Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19183. (Read 26608375 times)

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.

you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.


I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?

Indeed.

Core makes BTC much faster (helps scaling) and resilient with 0.12, fixes malleability bug / introduces Segwit in a couple of months (1.7MB capacity) and commits to future blocksize increase that puts capacity at >2mb which classic provides. And we are still discussing "small blockers"? Why?

The amount of stirring shit for the lolz, resurrecting 5-10-20 day posts from the garbage, creating fictitious drama and "problems", saying that the end is coming because "blocks are full" when even 1c or even 4 tenths of one cent fee txs go in in a few hours despite "blocks are full" and backlogs, saying people can't be anonymous with bitcoin because with high fees there can't be no mixing (when fees are at practically zero cost AND the fact that cheap mixing is USELESS mixing due to the sybil attack vector where other parties can pretend to be mixing with you just to unmask you - I mean, if they pay almost zero fees, they can be pretending to be mixing coins all day so that they can see who else mixes with them), pretending there is some official camp that wants 1MB forevah and intentionally creating friction out of nowhere when there is no such camp (everyone is doing scaling work)....wtf? Are you all retarded and/or paid shills?

lol. idk. Huh
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.

you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.


I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?

Indeed.

Core makes BTC much faster (helps scaling) and resilient with 0.12, fixes malleability bug / introduces Segwit in a couple of months (1.7MB capacity) and commits to future blocksize increase that puts capacity at >2mb which classic provides. And we are still discussing "small blockers"? Why?

The amount of stirring shit for the lolz, resurrecting 5-10-20 day posts from the garbage, creating fictitious drama and "problems", saying that the end is coming because "blocks are full" when even 1c or even 4 tenths of one cent fee txs go in in a few hours despite "blocks are full" and backlogs, saying people can't be anonymous with bitcoin because with high fees there can't be no mixing (when fees are at practically zero cost AND the fact that cheap mixing is USELESS mixing due to the sybil attack vector where other parties can pretend to be mixing with you just to unmask you - I mean, if they pay almost zero fees, they can be pretending to be mixing coins all day so that they can see who else mixes with them), pretending there is some official camp that wants 1MB forevah and intentionally creating friction out of nowhere when there is no such camp (everyone is doing scaling work)....wtf? Are you all retarded and/or paid shills?
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250

It's not an "attack."  Core supporters are merely voting with their packets.

If that happens to disturb f2pool's existing datagram consensus with a more contentious version, well too bad.

Majoritarian Democracy > Nork Sensor Ships

I'm sure Wang Chun views it the same way, you lot are a charming bunch.




Charming or not, the world is as it is, and it doesn't owe Wang Chun a living.

I'm not supporting "voting with their packets" but the way the internet operates, it can't be prevented in practice and needs to be accepted as reality if one would like to engage in realistic decision making.

Absolutely...

To continue in the same vein, Core isn't owed his blocks. A fact that I'm sure is a little clearer today.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198

It's not an "attack."  Core supporters are merely voting with their packets.

If that happens to disturb f2pool's existing datagram consensus with a more contentious version, well too bad.

Majoritarian Democracy > Nork Sensor Ships

I'm sure Wang Chun views it the same way, you lot are a charming bunch.

Charming or not, the world is as it is, and it doesn't owe Wang Chun a living.

I'm not supporting "voting with their packets" but the way the internet operates, it can't be prevented in practice and needs to be accepted as reality if one would like to engage in realistic decision making.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250

It's not an "attack."  Core supporters are merely voting with their packets.

If that happens to disturb f2pool's existing datagram consensus with a more contentious version, well too bad.

Majoritarian Democracy > Nork Sensor Ships

I'm sure Wang Chun views it the same way, you lot are a charming bunch.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

It's not an "attack."  Core supporters are merely voting with their packets.

If that happens to disturb f2pool's existing datagram consensus with a more contentious version, well too bad.

Majoritarian Democracy > Nork Sensor Ships
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
relax poeple you post so much shit i have already given up trying to shut you up. it lasted about 3mins


legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
Bitmain/Antpool
BW.COM
Slush Pool
KnCMiner
Multipool
Genesis Mining
Avalon Miner
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
relax poeple you post so much shit i have already given up trying to shut you up. it lasted about 3mins


Thank you..    Kiss Kiss Kiss Kiss Kiss Kiss
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down.

There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules (and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain.

how can blockstream fail? the game is rigged. lol

such a whiner when it comes down to it ... you can't handle the truth ... "the game is rigged, please make them stop wah, wah" ... wait i need to delete some more truthiness before I look too stoopid.

it is really offensive to all the Core devs who have built this thing for free mostly (what did you do exactly?!) that you think blockstream can dictate.

you crassic lusers are such whiner lusers ... maybe time to just piss off and join Hearn if you don't like the rules or haven't got anything better to add??

I whine because i care.
but you're right at this point we should all just fork off...
i do believe thats what we are leading up too
there may be no avoiding it


It's not as bad as you are making it out to be.

I mean, really?

You are suggesting that it is not changing how you want it to, but really nothing is broken.. except some people whining that they want change faster than core is willing to accomplish it...

change is still happening, but the xt and classic supporters are just saying that they want change faster and more.. blah blah blah..   but it is not necessary...

So, why keep whining and whining and whining... it's not really helping, because there is already a list of plans that are in place that are continuing to be discussed but seemingly and apparently sufficiently adequate for the time being.

wtv man this thread remains unanswered https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14008780
no one wants to admit it
we are leading up to war...




Maybe we should all just take a break for a while...
Huh?


But the thing is that bitcoin is still happening.. and continuing to happen.

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
relax poeple you post so much shit i have already given up trying to shut you up. it lasted about 3mins
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250


Interestingly, through these posts I've discovered all my deleted posts have NOT [that's 4U JJG] been deleted by adam... so far. Too bad the only indication I have of the culprit is:

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator.

 Undecided

legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
one of my posts was deleted from this thread too... , recently.

 I kind of  assumed that it was NOT  Adam who deleted it... but I could not be for sure..

the post seemed pretty benign...
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down.

There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules (and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain.

how can blockstream fail? the game is rigged. lol

such a whiner when it comes down to it ... you can't handle the truth ... "the game is rigged, please make them stop wah, wah" ... wait i need to delete some more truthiness before I look too stoopid.

it is really offensive to all the Core devs who have built this thing for free mostly (what did you do exactly?!) that you think blockstream can dictate.

you crassic lusers are such whiner lusers ... maybe time to just piss off and join Hearn if you don't like the rules or haven't got anything better to add??

I whine because i care.
but you're right at this point we should all just fork off...
i do believe thats what we are leading up too
there may be no avoiding it


It's not as bad as you are making it out to be.

I mean, really?

You are suggesting that it is not changing how you want it to, but really nothing is broken.. except some people whining that they want change faster than core is willing to accomplish it...

change is still happening, but the xt and classic supporters are just saying that they want change faster and more.. blah blah blah..   but it is not necessary...

So, why keep whining and whining and whining... it's not really helping, because there is already a list of plans that are in place that are continuing to be discussed but seemingly and apparently sufficiently adequate for the time being.

wtv man this thread remains unanswered https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14008780
no one wants to admit it
we are leading up to war...

legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...

I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.

Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda.

The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support.

Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down.

There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules (and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain.

how can blockstream fail? the game is rigged. lol

such a whiner when it comes down to it ... you can't handle the truth ... "the game is rigged, please make them stop wah, wah" ... wait i need to delete some more truthiness before I look too stoopid.

it is really offensive to all the Core devs who have built this thing for free mostly (what did you do exactly?!) that you think blockstream can dictate.

you crassic lusers are such whiner lusers ... maybe time to just piss off and join Hearn if you don't like the rules or haven't got anything better to add??

I whine because i care.
but you're right at this point we should all just fork off...
i do believe thats what we are leading up too
there may be no avoiding it


It's not as bad as you are making it out to be.

I mean, really?

You are suggesting that it is not changing how you want it to, but really nothing is broken.. except some people whining that they want change faster than core is willing to accomplish it...

change is still happening, but the xt and classic supporters are just saying that they want change faster and more.. blah blah blah..   but it is not necessary...

So, why keep whining and whining and whining... it's not really helping, because there is already a list of plans that are in place that are continuing to be discussed but seemingly and apparently sufficiently adequate for the time being.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
Adam is evil now too. Just like Theymos and everybody. Sad

I'd like to invite you to my totally mostly unmoderated discussion thread. We must fork away from Adam's tyranny. NOW!


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14011850
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14011850
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14011850

Edit: Adjusted for color and illustrative gif

sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
Knock it off adam. Censorship is lame, and petty... no need to stoop to their level with superior ideas on your side.

The ragequit + keccak (candidate code is ready) PoW change can't come soon enough. 1MB4EVA will be plenty for their "censorship" free, rasb pi & LJR internet compatible settlement coin...

[I hope everyone noticed that BitUsher didn't come back to expound on his complete lack of knowledge about how mining works today...]
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
i'm fighting fire with fire now.

you are going to start throwing jalapenos instead of tomatoes?
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
Why would a governance change be appropriate?

Loss of market share? check.

Loss of six year logarithmic uptrend in price? Check

Gridlock in decision-making? check.

Loss of essential properties such as decentralization, anonymity, sufficient capacity and censorship resistance? check

What more do we fucking need?  How is it not obvious that this is a full-on, five alarm clusterfuck?


so it was always about governance? you big blocker shills have been led on a merry dance of lies, useful idiots in a coup attempt, just admit it.

Does that mean you don't think it's a clusterfuck or that you do but don't care?

bitcoin is unaware of your socialist clusterfecks and human induced conflicts ... in the last 24 hours it processed 215k TX worth $1.2 billion in the most borderless, censorship-resistant, cheapest and secure method on the planet.

Bitcoin is the leper with the most toes. Clearly worrying about it's health is fearmongering. Is that your best argument?
Pages:
Jump to: