"Why do we hire Bitcoin"
Greg & Adam: "Monetary sovereignty"
Gavin: "Because when I make a payment I feel good"
Oh god my sides 
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 175. (Read 378996 times)
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"
Oh god my sides
"Why do we hire Bitcoin"
Greg & Adam: "Monetary sovereignty"
Gavin: "Because when I make a payment I feel good"
Oh god my sides 
September 23, 2015, 05:19:09 PM
because secured, as in secured from the noobs and their consumerist dreams as we also get less exposed to all corporate scams.
so bring it on b!tches
September 23, 2015, 05:14:12 PM
"Why do people hire Bitcoin, what job do they need done?"
"We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin"
"We need to remove the smell from bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk
Trace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head.
btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique.
"We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin"
"We need to remove the smell from bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk
Trace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head.
btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique.
"We need to target people looking for monetary sovereignty, not cutting costs"
This guy needs an award or something
Translation: "We need to get rid of market spectrums"
September 23, 2015, 05:09:29 PM
"Why do people hire Bitcoin, what job do they need done?"
"We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin"
"We need to remove the smell from bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk
Trace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head.
btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique.
"We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin"
"We need to remove the smell from bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk
Trace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head.
btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique.
"We need to target people looking for monetary sovereignty, not cutting costs"
This guy needs an award or something
September 23, 2015, 05:02:07 PM
"Why do people hire Bitcoin, what job do they need done?"
"We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin"
"We need to remove the smell from bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk
Trace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head.
btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique.
"We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin"
"We need to remove the smell from bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk
Trace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head.
btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique.
September 23, 2015, 04:47:35 PM
btw "economic majority" = "people with the moar coins".
roughly a handfull of persons.
but they are also very riskaversed..
likely to "step aside" (if not "dumping the fork") in case of some hasty coup..
hardcore bitcoiners here.. with much patience.
roughly a handfull of persons.
but they are also very riskaversed..
likely to "step aside" (if not "dumping the fork") in case of some hasty coup..
hardcore bitcoiners here.. with much patience.
September 23, 2015, 04:40:54 PM
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.
Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.
[img]http://-snip-[img]
Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?
That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve.
The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless.
A fork easier to achieve then readily available alternatives
In what world do you live in !?
A consensus fork is hard but a split fork would be fairly easy as consensus is already reached on both side and both side would be willing to lose the other side.
You really don't realize what this implies, do you?
This would effectively destroy any trust that exist into your fork and the value of your altcoin would plummet and likely never recover. If you don't have the support of the economic majority your coin is worthless.
In fact I'm all for it and will support you in this endeavor. As hdbuck has repeatedly mentioned I can only hope your little clique of corporate shills fork yourselves away from us so we can't never hear from you again. What a spectacle this will be!
September 23, 2015, 04:34:46 PM
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.
Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.
[img]http://-snip-[img]
Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?
That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve.
The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless.
A fork easier to achieve then readily available alternatives
In what world do you live in !?
A consensus fork is hard but a split fork would be fairly easy as consensus is already reached on both side and both side would be willing to lose the other side.
September 23, 2015, 04:29:13 PM
problem is here people tend to forget the essential:
this coin will be on the longest VALID chain. now where my bet pater?
this coin will be on the longest VALID chain. now where my bet pater?
September 23, 2015, 04:16:18 PM
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.
Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.
Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?
That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve.
The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless.
A fork easier to achieve then readily available alternatives
In what world do you live in !?
September 23, 2015, 04:04:30 PM
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.
Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.
Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?
That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve.
The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless.
September 23, 2015, 03:55:11 PM
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.
Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.
Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?
September 23, 2015, 03:26:21 PM
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.
Whatever you offer, they refuse.
q.e.d.
lol, nice try, but no.
im just waiting he finally and "validly" formulates his bet, taking into consideration the only relevant parameter the original idea of "the longest blockchain" thing he keeps on invoking and instead of twisting it to fit his bs.
September 23, 2015, 03:14:43 PM
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.
Whatever you offer, they refuse.
q.e.d.
September 23, 2015, 01:37:13 PM
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.
where my VALID again PIETRRRRRE?!"greater cumulative difficulty" does not make whatever long chain VALID.
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.
lmao, teh deathscrows! XD
i only trust the wot.
September 23, 2015, 01:21:39 PM
Hey, guys, it's simple!
Bitcoin needs to have sufficient presence (of blockchain-validators or full-nodes) in medium-bandwidth home networks in order to maintain its definition. There are other payment systems that don't poses such quality (VISA and the like), but they are not Bitcoin! So there is no point in going in that particular direction as that market (of processing high volumes of transactions) is already well served and even saturated.
What Bitcoin needs to do is periodically (but not too often) jump out of itself to become itself again in order to keep filling the bandwidth that becomes available at home over time as technology advances, otherwise competing blockchains will consume that bandwidth and provide cheaper and more convenient service. That's the only market where Bitcoin needs to excel in order to keep its core value proposition intact.
To put it in really simple terms, Bitcoin needs to oscillate (or rather "Vibrate") around a particular bandwidth-target (of home networks) which slowly grows over time as technology improves.
Bitcoin needs to have sufficient presence (of blockchain-validators or full-nodes) in medium-bandwidth home networks in order to maintain its definition. There are other payment systems that don't poses such quality (VISA and the like), but they are not Bitcoin! So there is no point in going in that particular direction as that market (of processing high volumes of transactions) is already well served and even saturated.
What Bitcoin needs to do is periodically (but not too often) jump out of itself to become itself again in order to keep filling the bandwidth that becomes available at home over time as technology advances, otherwise competing blockchains will consume that bandwidth and provide cheaper and more convenient service. That's the only market where Bitcoin needs to excel in order to keep its core value proposition intact.
To put it in really simple terms, Bitcoin needs to oscillate (or rather "Vibrate") around a particular bandwidth-target (of home networks) which slowly grows over time as technology improves.
September 23, 2015, 01:13:02 PM
As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.
if
sounds fun but too drawn out for my taste. i prefer a quick fix, like day trading.
September 23, 2015, 01:08:35 PM
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.
September 23, 2015, 12:56:20 PM
But then what? cypherdoc as the escrow?! ^^
i've just spit coffee out all over my monitor.
September 23, 2015, 12:54:09 PM
meh peter is so predictable! Guess that's the academic method.. dismiss what's itching.
I've noticed and increasing trend of completely ignoring inconvenient points that an adversary brings to an argument and simply re-stating one's case over and over again. It seems to be society wide. It's an interesting observation and I don't believe it is a figment of my imagination.
Until relatively recently it seems like it was 'honorable' (or something) to consider and answer point made by another before moving forward. Obviously this balloons and is not sustainable so if one is trying to be honest one spends some effort trying to abandon the least salient elements of a conversation first and focuses on the most difficult and valid ones. The exact opposite seems to be the norm now, but it could be an artifact of degradation of participant quality on this particular forum which is the one I follow most closely.
For instance, always forget the "valid" part of "the longest proof-of-work chain", you naughty boy..
Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet. (in fact, i already have
)Like instead of his educated farts, why not choose to stand by his beloved-once-such-energy-to-shill-it BitcoinXT?
But then what? cypherdoc as the escrow?! ^^
LOL!
Jump to: