So what's this weeks high going to be $229.50? Or should we shoot for the moon and predict $230.25. lol
well we just saw some strong volume on the hourly, things might get interesting and we might be pushing 235 pretty soon! or 225 again
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20856. (Read 26608321 times)
September 03, 2015, 11:37:54 AM
well we just saw some strong volume on the hourly, things might get interesting and we might be pushing 235 pretty soon! or 225 again
September 03, 2015, 11:31:15 AM
So what's this weeks high going to be $229.50? Or should we shoot for the moon and predict $230.25. lol
September 03, 2015, 11:21:35 AM
It looks like not even those "capital controls in China" have the strength to move this thing up.
September 03, 2015, 11:14:45 AM
hdbuck is now ignored by me 
EDIT:
The trolls have been fed too much lately
EDIT:
The trolls have been fed too much lately
September 03, 2015, 11:11:41 AM
Food for thought:
If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.
If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.
BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others
It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it
There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted
I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)
It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:
A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried
And put him on ignore....
cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.
the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.
I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway
Im not following anyone. Altho i might be interested about what some people might say, i will never trust them with my bitcoins.
Gavin is a low life traitor/dictator, and should be banned from touching any bitcoin related code.
May he enjoy the rest of his pityful life hanging around in MIT/CIA/Google offices with his Hearn fella.
Good friggin riddance!
Well you are....you are following every single decision Bitcoin core developers have made...
Gavin a Low life traitor/dictator? Haha, thats kind of funny
No, he is not...he made the testnet in bitcoin and many other very important improvements, without them the Bitcoin software would not be where it is now...I think Gavin just wants the best for BTC and regular users and it is just not possible to please 100% of users, because there will be always people like you or some dark market type of guys, who want anonymity for illegal things etc...Gavin made a move, controversal a bit, sure, but it speeded up the work of Bitcoin core...and i think that it is most important...because as we all say...there may not be dictator to say bitcoin community what to do or not to do...the bitcoin client development must be decentralised...thats why i think the BitcoinXT is a good thing...and if you look on alt client Toshi from Coinbase, it is interesting as well...if you meant someone is traitor to speak with police, CIA or whatever, than we are all traitors i guess..."blockchain blacklists" will guarantee that bitcoin will meet much more resistance if it ever tries to become a primary or reserve type currency in the usa and/or world. only FREEDOM is ever going to be successful.
September 03, 2015, 11:02:17 AM
September 03, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
I really don't care what you think at all, i just want that other users see there is other side of story and not just the FUD and incorrect information you are spreading
September 03, 2015, 10:53:51 AM
^ you too!
September 03, 2015, 10:52:53 AM
Food for thought:
If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.
If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.
BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others
It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it
There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted
I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)
It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:
A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried
And put him on ignore....
cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.
the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.
I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway
Im not following anyone. Altho i might be interested about what some people might say, i will never trust them with my bitcoins.
Gavin is a low life traitor/dictator, and should be banned from touching any bitcoin related code.
May he enjoy the rest of his pityful life hanging around in MIT/CIA/Google offices with his Hearn fella.
Good friggin riddance!
Well you are....you are following every single decision Bitcoin core developers have made...
Gavin a Low life traitor/dictator? Haha, thats kind of funny
No, he is not...he made the testnet in bitcoin and many other very important improvements, without them the Bitcoin software would not be where it is now...I think Gavin just wants the best for BTC and regular users and it is just not possible to please 100% of users, because there will be always people like you or some dark market type of guys, who want anonymity for illegal things etc...Gavin made a move, controversal a bit, sure, but it speeded up the work of Bitcoin core...and i think that it is most important...because as we all say...there may not be dictator to say bitcoin community what to do or not to do...the bitcoin client development must be decentralised...thats why i think the BitcoinXT is a good thing...and if you look on alt client Toshi from Coinbase, it is interesting as well...if you meant someone is traitor to speak with police, CIA or whatever, than we are all traitors i guess... September 03, 2015, 10:46:41 AM
An appeal to not follow authority while using his own authority to undermine Gavins supposed authority. Either it's a fake or Satoshi is an idiot.
Edit: With regards to the bit in Maxwells text I have put in bold: He can get engaged in the discussion again and respond to criticism. Not just drop some commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai. That is, of course, unless he wants people to follow him blindly like sheep.
Edit: With regards to the bit in Maxwells text I have put in bold: He can get engaged in the discussion again and respond to criticism. Not just drop some commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai. That is, of course, unless he wants people to follow him blindly like sheep.
you're lost. hopeless. clueless.
and now ignored.
September 03, 2015, 10:26:17 AM
The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.
