers won and there is nothing we can do about it because Freedom.'

Or are you believing that there will be such a world-wide groundswell of support for Bitcoiners that citizens will take up arms against the persecutors and overthrow the evil govts on our behalf?

Are you a fucking idiot? Or just completely out-of-touch with reality?

I say as I always have that Bitcoin is at it's core a guerrilla currency and we should not slack off on protecting it through it's potential strengths as such. If I were on the other side of the fence and worried about it (as I would be), I would have taken pains to lull the community into complacency and detract from developments which would strengthen it against attack until a good opportunity to drop the hammer came. That opportunity would likely come with unrelated opportunities to tighten up on the internet generally as it wormed it's way into a position where it provides a bit more of certain kinds of freedoms than are desirable (thanks in no small part to the cypherpunks.)

I was not saying that at all, and I think there are multiple possible scenarios for what could happen in the future which depend on different variables, social, geopolitical, economical etc. I was just saying that adoption is an important factor for security and decentralization. I do not think that we need to take up arms to defend Bitcoin, I have never said that. The revolution that Bitcoin brings is a peaceful one. If more people are using Bitcoin it will be more difficult for governments to persecute people politically, furthermore to effectively stop Bitcoin they would need to either shut down or completely control the internet or be able to enforce policy in every jurisdiction in world. Since it only takes one jurisdiction to be free for pools to be setup so that miners all over the world can anonymously point their hashing power towards these pools to strengthen Bitcoin, Bitcoin is not as vulnerable as you might think, Bitcoin is anti fragile.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 24, 2015, 06:34:58 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 24, 2015, 12:42:00 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 22, 2015, 08:04:51 PM

Your idealized considerations of spherical blockchains are suitable for academic and altcoin architecture consideration, but serve no positive purpose in the practical matter of Bitcoin's max_block debate...

ok soooo....

You're using a tautological argument to claim that Peter's fee market theory is wrong because the dead weight is really being used to create a fee market Undecided

...and then topping that off with an unabashed appeal to authority.

Good one.

Many people from the thread linked below (myself included) seem to think that it is clear that a block size limit cannot be used to increase the fees; they think that either the protocol would fork or that the demand would spill into competing coins, etc.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-40#post-1276

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

my g0d these guys are restless!

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 24, 2015, 12:42:00 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 22, 2015, 08:04:51 PM

I've shown these diagrams a lot because I think they reveal the essence of the situation. If the limit remains to the right of Q*, then it doesn't really matter what the limit is because it does not affect the free market dynamics. However, if the limit falls to the left of Q*, then the pressure due to the deadweight loss will eventually cause a fork to move the limit back to the right of Q*!

TL/DR: There is no way to stop Bitcoin from growing.

Your idealized considerations of spherical blockchains are suitable for academic and altcoin architecture consideration, but serve no positive purpose in the practical matter of Bitcoin's max_block debate.

What you misleadingly mislabel as "deadweight loss" due to a "Political measure" are actually the beneficial artifacts (including anti-spam/DoS externality regulation) of Bitcoin's incentives for creation of fee markets (and the efficiency|antifragility thus accrued).

I'm sure you disagree, so, to avoid a stalemate due to differing opinions, let's appeal to expertise...

You show those diagrams a lot, because you "think they reveal the essence of the situation."

I'm glad you think the "essence" of Bitcoin's Grand Schism can be revealed by a Powerpoint slide or two.

And I'm glad you were able to expose your precious slides to an attentive audience at the first #ScalingBitcoin workshop.

Now, let us consider how many of the experts at that workshop were persuaded by your putative Domination Slide.

Hmm, I can't think of any. 101/XT's slide into oblivion was not paused or halted, and instead accelerated, in the wake of that conference.

ok soooo....

You're using a tautological argument to claim that Peter's fee market theory is wrong because the dead weight is really being used to create a fee market Undecided

...and then topping that off with an unabashed appeal to authority.

Good one.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Trent Russell on September 24, 2015, 04:06:22 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 01:08:35 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 23, 2015, 12:01:11 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 23, 2015, 11:40:53 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 10:40:57 AM

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious. If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win. The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty. If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions. Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind. We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.

Suppose there is more than one chain building on top of the Satoshi genesis block and that the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty does contain a block greater than 1 MB. It's clear you (Peter R) "win." But does that mean you get the 2BTC on every still-active chain? Or only on the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty? That outcome isn't clearly specified by what you're writing.

1BTC is too rich for me, but I could put up 0.5 BTC with the following agreement: This time next year (let's say October 1, 2016) Peter R gets the 1 BTC on every active chain that includes the multisig bet output which contains a block greater than 1 MB. I get the 1 BTC on every other active chain that contains the multisig bet output. "Active chain" means that there were at least 20 consecutive blocks mined on the chain on October 1, 2016.

