Time to stand up to the XT shills here! - page 2.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: HostFat on November 09, 2015, 06:35:19 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 09, 2015, 06:28:07 PM

Finally, changing the POW would involve rebooting the security of the network down to 0 which has ENORMOUS implications that could certainly be mitigated but definitely isn't some no brainer as Greg makes it appear in the video.

It's increasingly evident you're not suited intellectually for this type of debate and I suggest you leave it to more competent people

Well, while I think that Greg is easily in a situation of conflict of interests, I weight more his opinion (and Gavin) than yours Wink

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent Grin

(or just an idiot)

Yes let's just ignore everything else I wrote and pretend that mining centralization is not a problem.

Hey you should tell everyone! Why worry about it!? We'll just change the hashing algorithm !!

(after the miners have double spent thousands of BTC but hey! no worries, right...? right!)

Cheesy

Jesus christ you people are impossibly stupid.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: brg444 on November 09, 2015, 06:28:07 PM

Finally, changing the POW would involve rebooting the security of the network down to 0 which has ENORMOUS implications that could certainly be mitigated but definitely isn't some no brainer as Greg makes it appear in the video.

It's increasingly evident you're not suited intellectually for this type of debate and I suggest you leave it to more competent people

Well, while I think that Greg is easily in a situation of conflict of interests, I weight more his opinion (and Gavin) than yours Wink

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent Grin

(or just an idiot)

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: HostFat on November 09, 2015, 06:20:52 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Yes i was watching the video, the thing is the community is very number dependant as we have seen with XT falling out of favor with only 1% nodes making less want it, the exchanges aren't going to transfer over if only 10% of nodes are switching because the mining company has smudged the numbers to make it look like nodes are with them and the current version of the coin.

This is another problem, I was just poiting out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

That's just plain ignorant.

First off centralization of mining is not limited to hashing power. Chinese miners have been proven to centralize verification of their blocks (SPV mining). That is a centralization concern and one over which the ecosystem has little control or governance over. We literally cannot tell whether or not they are doing it, at least not until they fuck it up. (Which they have)

Moreover, large mining farms can trivially hide their actual hashing power by distributing it to various mining pools. In fact it can be assumed that some of them are already doing this. That way it becomes impossible for users to validate exactly how many independent entities are responsible for a certain percentage of the hashing power.

Finally, changing the POW would involve rebooting the security of the network down to 0 which has ENORMOUS implications that could certainly be mitigated but definitely isn't some no brainer as Greg makes it appear in the video.

It's increasingly evident you're not suited intellectually for this type of debate and I suggest you leave it to more competent people Wink

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: ?? on ??

Yes i was watching the video, the thing is the community is very number dependant as we have seen with XT falling out of favor with only 1% nodes making less want it, the exchanges aren't going to transfer over if only 10% of nodes are switching because the mining company has smudged the numbers to make it look like nodes are with them and the current version of the coin.

This is another problem, I was just poiting out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Did you see the video?

How can they "fix it" if the nodes change the POW and so even the nodes of the exchanges?

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Are you afraid of centralisazion of mining? They can't

https://youtu.be/0iQSRGT3nfE?t=3285

As I've already said, nodes have all the power, if miners are going to do something bad, well, then they'll be cut out of the network and lose everything Grin

(their prize and investment)

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on November 09, 2015, 04:19:22 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on November 09, 2015, 04:15:47 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on November 09, 2015, 04:09:54 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around.

in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type..

Quote from: brg444 on November 09, 2015, 04:12:29 PM

...

I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale

Quote from: Hal on December 29, 2010, 08:38:40 PM

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

Ah, for the Banks. Not my goal.
Then I would prefer to scale to several Cryptocoins than to be slaved by banks again.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on November 09, 2015, 04:15:47 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on November 09, 2015, 04:09:54 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around.

actions speak louder than words... you are right. we shall see.

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: hdbuck on November 09, 2015, 04:19:22 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on November 09, 2015, 04:15:47 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on November 09, 2015, 04:09:54 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around.

in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type..

Quote from: brg444 on November 09, 2015, 04:12:29 PM

...

I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale

Quote from: Hal on December 29, 2010, 08:38:40 PM

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

That's all well and good. No amount of blocksize scaling will ever fit the world's daily transactions on the main chain.

I would like to see reasonable increases to the max blocksize in order to compensate and incentivize miners (security) in the face of decreasing block reward. When Lightning, sidechains, and all the other options offered actually exist and function, then they will influence future decisions.

(btw "appeal to authority" accusation is hilarious coming from you)

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on November 09, 2015, 04:15:47 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on November 09, 2015, 04:09:54 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around.

in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type..

Quote from: brg444 on November 09, 2015, 04:12:29 PM

...

I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale

Quote from: Hal on December 29, 2010, 08:38:40 PM

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on November 09, 2015, 04:09:54 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 09, 2015, 03:59:32 PM

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:47:54 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 09, 2015, 03:37:23 PM

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:32:39 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin.. Roll Eyes

else of course you are free to fork off.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

Some of them really believe that their settlement fairytales come true, and some of them are altcoin shills who are not stupid.

I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale

Quote from: Hal on December 29, 2010, 08:38:40 PM

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: ?? on ??

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Lauda on November 09, 2015, 03:56:55 PM

Quote from: pedrog on November 09, 2015, 11:34:54 AM

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, i

Yes, sending $0.10 requires a lot of security and thus must be done on the main chain. The logic is flawless. The amount before which a transaction is classified as spam is subjective. However, if you think that we should bloat the blockchain so that people can transact tiny amounts over the biggest network (computing power) in the world, then think twice.

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:47:54 PM

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

I'm not sure in what world you live in, nor who you're listening to but Bitcoin Core will not stay at 1MB.

Yes. They'll find a consensus with Luke Jr. at 0,7 MB.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Lauda on November 09, 2015, 03:56:55 PM

Quote from: pedrog on November 09, 2015, 11:34:54 AM

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, i

Yes, sending $0.10 requires a lot of security and thus must be done on the main chain. The logic is flawless. The amount before which a transaction is classified as spam is subjective. However, if you think that we should bloat the blockchain so that people can transact tiny amounts over the biggest network (computing power) in the world, then think twice.

also considering that such a paradigm would result into a massive centralization.

so yea basicaly, if you still cant wrap your head around such concept you better fork off nao.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:47:54 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 09, 2015, 03:37:23 PM

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:32:39 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin.. Roll Eyes

else of course you are free to fork off.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

Some of them really believe that their settlement fairytales come true, and some of them are altcoin shills who are not stupid.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: pedrog on November 09, 2015, 11:34:54 AM

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, i

Yes, sending $0.10 requires a lot of security and thus must be done on the main chain. The logic is flawless. The amount before which a transaction is classified as spam is subjective. However, if you think that we should bloat the blockchain so that people can transact tiny amounts over the biggest network (computing power) in the world, then think twice.

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:47:54 PM

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

I'm not sure in what world you live in, nor who you're listening to but Bitcoin Core will not stay at 1MB.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:47:54 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 09, 2015, 03:37:23 PM

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:32:39 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin.. Roll Eyes

else of course you are free to fork off.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s.

Just saying the obvious...

where is this mass adoption?! i still cant see it Huh

maybe they already gone off to ripple or something? ^^

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: hdbuck on November 09, 2015, 03:37:23 PM

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:32:39 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin.. Roll Eyes

else of course you are free to fork off.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ATguy on November 09, 2015, 03:32:39 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin.. Roll Eyes

else of course you are free to fork off.

Topic: Time to stand up to the XT shills here! - page 2. (Read 10669 times)