Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19531. (Read 26609885 times)

Wang Chun has gone up in my estimation. He is playing the Coretards for the chumps that they are. Unbelievable. There isn't a single principle among the lot of them.

where's inca's giraffe eating popcorn gif? 
 

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?   

Assume for the record that Bitcoin Classic is a coup d'etat, Assume that it is a Trojan Horse for BIP 101...
Isn't that better than having to deal and negotiate with the likes of Peter Todd and LukeJR?

Hey guys, let's just change the POW for Lulz! They might be technologically intelligent, but they have no common sense, no ability to compromise, and no ability to consider economical rampifications of their decisions. The interview With Guy Corem is particularly illuminating. Bitcoin is for cryptopunks/cypherpunks and not for anyone else. Main street users need not apply, asics not allowed, this is a gpu club only, which is absurd because assuming for a moment that you can prevent asics, you would still be left with server farms of gpus whose break even is still based on the geographical cost of electricity, you will not have massive price increases without addressing aml/kyc regulations. If you want anonymity go use anoncoin or this new fangled zerocash which is what their vision of bitcoin is.

Ultimately this all comes down to another battle over the vision of bitcoin. Is it to buy drugs on the dark net or something bigger? Can it be both? Not anymore...

/Rabble rabble. Grabs pitch fork and a torch!

  Rats eat cheese.
  Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.

Yeah, cause you can surely tell that this satisfied his objection lol. It gets better... (He knows his $$ comes from the users, not the devs...)


wangchun commented 8 hours ago: "@jonasschnelli Could you please tell me which wallet has been ready to warn users for potential RBF transactions? What the average user without much Bitcoin knowledge can do when he/she see this warning?"


wangchun commented 8 hours ago:  "So you admit nobody has yet been ready for opt-in RBF but deploy it in the next release IMHO this is no better than force a hard fork without consensus" (Bolded by my decision)

The ideas have been around long before the blocksize debate as a wish list -- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ltc-changing-the-litecoin-proof-of-work-function-to-avoid-asic-mining-359323

We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the  raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the gpu miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off.

What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101


Yes , it is controlled by the brothers Maintainer of the Bitcoin Classic so do not assume that the votes are impartial as its essentially a voting mechanism and disturbing governance model of Classic.

What planet are you living on? In practice, the opposite more often occurs.  The majority who thinks they are morally right will not focus on the injustice suffered by the minority. They will focus on the crimes committed in reaction to that injustice.  Look at how every militant group in the U.S. from the Black Panthers to the KKK are treated.

A voter pays no immediate direct penalty for an uninformed vote. There is not sufficient incentive to become informed. To know this, all you have to do is look at election results throughout history. Why spend hours researching the relevant policy options and politicians when the chance of the election being decided by your one vote is infinitesimal? Voting is more useful for signaling your allegiance to a group.

Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either.

AngloSaxon law is based on two main concepts:
1. Common law that predates government that did not create it but recognizes it and enforces it.
2. The principle that "Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." This concept dates all the way back to 1215 when King John signed the Magna Carta.

Anarcho-capitalists do not want rulers, but that does not at all mean we don't want rules. In fact, we are the only group that consistently can apply Rule of Law because the alternative is a violence monopoly (central government) that creates, selectively interprets and enforces the very Rules that limit its power. That is Rule of Man, not Rule of Law.

Democracy is BY DEFINITION the domination of the minority by the majority. Politics is merely the art of convincing enough people to agree with you so that you can FORCIBLY impose your will on those who don't.

sipa  commented 9 hours ago 

I understand your position but respectfully disagree. Wangchun commented regarding RBF and his English was very good but not perfect. I wouldn't be surprised if his speaking ability is similar.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7388#issuecomment-173563835

wangchun commented 8 hours ago - "ACK   RBF is steal. This PR should be merged asap to prevent potential financial loss."


Edit. Bolded for emphasis. Bolding was my decision, not found in pull request. Can I just say that Peter Todd is a poopyhead ever since viacoin. I hate him. I lost so much due to that crappy coin. I swear, him and his free-crypto crap is just stupid and fails the economic rationality test. Sorry, getting rid of lukejr and peter todd, imho, would result in a more balanced dev atmosphere. Just my $.02. I get angry when I see his responses, the crap he has done, and it doesn't surprise me that he left RC3 or whatever the proper acronym is.

Thank you! I did not know this website

I mean, WTF???  I mean to say... WTF??

And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.

Is everyone here a complete effing retard? This is a joke. Of course its a joke.
Normal responsible business people dont speak like that  OK, that was a stupid point.

You are all being done up like a kipper.

Why are people arguing about governance while pretending Bitcoin is anarchy when Bitcoin is identical to the government we already have?  Each mining rig is a vote.  You're required to use your vote at a pool, which is the same thing as electing a representative like congress/senate.  It's a reputation based system and your vote essentially does not matter if all representatives are compromised or not operating with any game plan you want.

It's supposedly "permissionless", but unless you have millions to break through the high barrier of entry to solo mine, then it's not really.  Just like in real life, big money can simply buy their way in as representatives.  I'm not sure where everyone keeps getting these anarchy ideas from when there's almost no difference between Bitcoin and representative type republics.  Looks like convergent evolution strikes again.

Satoshi never meant mining to be "a public service," hence he incentivized it. Unlike SETI@home & folding@home.
Regardless of you or I having treated it as that in the past.

“A sum of money is a leading character in this tale about people,
 just as a sum of honey might properly be a leading character in a tale about bees.”

That is true, and it is one of the reasons why "democracy is the worst form of government there is".  But other methods of reching "consensus"  are not any better in that regard, often much worse; hence the other half of the saying.

While democracy does not directly account for intensity of desire, it has some indirect ways. For example, if the majority chooses laws that are too unfair to some minority, the latter may resort to crime to make ends meet, or to terrorism and other anti-social behavior, in spite of the penal deterrents against such acts.  Then the majority, if it is not too stupid, will usually ease the plight of that minority, enough to keep those reactions down to a tolerable level.

Democracy, like anything else, will function better if most of its citizens have more knowledge (especially of other societies, past and present) and more intelligence (especially the social intelligence I mentioned: awareness of the reactions that other people may have to one's own actions, and to the actions of the government.  The fair treatment of minorities, above, is an example of decision that a majority will take if it has a minimum of those qualities.  

That is one reason, by the way, why even the richest classes should want a good public universal education: because their welfare never depends only on their own qualities and actions, but always depends on the state of the society around them.  


As I said in another post, "right" is a meaningless word if there is no government to decide who has it.  Property is not a "natural right": you property is what your government thinks it is.  There is no other useful way to define it.  

You grow a crop on the land that is property of someone else: who owns the harvest?  You may have signed a contract giving 90% of the harvest to the landowner, but if the alternative was to sign the contract or die of hunger, is that any different than him taking your harvest by force?  You buy a stolen car without knowing that it was stolen; is it your property, or still the property of the victim? If you trace the history of a land plot back in time, you will almost always find that it was originally taken by force from the previous owner; so, is the present holder really the rightful owner?

In those and many other examples, there is no "natural" answer to the question.  In each case, if the property right is disputed, the laws of the country will give general rules that say who has the property rights; a court would have to decide how to apply those laws to the specific case; and a government will have to forcibly enforce the court's decision, if the affected party refuses to accept it.

Yeah, right, another superficial and poorly reasoned death pronouncement of bitcoin that selectively and poorly attempts to emphasize  negative bitcoin "facts" in order to argue it's non objective points.

Back when CPU's was the thing everyone and their dog would run nodes and self mine before pools.

Simply before the migration from solo mining to pools and CPU's to GPU's and GPU's to FPGA and later ASIC's.

That doesn't matter. If the Chicoms want to shut us down now, they can.  It is completely irrelevant how much their electricity costs because they won't be mining for profit. They will be using stolen gear to double spend and they only need to do that for a short while to destroy the market's faith in our currency. As long as they have enough asics in China to create a megapool, they can double spend and keep double spending until we fork away from SHA256 or until 51% hashpower goes online outside of China.

Where you get such wacky ideas I'll never know...

Levitating just above 400.

Is this a bull market or not..

 

Since no answer forthcoming, assuming "ancap community" -- you and couch-surfing buddy in mom's basement. How much mom charge in "taxes"?
P.S. Just wait til she finds out you guys set the woods on fire