Nice to see this thread merits the attention of the professional trolls.
Cypherdoc must be doing something right.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 514. (Read 2032289 times)
Overall, the people explaining why different issues there appear to be with the bitcoin protocol seem to be a lot smarter than the trolls criticizing it, and their explanations are a lot more in depth. I think this bodes well for the long term viability. It's important to look for each persons agenda when reading commwntary . The beat voices to listen to are those that are genuinely excited and interested in getting to the truth.
trolls can relax, scaling is a solved problem, and has been since mid-2011. Implementations are now coming into public domain, just as the market demand arises.
Off-chain payment channels, incl. blinded hub-spoke, are an elegant, cheap, fast, privacy-enhancing mechanism that has as good security as full btc TX by essentially aggregating many TX into a single daily/weekly/monthly on-chain settlement TX.
Side-chains are a side-show that wont be effective for regular TX (too complicated), maybe useful for more exotic derivatives, smart contracts, stock-trading, bonds and etc, but do not let them be a distraction in the scaling 'debate' (which is over now in knowledgeable circles).
Off-chain payment channels, incl. blinded hub-spoke, are an elegant, cheap, fast, privacy-enhancing mechanism that has as good security as full btc TX by essentially aggregating many TX into a single daily/weekly/monthly on-chain settlement TX.
Side-chains are a side-show that wont be effective for regular TX (too complicated), maybe useful for more exotic derivatives, smart contracts, stock-trading, bonds and etc, but do not let them be a distraction in the scaling 'debate' (which is over now in knowledgeable circles).
f t t
fuck em really hard
fuck em really hard
...
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
The Pets.com/Web TV analogy again. Don't you ever get bored?
@hdbuck:
>for once
Always. Each and every time
Wowow. You've moved on to the top tier to troll the die-hards?
Yep. We have got to be fairly close to another bottom.
3. No, there is plenty of debate regarding bitcoins flaws / doubts. Plenty of agree to disagrees. Jesus, it involves economic theory, ideology, computer security etc it is a lot more volatile and complicated than just "simply don't understand it". Sidechains, block sizes, mining centralization etc etc
It's the condescending nature of some trolls (NLC), three word slogans (cut your loose, bitcoin is dying) and repetitive topics (no one is using it, there's no demand, get out now, bitcoin is dead) that shit me (same goes with the To The Moon / $100000000 per coin crowd, we're goin up)
You & your sock puppets are just like dust transactions, bloating the forum.
It's the condescending nature of some trolls (NLC), three word slogans (cut your loose, bitcoin is dying) and repetitive topics (no one is using it, there's no demand, get out now, bitcoin is dead) that shit me (same goes with the To The Moon / $100000000 per coin crowd, we're goin up)
You & your sock puppets are just like dust transactions, bloating the forum.
...
Wowow. You've moved on to the top tier totroll educate the die-hards?
Wowow. You've moved on to the top tier to
Yeah, hopeless & ungrateful, but they're my cross to bear. Also FTFY.
4 pools owning around 51% of the hashing power.
"Further decentralization"? lol
i think they grow as fast . makes market have some chance "Further decentralization"? lol
rates
1. Come up with a piece of technology you can invest in.
2. try to convince everyone to put money in it.
3. Claim that the heretics who have doubts about it simply don't understand it. Tell them that some folks had doubts about the internet back in its early days too.
4. ? ? ? ? ?
5. Profit!
2. try to convince everyone to put money in it.
3. Claim that the heretics who have doubts about it simply don't understand it. Tell them that some folks had doubts about the internet back in its early days too.
4. ? ? ? ? ?
5. Profit!
Yes!
1. Come up with a piece of technology you can invest in.
2. try to convince everyone to put money in it.
3. Claim that the heretics who have doubts about it simply don't understand it. Tell them that some folks had doubts about the internet back in its early days too.
4. ? ? ? ? ?
5. Profit!
2. try to convince everyone to put money in it.
3. Claim that the heretics who have doubts about it simply don't understand it. Tell them that some folks had doubts about the internet back in its early days too.
4. ? ? ? ? ?
5. Profit!
...
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
The Pets.com/Web TV analogy again. Don't you ever get bored?
@hdbuck:
>for once
Always. Each and every time
Wowow. You've moved on to the top tier to troll the die-hards?
...when trying to disprove the analogy.
Disprove the analogy... You've clearly been to colleges
...
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
The Pets.com/Web TV analogy again. Don't you ever get bored?
@hdbuck:
>for once
Always. Each and every time
Absolutely not, it is always fascinating to see the stupidity you can come up with when trying to disprove the analogy.
...
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
The Pets.com/Web TV analogy again. Don't you ever get bored?
@hdbuck:
>for once
Always. Each and every time
...
Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.
The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.
Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.
The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.
I was told that Bitcoin was meant to do just that--"validate & retain every coffee purchase." That's what made it so interesting. Many here still don't get that Bitcoin is no more a proof of concept--an experiment. A precursor, perhaps useful as a standard.
No more likely to replace money than an atomic [time standard] clock is to replace wristwatches.
I thought you knew better than to believe what any Bitcoiner would tell you
As far as Bitcoin being no more than a proof of concept... Yeah that's absolutely not true.
I imagine people were saying the same about the internet back in 1993.
...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands
When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own!
No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions
Would it surprise you to know that many Bitcointalk users think Bitcoin is ready for primetime?
They actually think that Bitcoin is a functional, scalable payment system. Fools
you should be happy, for once you may have been right
...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands
When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own!
No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions
Would it surprise you to know that many Bitcointalk users think Bitcoin is ready for primetime?
They actually think that Bitcoin is a functional, scalable payment system. Fools
...
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands
Only if you pretend it is a flaw and not an opportunity for others to build onto the protocol to create solutions that meet the markets demands
When you buy a house & realize you've been sold an empty lot, look at it as an opportunity--you've been sold a chance to build your own!
No one ever pretended Bitcoin would natively scale to handle all of the world's transactions
Its not even that good as a payment mechanism. Its useful as an easy store as opposed to, say, gold.
It's actually as good as it gets right now as a payment mechanism (other than the obvious scaling issues)
But that is only because traditional financial infrastructure has been lagging behind something serious for the last decades. It is likely that centralized platforms will eventually catch up and be more efficient than Bitcoin's base protocol.
^Didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin's lack of scalability has prevented anyone from making money on it. I just assumed that such fundamental, conceptual flaws would have been addressed by now.
Guess not
Guess not
One cannot change the laws of nature. There is no 'fixing' this 'fundamental flaw', and I suspect that many many people never really considered it including most of the devs. 'Addressing it' is a different matter. A few of the devs looked toward the mainstream (mega-corporations to provide infrastructure and the state sponsored legal protections) but happily this doesn't seem to be the first option for most of them.
For my part I don't consider this 'fundamental flaw' to be a flaw at all. I consider it more a happy accident of fate and a a feature of reality which produces the potential to make native Bitcoin a system actually work in the real world. By 'work', I mean to remain a genuinely autonomous and independent solution which is robust against attack by vested power interests.
As I've said before, the idea of sidechains hit me right away as a means of scaling, and I argued to call native Bitcoin 'blockchain zero' back in 2011. As long as this chain can remain uncorrupted and supportable it really doesn't matter what happens on the infinite number of chains which derive their value from it.
Not sure I fully understand. You are happy that Bitcoin is not a practical substitute for money after six years of development, in its current state? Useful only as a peg, a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed?
My question still stands: This [happy accident/feature/totally not a problem] was clear at the outset, why was it not addressed until now?
Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.
The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.
exactly my thoughts.
anyway after wondering around a bit, i think a full consensus wont possibly be reached.
im gonna play the prudence here, letting people jump first.
as i understood it wont be reversible once done, and im not in the rush of moving my bitcoins.
...
Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.
The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.
Bitcoin "payment network" not being able to scale natively to record, validate & retain every coffee purchase does not make it flawed as a proposition for a sound form of money.
The idea of Bitcoin as "a standard on top of which further payment systems must be developed" was, afaik, envisioned by most everyone with a hint of foresight.
I was told that Bitcoin was meant to do just that--"validate & retain every coffee purchase." That's what made it so interesting. Many here still don't get that Bitcoin is no more a proof of concept--an experiment. A precursor, perhaps useful as a standard.
No more likely to replace money than an atomic [time standard] clock is to replace wristwatches.
Jump to: