Topic: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC. - page 5. (Read 64844 times)

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!

Wink

My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

Quote from: hv_ on July 30, 2017, 10:34:55 AM

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams.

Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork.

Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that.

Changing the code to SW is much more risky than change a 1 -> 2 .

You are just trapped by the invisible HF monster. Buuaaaaa. Roll Eyes

Segwit is opt in. If you don't like segwit then just get another client.

The market OBVIOUSLY wants segwit, look at how we went from $1800 to $3000.

The market OBVIOUSLY does not want two tokens. Look at XT crash, look at Classic crash, look at Unlimited crash, look at segwit2x/BIP148 crash.

We don't want two fucking bitcoins, it's not that hard to understand.

Yeah, its hard to understand. And markets are hardest to.
Could you think of a premium for BCC that IS traded?
Hm.... Maket wants SW... Hm.. Not so sure

But finally market will tell us and make everybody understand but rather the hard way, thats for sure.

manselr

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1004

Quote from: manselr on July 30, 2017, 10:03:59 AM

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!

Wink

My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

Quote from: manselr on July 30, 2017, 10:03:59 AM

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams.

Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork.

Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that.

Changing the code to SW is much more risky than change a 1 -> 2 .

You are just trapped by the invisible HF monster. Buuaaaaa. Roll Eyes

Segwit is opt in. If you don't like segwit then just get another client.

The market OBVIOUSLY wants segwit, look at how we went from $1800 to $3000.

The market OBVIOUSLY does not want two tokens. Look at XT crash, look at Classic crash, look at Unlimited crash, look at segwit2x/BIP148 crash.

We don't want two fucking bitcoins, it's not that hard to understand.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!

Wink

My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams.

Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork.

Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that.

Changing the code to SW is much more risky than change a 1 -> 2 .

You are just trapped by the invisible HF monster. Buuaaaaa. Roll Eyes

manselr

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1004

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!

Wink

My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

Quote from: MemoryDealers on July 29, 2017, 04:07:19 AM

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams.

Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork.

Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

I don't like Theymos because of his censorhip, manipulation and lies: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43

Can I be unbanned from r/btc please! Actually there is a list of people who would like to participate but don't agree with the r/btc agenda: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6qauyy/ver_theymos_and_his_censorship_can_go_to_hell/

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!

Wink

My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams.

manselr

legendary

Activity: 868

Merit: 1004

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!

Wink

My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin: