Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 127.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 10:29:46 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 10, 2015, 10:18:43 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 09:59:25 AM

Peter is definitely part of the problem. so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising. it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious. he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising. It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious. You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi.

Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB.

What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin? Huh

i've already gone thru why i disagree strongly with gmax:

1. his handling of the PressCenter.org debacle-he still claims he was right after the fork won.
2. his whining about mining centralization
3. his general bearishness on Bitcoin
4. his views on consensus
5. his formation of Blockstream involving 9 of the top core dev committers with him as CEO.
6. his obstruction of the block size increase.

he's the only one of the core dev i've ever had "problems" with. the above lists merely differences in ideology anyway.

you really don't care about getting your facts straight heh?

Adam Back is CEO

there are at most 6 Bitcoin core contributors on Blockstream`s team. probably 3 of them would qualify ast "top committers"

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 10, 2015, 10:25:39 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 10:15:28 AM

lol. that's China winding up. big break thru the 200MA:

Just yesterday you were saying

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 09, 2015, 05:14:42 PM

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Do you see the lack of consistency there, or do I need to draw you a picture?

i don't have to be right on the price. if it decides to go up, i'll be glad. it's all speculation that we don't have control of.

but when it comes down to how to run Bitcoin, as in financial conflicts or not, or adhering to Satoshi's original vision, darn right i'm consistent in my message and what i think is right.

you, otoh, are a Monero Pimp. i wouldn't be surprised if you were a Blockstream shill as well.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 10, 2015, 10:18:43 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 09:59:25 AM

Peter is definitely part of the problem. so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising. it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious. he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising. It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious. You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi.

Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB.

What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin? Huh

i've already gone thru why i disagree strongly with gmax:

1. his handling of the PressCenter.org debacle-he still claims he was right after the fork won.
2. his whining about mining centralization
3. his general bearishness on Bitcoin
4. his views on consensus
5. his formation of Blockstream involving 9 of the top core dev committers with him as CEO.
6. his obstruction of the block size increase.

he's the only one of the core dev i've ever had "problems" with. the above lists merely differences in ideology anyway.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 09:59:25 AM

Cypherdoc is definitely part of the problem. so it's not surprising that sheeps holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with GMaxwell going back years on end so his current position on opposing GMaxwell's ideas are unsurprising. it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious. he's a much smarter version of .

edit:

I see ICE beat me to it

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 09:33:21 AM

The bitcoin copes better with high transaction volume than bitcoinwisdom does for displaying exchange trades.

Bitcoin was built to function perfectly under load. Bitcoinwisdom, perhaps less so. Grin

Temporary subsidy enhancement of block reward is only there to support miners (and seed distribution) while adoption (IE volume, IE load) bootstraps on and off-chain fee markets.

Quote from: Peter R on July 10, 2015, 09:33:07 AM

Care to make a wager, iCEBREAKER? 1 BTC that the longest proof-of-work chain contains a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year (10-Jul-2016).

If you lose, I want real Bitcoin. If you win, expect to be paid in doublespent Gavincoins. Cool

1MB blocks may become a harmful constraint by this time next year, given some black swan for fiat or rapid deployment of sidechain/Lightning. But we're are not even on course to begin getting there yet, given the unwelcome distraction of the Gavinista insurgency inciting the get-rich-quick XT mob. TX fees are still orders of magnitude below their cost in electricity, etc., demonstrating fee pressure insufficient for develop mature markets.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 10, 2015, 05:00:53 AM

I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

There's also the possibility we do get a technically and politically feasible velvet divorce, in which case we can forget all this nasty controversy about the "best" block size and start a new nasty controversy about which is the "real" Bitcoin.

Won't that be fun? Grin

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 10:15:28 AM

lol. that's China winding up. big break thru the 200MA:

Just yesterday you were saying

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 09, 2015, 05:14:42 PM

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Do you see the lack of consistency there, or do I need to draw you a picture?

EDIT: And once again, LTC acts as the silver to BTC's gold by frontrunning and pre-announcing its big brother's price spike.

What ho, smooth? Cool

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 09:59:25 AM

Peter is definitely part of the problem. so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising. it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious. he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising. It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious. You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi.

Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB.

What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin? Huh

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

lol. that's China winding up. big break thru the 200MA:

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: uvwvj on July 10, 2015, 09:40:14 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 10, 2015, 09:17:29 AM

There is no "fucking problem." There is only the endless whining of economically illiterate people like you.