Where can I find more about this consensus?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/satoshi-speaks-real-hoax-1153748
It's been a while since I read this, but that was the impression I got.
There is no reason to believe it is fake for me.
This is what Gregory Maxwell said about it, I agree:
This is what Gregory Maxwell said about it, I agree:
Quote
You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the
message is unauthentic. This is not the case.
Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.
The headers on the message check out. The mail server in question is
also not an open relay. At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.
In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list. I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.
A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?
This whole tangest is a waste of time. If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.
message is unauthentic. This is not the case.
Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.
The headers on the message check out. The mail server in question is
also not an open relay. At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.
In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list. I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.
A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?
This whole tangest is a waste of time. If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.
An appeal to not follow authority while using his own authority to undermine Gavins supposed authority. Either it's a fake or Satoshi is an idiot.
Edit: With regards to the bit in Maxwells text I have put in bold: He can get engaged in the discussion again and respond to criticism. Not just drop some commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai. That is, of course, unless he wants people to follow him blindly like sheep.
September 03, 2015, 10:22:32 AM
trick to trading bitcoin is you must be patient, to get more profitable
hold bitcoins until price up
hold bitcoins until price up
September 03, 2015, 10:16:51 AM
I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway
Satoshi does not agree with BitcoinXT.
This is what he said on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist two weeks ago(!):
Quote
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
If you follow the mailinglist further you can find some analysis it was not a spoofed email address.
But whether this was the real Satoshi or not, is doesn't matter what he thinks or wants.
Bitcoin can only have value if there is no central decision maker, and that what he also tried to explain on the mailinglist.
The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.
regarding the "blockchain blacklists" scheme: "They think they're smarter than the rest of us. They're not and we're going to pay the price." http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/jim-rogers-federal-reserve-economy-slowdown/2015/08/31/id/672878/
September 03, 2015, 10:15:00 AM
The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.
Where can I find more about this consensus?
There is no reason to believe it is fake for me.
This is what Gregory Maxwell said about it, I agree:
Quote
You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the
message is unauthentic. This is not the case.
Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.
The headers on the message check out. The mail server in question is
also not an open relay. At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.
In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list. I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.
A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?
This whole tangest is a waste of time. If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.
message is unauthentic. This is not the case.
Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.
The headers on the message check out. The mail server in question is
also not an open relay. At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.
In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list. I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.
A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?
This whole tangest is a waste of time. If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.
+1
Satoshi is way too smart not to sign and comply with the noobs around and their crave for authority.
That's what bitcoin is about: decentralized consensus, trustless system and no friggin dictators!
September 03, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.
Where can I find more about this consensus?
There is no reason to believe it is fake for me.
This is what Gregory Maxwell said about it, I agree:
Quote
You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the
message is unauthentic. This is not the case.
Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.
The headers on the message check out. The mail server in question is
also not an open relay. At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.
In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list. I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.
A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?
This whole tangest is a waste of time. If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.
message is unauthentic. This is not the case.
Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.
The headers on the message check out. The mail server in question is
also not an open relay. At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.
In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list. I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.
A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?
This whole tangest is a waste of time. If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.
September 03, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
September 03, 2015, 09:57:25 AM
I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway
Satoshi does not agree with BitcoinXT.
This is what he said on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist two weeks ago(!):
Quote
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
If you follow the mailinglist further you can find some analysis it was not a spoofed email address.
But whether this was the real Satoshi or not, is doesn't matter what he thinks or wants.
Bitcoin can only have value if there is no central decision maker, and that what he also tried to explain on the mailinglist.
The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.
September 03, 2015, 09:50:20 AM
I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway
Satoshi does not agree with BitcoinXT.
This is what he said on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist two weeks ago(!):
Quote
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
If you follow the mailinglist further you can find some analysis it was not a spoofed email address.
But whether this was the real Satoshi or not, is doesn't matter what he thinks or wants.
Bitcoin can only have value if there is no central decision maker, and that what he also tried to explain on the mailinglist.
September 03, 2015, 09:49:40 AM
Food for thought:
If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.
If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.
BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others
It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it
There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted
I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)
It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:
A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried
And put him on ignore....
cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.
the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.
I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway
Im not following anyone. Altho i might be interested about what some people might say, i will never trust them with my bitcoins.
Gavin is a low life traitor/dictator, and should be banned from touching any bitcoin related code.
May he enjoy the rest of his pityful life hanging around in MIT/CIA/Google offices with his Hearn fella.
Good friggin riddance!
September 03, 2015, 09:43:27 AM
Food for thought:
If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.
If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.
BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others
It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it
There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted
I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)
It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:
A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried
And put him on ignore....
cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.
the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.
I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway
Jump to: