There actually seems a lot of lack in confidence of investors which is why the devaluation has already taken place...
Never understood why people would panic sell on such news, let those big-dickheads sell and let us accumulate at lower prices, but why we too join them???
Topic: Losing Confidence... Careful Gavin A and G Maxwell! (Read 959 times)
"Confidence makes a currency."
I agree. That's why anyone that is resisting the decisions of our leader (Satoshi's self-appointed successor) is adding entropy to the network. Seriously?
"Our Leader"?
"Successor"?
The Bitcoin community is suddenly a Despotism?
"Satoshi" would almost certainly despise such non-sense.
...
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
Maybe that's the agenda...
Now that makes sense to me. Seems so obvious.
...
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
Maybe that's the agenda...
you end up with coins on both chain essentially so not a big issue inmho
thin chain is what peercoin does.
thin chain is what peercoin does.
"Confidence makes a currency."
I agree. That's why anyone that is resisting the decisions of our leader (Satoshi's self-appointed successor) is adding entropy to the network.
- snip -
Gavin needs to be replaced with someone else IMO.
At this point he needs to resign.
Gavin needs to be replaced with someone else IMO.
At this point he needs to resign.
Resign from what?
Anyone that wants to can take his place anytime they like. All they have to do is call themselves "Chief Bitcoin Scientist", and then release their own open source copy of the Bitcoin Core client. If enough people prefer the client, then Gavin will become meaningless and unimportant.
- snip -
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
I'm counting on it so that I can buy lots of cheap bitcoins.
Once all the dust has settled, and those who prematurely abandoned the concept decide to return, I'll be glad you sold.
full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
...
neurotypical
Perhaps these proposed changes should be explained? Clearly enough, "with words small enough so that my grandmother could understand"? *
I have been following (and an owner of) Bitcoin for a year or so. I try to follow BTC's various developments, but controversy without nice explanation can be unnerving... I am not trying to instill FUD, just pointing out that loud controversies re basic properties of BTC is NOT confidence inspiring...
Care to take a shot at explaining the proposed changes?
* Wayne Strand
neurotypical
Perhaps these proposed changes should be explained? Clearly enough, "with words small enough so that my grandmother could understand"? *
I have been following (and an owner of) Bitcoin for a year or so. I try to follow BTC's various developments, but controversy without nice explanation can be unnerving... I am not trying to instill FUD, just pointing out that loud controversies re basic properties of BTC is NOT confidence inspiring...
Care to take a shot at explaining the proposed changes?
* Wayne Strand
Proposed change by Gavin: Fork the bitcoin blockchain so we can use 20MB. This will make the blockchain heavier, but we will not be on a dangerous unknown zone by the next year when the 1MB limit is about to be hit.
This is not a final solution since we would eventually reach the 20MB limit, it buys us time to think about a definitive scalable solution.
Proposed by Gmaxwell: Do not fork, keep 1MB and use Lightning Network to process smaller transactions. The problem is you lose the total decentralization of all transactions. It's also not a final solution, we would eventually be facing a problem and be forced to need to something bigger than 1MB. It just buys us time too.
So basically, unless someone proves me wrong, both solutions aren't definitive solutions to the true problem: What we really need is an scalable blockchain that can deal with as many transactions per second needed without having to use secondary blockchains, that will still work 100 years from now.
It's not possible to have a decentralised coin and have all possible txs of the planet in the chain at the same time. Just not possible, mate.
Off chain txs is the best we can do now. And forking before it is really needed without consensus could spell the end for Bitcoin.
Blocks are half full on average right now so it's really not needed currently and all the people claiming urgency are lying actually because they have some sort of agenda probably and want to force their fork on everyone.
As time goes by better solutions could become available which makes it even a worse decision to fork (without consensus) before it's really needed because maybe someone comes up with a genius solution just after we forked it up and that would have been a better solution.
This whole fork-job is a desaster and not even rational. Gavin needs to be replaced with someone else IMO.
At this point he needs to resign.
...
neurotypical
Perhaps these proposed changes should be explained? Clearly enough, "with words small enough so that my grandmother could understand"? *
I have been following (and an owner of) Bitcoin for a year or so. I try to follow BTC's various developments, but controversy without nice explanation can be unnerving... I am not trying to instill FUD, just pointing out that loud controversies re basic properties of BTC is NOT confidence inspiring...
Care to take a shot at explaining the proposed changes?
* Wayne Strand
neurotypical
Perhaps these proposed changes should be explained? Clearly enough, "with words small enough so that my grandmother could understand"? *
I have been following (and an owner of) Bitcoin for a year or so. I try to follow BTC's various developments, but controversy without nice explanation can be unnerving... I am not trying to instill FUD, just pointing out that loud controversies re basic properties of BTC is NOT confidence inspiring...
