Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19271.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:44:25 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 07:43:37 AM

satoshi fodder?

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 02:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

And they partied

until Gavin had to go

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 07:46:33 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:44:25 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 07:43:37 AM

satoshi fodder?

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 02:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

He did not. Instead he left.

And we are unable to do it apparently. The pussies that we are.

Poor orphans Sad

Still I would simply not want any new 'benevolent' daddy messing around with the protocol's holy parameters I bought into.

This is Bitcoin, its values thrives from the trustleness and the inability from any egomaniac dev to usurp it.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:44:25 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 07:43:37 AM

satoshi fodder?

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 02:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

He did not. Instead he left.

And we are unable to do it apparently. The pussies that we are.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:41:18 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 19, 2016, 07:37:30 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:27:25 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 19, 2016, 07:19:04 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:01:59 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:57:09 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 06:54:26 AM

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on June 17, 2010, 02:58:14 PM

Quote from: satoshi on June 17, 2010, 01:46:08 PM

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.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1613

Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake. Roll Eyes

Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago.

Do you have reading issues also? Don't you see the irony?

It is exaclty what gavin and his wingmen whether toomim or hearn tried to do.
Highjack the protocol and fork it off to meet whatever the USG told them to and/or to simply flood it.

I simply confirmed that you found the correct post. Unless you disagree with that we have nothing to argue about.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 07:43:37 AM

satoshi fodder?

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 02:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 19, 2016, 07:19:04 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:01:59 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:57:09 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 06:54:26 AM

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

did someone say satoshi fodder?

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 02:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

If you (hdbuck) are going to argue through authority (illegit anyways), at least do it with some honesty.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 19, 2016, 07:37:30 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:27:25 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 19, 2016, 07:19:04 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:01:59 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:57:09 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 06:54:26 AM

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on June 17, 2010, 02:58:14 PM

Quote from: satoshi on June 17, 2010, 01:46:08 PM

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.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1613

Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake. Roll Eyes

Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago.

Do you have reading issues also? Don't you see the irony?

It is exaclty what gavin and his wingmen whether toomim or hearn tried to do.
Highjack the protocol and fork it off to meet whatever the USG told them to and/or to simply flood it.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:27:25 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 19, 2016, 07:19:04 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:01:59 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:57:09 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 06:54:26 AM

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on June 17, 2010, 02:58:14 PM

Quote from: satoshi on June 17, 2010, 01:46:08 PM

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.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1613

Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake. Roll Eyes

Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 19, 2016, 07:19:04 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:01:59 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:57:09 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 06:54:26 AM

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on June 17, 2010, 02:58:14 PM

Quote from: satoshi on June 17, 2010, 01:46:08 PM

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.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1613

Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake. Roll Eyes

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 07:01:59 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:57:09 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 06:54:26 AM

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:57:09 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 06:54:26 AM

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

findftp

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1008

Delusional crypto obsessionist

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:57:09 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 06:54:26 AM

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

I agree, only if the moon landing and nuclear bombs are fake as well!

craked5

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 529

Ok seems than even after being scammed countless number of times I still don't have enough circonspection xD
Thanks for the precision though!

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: hdbuck on February 19, 2016, 06:54:26 AM

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on February 19, 2016, 06:44:41 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 19, 2016, 06:33:05 AM

Seems to be a form of desperation to be either fabricating that kind of information or selectively finding such fabricated misinformation to spread in these threads.

This used to be my favourite thread on the forum. Now it's like a cheap, tabloid newspaper, full of shit.

True. Good analogy.

Shit with an agenda interspersed with paid ads.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 19, 2016, 06:33:05 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:29:17 AM

Quote from: craked5 on February 19, 2016, 06:11:45 AM

Quote from: findftp on February 19, 2016, 06:05:02 AM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on February 19, 2016, 04:33:35 AM

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Whaou that's really cool to see that, it's a bit like a saint coming back to give the Good Word ^^

I suppose they're talking about btcClassic. They can do nothing no? I don't really understand what a hardfork is :-/

They're talking about XT (look at the date) and it's clearly fake.

stop the FUD guys

EDIT: a hardforking change is a change of the consensus rules that makes old nodes incompatible. It's only "dangerous" because core nodecount will go down.

Seems to be a form of desperation to be either fabricating that kind of information or selectively finding such fabricated misinformation to spread in these threads.

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

LFC_Bitcoin

legendary

Activity: 3556

Merit: 9709

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 19, 2016, 06:33:05 AM

Seems to be a form of desperation to be either fabricating that kind of information or selectively finding such fabricated misinformation to spread in these threads.

This used to be my favourite thread on the forum. Now it's like a cheap, tabloid newspaper, full of shit.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: molecular on February 19, 2016, 06:29:17 AM

Quote from: craked5 on February 19, 2016, 06:11:45 AM

Quote from: findftp on February 19, 2016, 06:05:02 AM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on February 19, 2016, 04:33:35 AM

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Whaou that's really cool to see that, it's a bit like a saint coming back to give the Good Word ^^

I suppose they're talking about btcClassic. They can do nothing no? I don't really understand what a hardfork is :-/

They're talking about XT (look at the date) and it's clearly fake.

stop the FUD guys

EDIT: a hardforking change is a change of the consensus rules that makes old nodes incompatible. It's only "dangerous" because core nodecount will go down.

Seems to be a form of desperation to be either fabricating that kind of information or selectively finding such fabricated misinformation to spread in these threads.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: craked5 on February 19, 2016, 06:11:45 AM

Quote from: findftp on February 19, 2016, 06:05:02 AM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on February 19, 2016, 04:33:35 AM

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Whaou that's really cool to see that, it's a bit like a saint coming back to give the Good Word ^^

I suppose they're talking about btcClassic. They can do nothing no? I don't really understand what a hardfork is :-/

Bitcoin Classic didn't exist back then. We already know at least some of Satoshis accounts have been compromised. So that message is worthless.

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19271. (Read 26607004 times)