Topic: PnF TA - page 66. (Read 190669 times)

altcoinUK, I think at this point it is better to talk in more formal language  in whitepapers than to continue the forum postings. I am trying to get organized on that. Less time expended posting in forums will help me.

and this: http://qntra.net/2015/01/gavin-andresen-on-future-blockchain-security-i-dunno-lol/#comment-7830



fuckin unbelievable. if anything, he is being far from honest.

...

People want to maximize the price paid to miners as fees when the block reward drops to zero-- or, at least, have some assurance that there is enough diverse mining to protect the chain against potential attackers.

 And people believe the way to accomplish that is to artificially limit the number of transactions below the technical capabilities of the network.

 But production quotas don't work. Limit the number of transactions that can happen on the Bitcoin blockchain, and instead of paying higher fees people will perform their transactions somewhere else. I have no idea whether that would be Western Union, an alt-coin, a sidechain, or good old fashioned SWIFT wire transfers, but I do know that nobody besides a central government can force people to use product with higher costs, if there is a lower-cost option available.

 So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

 I honestly don't know. I think it is possible blocks containing tens of thousands of transactions, each paying a few millibits in fees (maybe because wallets round up change amounts to avoid creating dust and improve privacy) will be enough to secure the chain.

 It is also possible big merchants and exchanges, who have a collective interest in a secure, well-functioning blockchain, will get together and establish assurance contracts to reward honest miners.

 I'm confident that if the Bitcoin system is valuable, then the participants in that market will make sure it keeps functioning securely and reliably.

 And I'm very confident that the best way to make Bitcoin more valuable is to make it work well for both large and small value transactions.

So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know.

Haha. Nice one. But is there some way you can eat your screen? You will need to eat those words (quite soon in fact).

(are the VanillaCoin fanboiz still stalking me even into the PnF thread, lol  )

Satoshi has released a white paper. Something you'll never do in your life.

Satoshi has released a white paper. Something you'll never do in your life.

Well the block size issue has been a gift to me. Afaik, all crypto coins have this problem with a tradeoff choice between consensus decentralization and scalability. But I solved that problem, so it is just a matter of bringing the solution to market and watch what happens.

I think crypto coins need to be set on auto-pilot I think there needs to be built in some side-chain capability (assuming all bidirectional issues with that can be resolved, else some way to burn coins one-way to a new fork) so that HODLers can move their value out to a new fork gradually as a way to upgrade. This protects the value of the HODLers and allows for new technology. I don't agree with any changes made to the protocol of the coin after it has been stabilized.

Bitcoin was a first revision and the recent post from Satoshi on Aug 15, 2015, admits that Bitcoin needs to be fixed. I guess he has been reading my posts. How do you know I am not (the second reincarnation of) Satoshi? (of course not, lol)

Yeah, unfortunately the project seems to me compromised since the CIA meeting. If you look back my posts you will find dialogues with me and Hearn urging him to do something about anonymity feature in BTC - to put it higher in the dev todo list. How naive I was...

It was the wake up call (his stance) back then, I started realising that this project can only serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, NASDAQ etc (big pockets). But we have Ripple for this which is far more efficient. So why bother with PoW??

Anyways, I try to trade based on TA and not lose my mind trying to find how this can succeed based on fundamentals, politics etc.

I would strongly advise anyone to avoid taking any positions until this is resolved. It only takes 1 mad whale to screw people hard (either way) and we are clearly entering an escalation phase now.

Better try making money with ETH or XMR. LTC is dangerous too, I will wait for a very strong signal in order to enter a trade...

Take care everyone.

Pardon me, but this is probably pure greed behind the XT fork. From the moment that BTC laid its chance to the hands of a "chief" software engineer, that EXACT moment the aforementioned man became BTC's biggest liability. Hardfork or not, I cannot think of anything worse that this thing is done because of Gavin's stupidity (unlikely), or the even worse, somebody paid him to spread disaster. Every person has his/her price. I dare him to prove me wrong and cancel the XT fork.

Yeah... Like he cares.

I usually don't care about fundamentals but this XT fork drama seems very dangerous to me. I prefer not to touch BTC while this is unfolding.
No I did not short it, maybe I will at 272 with a stop at 274.

Why decentralisation is key for Bitcoin by @MarkFriedenbach
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_takes_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3

Why? You opened short @ $258?

Longs closed...