Care to take a shot at explaining the proposed changes?
* Wayne Strand
Proposed change by Gavin: Fork the bitcoin blockchain so we can use 20MB. This will make the blockchain heavier, but we will not be on a dangerous unknown zone by the next year when the 1MB limit is about to be hit.
This is not a final solution since we would eventually reach the 20MB limit, it buys us time to think about a definitive scalable solution.
Proposed by Gmaxwell: Do not fork, keep 1MB and use Lightning Network to process smaller transactions. The problem is you lose the total decentralization of all transactions. It's also not a final solution, we would eventually be facing a problem and be forced to need to something bigger than 1MB. It just buys us time too.
So basically, unless someone proves me wrong, both solutions aren't definitive solutions to the true problem: What we really need is an scalable blockchain that can deal with as many transactions per second needed without having to use secondary blockchains, that will still work 100 years from now.
full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
...
neurotypical
Perhaps these proposed changes should be explained? Clearly enough, "with words small enough so that my grandmother could understand"? *
I have been following (and an owner of) Bitcoin for a year or so. I try to follow BTC's various developments, but controversy without nice explanation can be unnerving... I am not trying to instill FUD, just pointing out that loud controversies re basic properties of BTC is NOT confidence inspiring...
Care to take a shot at explaining the proposed changes?
* Wayne Strand
neurotypical
Perhaps these proposed changes should be explained? Clearly enough, "with words small enough so that my grandmother could understand"? *
I have been following (and an owner of) Bitcoin for a year or so. I try to follow BTC's various developments, but controversy without nice explanation can be unnerving... I am not trying to instill FUD, just pointing out that loud controversies re basic properties of BTC is NOT confidence inspiring...
Care to take a shot at explaining the proposed changes?
* Wayne Strand
There is no clear explanation because there is no consensus on anything. You get very different explanations depending on who you talk to.
...
neurotypical
Perhaps these proposed changes should be explained? Clearly enough, "with words small enough so that my grandmother could understand"? *
I have been following (and an owner of) Bitcoin for a year or so. I try to follow BTC's various developments, but controversy without nice explanation can be unnerving... I am not trying to instill FUD, just pointing out that loud controversies re basic properties of BTC is NOT confidence inspiring...
Care to take a shot at explaining the proposed changes?
* Wayne Strand
neurotypical
Perhaps these proposed changes should be explained? Clearly enough, "with words small enough so that my grandmother could understand"? *
I have been following (and an owner of) Bitcoin for a year or so. I try to follow BTC's various developments, but controversy without nice explanation can be unnerving... I am not trying to instill FUD, just pointing out that loud controversies re basic properties of BTC is NOT confidence inspiring...
Care to take a shot at explaining the proposed changes?
* Wayne Strand
...
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
I agree with you, this is just showing how chaotic bitcoin development is, and it sure as hell doesnt bring new people in.
Too late, mate. Happened already. Can only be contained now. I for one sold already because i thought the exact same thing. Only a fool is buying Bitcoin in the current climate. NO DEMAND FOR BITCOIN!
People will go to Dash and Litecoin or what ever they think is reasonable.
People will go to Dash and Litecoin or what ever they think is reasonable.
It's quite possible that the price decline is just starting. Forking bitcoin due to good reason is ok, but forking it withouth agreeing on what fork to follow is terrible.
This why common people fear bitcoin.
cheers
...
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
Gavin A and G Maxwells are proposing solutions to a problem, what are you doing? besides saying you don't know what this is about and threatening with selling your BTC? Decentralization implies lack of consensus and different opinions. If you want to support Core run Core nodes, if you want to support XT run XT nodes, simple as that, the people decide.
Too late, mate. Happened already. Can only be contained now. I for one sold already because i thought the exact same thing. Only a fool is buying Bitcoin in the current climate. NO DEMAND FOR BITCOIN!
People will go to Dash and Litecoin or what ever they think is reasonable.
People will go to Dash and Litecoin or what ever they think is reasonable.
...
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
OK, as a non-expert, all of this controversy re the future of Bitcoin comes perilously close to discouraging use of BTC...
"Confidence makes a currency."
All of this talk of forks, selling BTC by well-known names, etc. is likely to lead to loss of confidence in Bitcoin. Maybe those intimately involved with BTC development might not see this, but a loss of confidence among the general public (better said: casual users of BTC) will be a serious blow to confidence.
Loss of confidence would cause me (and many others I would guess) to SELL my Bitcoin.
Jump to: