Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 15828. (Read 26611029 times)

mt gox ico inkomingggg :-D weeeee

http://www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-mark-karpeles-mt-gox-exchange-cryptocurrency-709242

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.

Funny you should mention that Jimbo.
My favorite place to strum acoustic guitar was in the stairwell of my college dorm. Sounded so excellent!

How times have changed. Back in the 1950s they'd use a stairwell. Sounded better than any tape loop, reverb spring, or digital delay.

Come to think of it now, you are absolutely correct. Having recorded in a studio I should know better. I stand corrected,thanx .

in the BGA matrix?

do i amuse you     ~and what's all this about putting bitcoin atms in the casinos...?! :-D

LMFAO. 

Lightning Network :\ meh

Good to see all the major Cryptos are in the green except for BCH. 

So, whats left, other than to make it "chargeback-able", its the solution or the problem ?
Sorry, can´t get my head around it.
Damn, i know the answer. It´s hard, but true.

Maybe you've not reasoned forward from the base observation. Follow me here. If we improve the ability of the HW to process transactions by a factor of 5 by fixing broken SW, we can increase the maxblocksize (well, actually increase the sustained transaction throughput) by 5x without making additional demands on the HW. If we make no additional demand on the HW, then HW costs are a non-factor as far as number of fully-validating non-mining 'nodes' are concerned. Accordingly, HW cost is no longer a valid reason to limit maxblocksize below 5x as far as centralization is concerned.

Further, even if we do not increase maxblocksize, we can drastically reduce centralization pressure due to HW cost, by simply making this SW improvement.


No - that was S2X, not Bitcoin Core. Why are you conflating disparate teams?


While it is true that Bitcoin Core gave us the now-replaced EDA, the EDA did exactly what it was supposed to. It got Bitcoin Cash through a period of potential infant chain death mortality.

Now it is no longer needed, the EDA has been replaced -- by the same Bitcoin Cash devs -- by the new DAA. And Bitcoin Cash is now kicking out blocks at a stable near-10m rate. Just as it 'should'.


No. I have not pointed core devs as incompetent. (Perhaps myopic on an approach to solve what is seen by many as Bitcoin's most pressing issue.) Rather, I am trying to dispel the widely-touted, but rarely-explained assertion that 'the only capable devs in the crypto space exist in the Bitcoin Core camp'.

So you're the one spamming the network with low-fee transactions and swamping the mempool. Shame on you.  



 

That's because in addition to the 3 cents fee you need to make sure you use unconfirmed inputs. Recursively, for maximum effect.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between: conjecture of possibility; and, statement of fact. Non-English speaker?


Of course, they don't "have to". Bitcoin is a permissionless system. Core don't owe nuttin' to no-ones. However, should core's motives be in improving the capability of Bitcoin to the extent possible, they should be expected to leave no stone unturned, no?

Again, especially due to the fact that the loudest reason for not simply increasing the maxblocksize is the "nodes can't handle it".

The observant reader will note that nothing in itod's last retort did anything at all to "answer the second part in general".

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

Nobody cares what paid forum shills are saying about VerWucoin. Only interesting thing is how much Bitcoin it can be sold for.

Well, the two institutional houses that bought the LEAPS are expecting bitcoin to be worth at least the $10K strike price, plus the $2K+ (forgot the exact figure) premium by the contract date of end of 2018. I think they'll make money. Probably lots. It is a leveraged bull bet.

So which of these things have the BCH/2x genius devs solved without sacrificing decentralization by just upping the block size? You know, the same incompetent group that fumbled the 2X launch by missing a trivial off-by-one error so no blocks could be mined to trigger the fork? The same ones that try to hot fix shit in production with no code peer review or testing? The same ones that created the BCH EDA abomination?

You try to paint the Bitcoin core developers as somehow incompetent and not meticulous and careful, when the truly incompetent and reckless dev hacks live in your own house.

Gaslight much?

Another lie. It is not an issue at all. Ver/Wu/Wright are trying to make it an issue by spamming the network and creating artificial congestion.

Jbreher:

You should take these matters up privately with Infofront or admins or whoever else to the extent that you think that you have a some kind of case rather than attempting to get them resolved publicly (and anyhow, the owner of the thread has the right and discretion to delete your posts for whatever reason or no reason at all - and you should recognize that... this is not a democracy.. it is an owner moderated thread) . 

Actually it seems to be against the forum rules to make these kinds of challenges publicly, so you seem to be treading on thin ice in term of you efforts to publicly raise your concerns (whether actual or not).