Unfortunately, there's nothing that can prevent BTC from being spent on any chain, unless the hard-fork makes transactions incompatible between chains.

Trent Russell

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

willmathforcrypto.com

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 01:08:35 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 23, 2015, 12:01:11 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 23, 2015, 11:40:53 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 10:40:57 AM

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious. If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win. The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty. If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions. Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind. We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.

Suppose there is more than one chain building on top of the Satoshi genesis block and that the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty does contain a block greater than 1 MB. It's clear you (Peter R) "win." But does that mean you get the 2BTC on every still-active chain? Or only on the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty? That outcome isn't clearly specified by what you're writing.

1BTC is too rich for me, but I could put up 0.5 BTC with the following agreement: This time next year (let's say October 1, 2016) Peter R gets the 1 BTC on every active chain that includes the multisig bet output which contains a block greater than 1 MB. I get the 1 BTC on every other active chain that contains the multisig bet output. "Active chain" means that there were at least 20 consecutive blocks mined on the chain on October 1, 2016.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 23, 2015, 11:06:40 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 11:01:38 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 23, 2015, 10:56:48 PM

Quote from: erik777 on September 23, 2015, 10:43:11 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 23, 2015, 10:12:28 PM

Quote from: erik777 on September 23, 2015, 09:59:52 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 23, 2015, 09:14:26 PM

Quote from: erik777 on September 23, 2015, 09:06:59 PM

I'm not so sure that altcoins have a lot more throughput than Bitcoin after reading this summary of testnet limitations of BitShare 2.0, which is claiming it an reach 100k TPS in the real-world:

Bitshares full nodes are very different to Bitcoin. Bitshares is delegated proof of stake, as far as I understand it there are only 100 full nodes which are incentivized and voted into position by the users based on the amount they hold. Other examples would be Dash which has fully incentivized full nodes implemented in a more decentralized fashion compared to Bitcoin. Ethereum also has some interesting solutions to scalability as well.

Yes, and that is sort of my point. You can throw out PoW, relieving a lot of CPU/GPU/ASIC intensive work (without getting into security implications), and, like Bitcoin, the primary bottlenck is still networking.

I am not referring to PoW in these examples, I was referring to full nodes which are dealing with the primary bottleneck of networking.

At the cost of sacrificing decentralization. This is just trying to find a happy place between Bitcoin and Visa. Yet, it is clear that they acknowledge, that the primary issue is networking.

We agree on the primary point. So, let's apply that to the discussions on this thread.

Does XT solve the primary scalability issue facing Bitcoin today... networking load and latency?

Right Exactly!

the block size debate is kinda besides the point, block should be as big as they need too, period the end. and we should be focused on solving this core issue.

the scalability debate should be more about,figuring out what the "max load" or "min requirements" we expect from full node users ( 15MBPS + reasonable computer?? ) and reducing the load to accommodate as much traffic as possible.

The min requirement is simple: being able to run a node over an anonymous low-bandwidth connection

Quote

I’d ignore mundane expenses like hardware and power. Instead, recall that, if a full node cannot be run anonymously, “the network” (full node entry) is effectively controlled by law enforcement, a central entity. Therefore, my view is that the current largest “cost” (and current bottleneck to Bitcoin scalability) is therefore the threat of persecution.

By low bandwidth you mean a 56K external modem? You never answered my questions about how do you plan to make the protocol measure the "cost" of running a node btw.

he wants full node to run behind TOR which is retardedly slow, he's bonkers.

go make a shit coin brg444, we want to make a really good digital currency not enable childporn.

They are making it already. Those who promote and keep running a small block implementation will get that shit coin. There is a consensus among the small blockers to get that coin. Some of those hard core small blockers will believe to hold the valid coin even when the price will be zero or less:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 23, 2015, 06:44:30 PM

I will put the summary here again.

Bitcoin can leverage its network effect gained from the first mover advantage in order to play it safe with regards to its limit on block size as the cost to switch would be the highest, but other systems would need to stay within the confines of the home networks in order to provide the same core value proposition to compete with Bitcoin properly.

Bitcoin needs to move only when it absolutely has to, there is no reason to do this at the moment.

Yes. And it should be ready at any moment. Some implementations are, some not.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 05:23:09 PM

"I was having 5 hours dinner with Gavin, Greg Maxwell & Adam Back"

"Why do we hire Bitcoin"

Greg & Adam: "Monetary sovereignty"

Gavin: "Because when I make a payment I feel good"

Monetary sovereignty for the stream blockers.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 170. (Read 378996 times)