Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 15825. (Read 26610754 times)

... come on, friends, do not quarrel. How small children . We wait, we will see. Let´s opinions to live. It's just opinions, not love.

And even when the Bitcoin block size limit does get raised when the time is right, they'll just say it's not enough and BCash has it where it needs to be. Or come up with other arguments and excuses why Bitcoin still sucks.  

yes, and bear shit in the woods does, no?

You can be your own moderator using the ignore button.


I can make a digital copy of the Picasso painting and call it Picasso Cash. I even print the piece on an 8 times larger piece of canvas. This certainly reduces the value of the legacy Picasso painting to zero and makes me the true Picasso.

When a tree falls, no one is there and it is still a noise?

What is sound the hand clapping of one?

... come on, friends, do not quarrel. How small children . We wait, we will see. Let´s opinions to live. It's just opinions, not love.

There is no such thing as reliable confirmation time in any chain, but particularly on BCH..

504787   2017-11-19 05:54
504786   2017-11-19 05:26
504785   2017-11-19 05:15
504784   2017-11-19 03:34
504783   2017-11-19 03:28
504782   2017-11-19 01:48
504781   2017-11-19 01:47
504780   2017-11-19 01:18
504779   2017-11-19 00:58's wrong.
504778   2017-11-19 00:38

In 6 hours there should be ~36 blocks, not 11 (and twice it took over an hour for the next one)... but anyway.

Mempool single thread bottleneck has little to do with number of transactions/sec, when one can put as much transactions within the block limit. Although segwit almost doubles that amount, blocks are already full, particularity in the time of spam attacks that your BCH friends impose on the blockchain. That is probably the reason this was not addressed before by core devs, and why other people detected it when they increased the block size by two orders of magnitude in their crazy experiments towards 1GB blocks, in which case it did became a bottleneck. What mempool multi-threading can help is handling spam transactions much more effectively, leaving mempool in much better state. If you understand all this (and I'm not sure you do, so you should be given the benefit of the doubt that you are simply ignorant), then your statements about core team where "nobody understands concurrency" are nothing but the FUD you spread about them in order to picture your big block developers somehow "superior". We saw their coding skills few days ago when they failed to execute a proper fork. What's funny that you said few posts above that you don't want to hurt BTC in any possible way, and few posts latter you talk this nonsense about core devs. You can't lie and at the same time cry you only want the truth, inconsistency is killing you.

He said, we could fly around the world in about an hour, for the price of an airticket from now !

Mindbuggling. Imagine the acceleration !

Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core are equally centralized / decentralized.  Think about it.  How could they not be?  They both draw from the same pool of miners, the same pool of investors, the same pool of users, the same pool of businesses, and the same pool of developers.

The differences are the Bitcoin Core has the advantage as being what the layperson thinks of as "bitcoin" and what most of the infrastructure is currently setup to interface with.  Bitcoin Cash has the advantage of low fees, reliable confirmation times, and the ability to scale to a global payment network.  

Time will tell which version of bitcoin will win.

Bitcoin Cash has the advantage of low fees, reliable confirmation times, and the ability to scale to a global payment network.  

Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core are equally centralized / decentralized.  Think about it.  How could they not be?

Bitcoin Cash has the advantage of low fees, reliable confirmation times, and the ability to scale to a global payment network.  

Mining centralization is proof of mining centralization. The market doesn't prefer it.

Oh shit, now i remember, the corn avatar! Lol, i am a fool  

Although, the argument is against every "baah, high fees" troll, so it is not a totally wasted effort 

So miners self-selecting to not mine BCH is proof of BCH mining centralization? I assert that is a useless definition of 'centralization'.

Lulz  you've been around for a while, I'm surprised to see you trolled by BMB  

Mayor, if you'd be so kind as to restore the corn avatar, you'd be better recognized  

That just shows that you does not value the importance of your own transactions as much as other people who transact at the same time period. I know, free will is hard.
It is not "the fault of the free, voluntary, opt-in" network's, you, Yourself valued the importance of these value transfers this low.

Welcome to the free market, where value is subjective, and there is no free lunch. None forcing you to use this system, go do paypal if you want speed. Of course, than you have to sacrifice control and freedom, but you do not want to pay the price for them, which is Your problem, not the bitcoin network's.

Thanks.   If having a coffee in the morning doesn’t wake you up, a chain split warning will. 

Must have been a bug as gone and BTC1 nodes still stuck on 494782.

Dispel how? With what evidence to explain your assertion? Show me the evidence. What amazing things have these developers 'outside of the Bitcoin Core camp' accomplished exactly.

I just made a whole slew of txns with 3 cents fees and none of them have confirmed yet. SegshellCoin, y u so fail?