For those of us who can't afford $0.25 BTC fees, there's Litcoin, Peercoin, Nubits (pegged to the dollar, neat!), Monero, etc.

Quit your fucking bitching. We're tired of it. It will never change Bitcoin, because You. Have. No. Power. Here.

Peter Todd is part of the problem, imo

In this thread Peter R and New Liberty are imo better capable leading than some of the current Devs.

Those are all shit coins for people to steal money from newbies (zero sum game) except Monero which offers something Bitcoin doesnt, but is extremely hard for average Joe.

We need to start looking at BTC in mass adoption for the other 99.5% of the world who could use this coin.

I dont have power here, but I do understand economics and if you limit BTC to 1% of the population it really has not a lot of worth, imo. Though I would still hold it, my USD would better serve me.

My thoughts make it 8 MB at halving and add sidechain availbility, and see what happens.

Peter is definitely part of the problem. so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising. it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious. he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

uvwvj

full member

Activity: 145

Merit: 100

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 10, 2015, 09:17:29 AM

There is no "fucking problem." There is only the endless whining of economically illiterate people like you.

For those of us who can't afford $0.25 BTC fees, there's Litcoin, Peercoin, Nubits (pegged to the dollar, neat!), Monero, etc.

Quit your fucking bitching. We're tired of it. It will never change Bitcoin, because You. Have. No. Power. Here.

Peter Todd is part of the problem, imo

In this thread Peter R and New Liberty are imo better capable leading than some of the current Devs.

Those are all shit coins for people to steal money from newbies (zero sum game) except Monero which offers something Bitcoin doesnt, but is extremely hard for average Joe.

We need to start looking at BTC in mass adoption for the other 99.5% of the world who could use this coin.

I dont have power here, but I do understand economics and if you limit BTC to 1% of the population it really has not a lot of worth, imo. Though I would still hold it, my USD would better serve me.

My thoughts make it 8 MB at halving and add sidechain availbility, and see what happens.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Erdogan on July 10, 2015, 09:27:47 AM

Quote from: awemany on July 10, 2015, 07:46:59 AM

Quote from: sickpig on July 10, 2015, 07:10:20 AM

Quote from: 2112 on July 09, 2015, 09:47:11 PM

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?

Given the deadlock, I honestly start to think it might be good to do a 'divorce'. As in, we actually agree to disagree, and all see that there are fundamentally incompatible opinions with regards to the direction of Bitcoin. But we can keep it friendly. This might be less damage/cost than having a hardfork battle solving it in January 2016.

That way we can avoid the fighting and truly let the market work out the rest. We divide up the common assets of the web sites, code repos etc. between Bitcoin/QT and Bitcoin/XT. Make it clear that Bitcoin is now two Bitcoins, and that the user has to decide.

QT and XT simply seem like two people who shouldn't be married. Better have a clean divorce than endless fighting.

Thoughts?

No, divorce the source, make them compatible on all things except max blocksize, and let us see who dares make the first 1.1 MB block.

Here's a thought experiment.

Gavin chickens out and doesn't release XT. Someone anonymous releases equivalent code on github with nothing changed but 1MB to no limit. He provides irrefutable proof that he's destroyed his own commit privileges. Thus, their are NO core devs to modify code from here to eternity. What happens?

The assumption has always been that we need core maintainers to continuously upgrade Bitcoin. Maybe we don't?

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

The bitcoin copes better with high transaction volume than bitcoinwisdom does for displaying exchange trades.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 10, 2015, 09:17:29 AM

There is no "fucking problem." There is only the endless whining of economically illiterate people like you.
...
Quit your fucking bitching. We're tired of it. It will never change Bitcoin, because You. Have. No. Power. Here.

Oh but it will.

Care to make a wager, iCEBREAKER? 1 BTC that the longest proof-of-work chain contains a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year (10-Jul-2016). Escrowed by someone in this thread (2-of-3 multisig), of course.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: awemany on July 10, 2015, 07:46:59 AM

Quote from: sickpig on July 10, 2015, 07:10:20 AM

Quote from: 2112 on July 09, 2015, 09:47:11 PM

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?

Given the deadlock, I honestly start to think it might be good to do a 'divorce'. As in, we actually agree to disagree, and all see that there are fundamentally incompatible opinions with regards to the direction of Bitcoin. But we can keep it friendly. This might be less damage/cost than having a hardfork battle solving it in January 2016.

That way we can avoid the fighting and truly let the market work out the rest. We divide up the common assets of the web sites, code repos etc. between Bitcoin/QT and Bitcoin/XT. Make it clear that Bitcoin is now two Bitcoins, and that the user has to decide.

QT and XT simply seem like two people who shouldn't be married. Better have a clean divorce than endless fighting.

Thoughts?

No, divorce the source, make them compatible on all things except max blocksize, and let us see who dares make the first 1.1 MB block.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: uvwvj on July 10, 2015, 08:42:21 AM

I worry about the current Bitcoin bullshit with transactions, I can afford paying $0.25 to send money around the globe. Someone who is in Venezuela cant. I dont know if the answer if raising the block limit, using sidechains for regionally curriences backed by bitcoin or what

But to the Dev Masters - quit your fucking bitching - come to an answer and fix the fucking problem at halving and be done with it.

There is no "fucking problem." There is only the endless whining of economically illiterate people like you.

For those of us who can't afford $0.25 BTC fees, there's Litcoin, Peercoin, Nubits (pegged to the dollar, neat!), Monero, etc.

Quit your fucking bitching. We're tired of it. It will never change Bitcoin, because You. Have. No. Power. Here.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 10, 2015, 07:05:59 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on July 10, 2015, 05:19:54 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 09, 2015, 09:03:46 PM

i said years ago that high tx costs, like we're starting to get now, will drive all these op_return companies away from Bitcoin. and it will be the fault of guys like iCEBlow, tvbcof, & the BS core devs. there will be repercussions:

What high TX costs? Its up a little, but still less than everything comparable (if anything is).
Miner revenue is up lately.

Using only slightly higher than default fee, your TX gets processed without delay.

The spammer had gotten his feet up to. 0002 earlier but it may have gone back down to. 0001. Yes not much for you or me but maybe not so for 3rd world. Yes, it's mostly an unusability issue. But still, Nasdaq is not going to get aggressive until a solution to the spam occurs.

How do you know it is spam? It could be someone making small denomination bitcoin paper wallet rectangles for circulation in the philippines...

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: awemany on July 10, 2015, 07:46:59 AM

Given the deadlock, I honestly start to think it might be good to do a 'divorce'. As in, we actually agree to disagree, and all see that there are fundamentally incompatible opinions with regards to the direction of Bitcoin. But we can keep it friendly. This might be less damage/cost than having a hardfork battle solving it in January 2016.

That way we can avoid the fighting and truly let the market work out the rest. We divide up the common assets of the web sites, code repos etc. between Bitcoin/QT and Bitcoin/XT. Make it clear that Bitcoin is now two Bitcoins, and that the user has to decide.

QT and XT simply seem like two people who shouldn't be married. Better have a clean divorce than endless fighting.

Thoughts?

Clean divorce? Yah right, as if! Cheesy

The Gavinistas are trying to take sole custody of the core dev's child. The one they raised from a baby and devoted thousands of hours to nurturing.

There are already false allegations of abuse flying around. It's been getting uglier and messier for months now, with no resolution in sight.

All of this, just so Hearn can make Bitcoin pull his XT wagon instead of launching it as a proper, independent altcoin.

This is worse than the time the DASH dev rode Darkcoin's coattails to launch his crappy new coin.

uvwvj

full member

Activity: 145

Merit: 100

Quote from: NewLiberty on July 10, 2015, 08:21:50 AM

Sure, in Venezuela where a month's labor at minimum wage under 33% monthly inflation is less than US$20 at black market exchange rates, such a fee becomes almost meaningful...

The largest bank note in Venezuela is worth about 16 cents currently.

But even (maybe especially) there the fee is affordable if you want to do a sure transaction with new coins.

This is why I worry about the current Bitcoin bullshit with transactions, I can afford paying $0.25 to send money around the globe. Someone who is in Venezuela cant. I dont know if the answer if raising the block limit, using sidechains for regionally curriences backed by bitcoin or what

But to the Dev Masters - quit your fucking bitching - come to an answer and fix the fucking problem at halving and be done with it.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

An amazing wall of political morass verbiabage.

sickpig

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: awemany on July 10, 2015, 08:09:20 AM

@sickpig:

Maybe a scheme could be worked out where XT and QT would each have their own set of core dev consensus, with only a partial overlap of core devs between the two?

It could be a solution If all the parties involved are able to get a "consensus" around this plan. No pun intended.

I'm not good at making estimates but I'd not giving an high success probability to this solution. I could be wrong, though.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 127. (Read 2032266 times)