Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking &amp; discussion - page 20984. (Read 26610970 times)

Quote from: Fatman3001 on August 20, 2015, 11:30:19 AM

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

There are no devs working on Bitcoin atm. They are all working on altcoins if you also include XT in that category.

what are you talking about

Aren't they all working on sidechains, LN, Eth, and XT?

Oh yeah you right!

BTW I just spoke with one of them and they'd ask that you stop looking over their shoulders. It's your breath they say. It stinks of bullshit.

Maybe a bit obtuse and hyperbolic, but my point is that this schism is causing less and slower pull requests from Github. By now there should be a major corporation developing Bitcoin.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 11:23:35 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on August 20, 2015, 11:19:05 AM

Quote from: cbeast on August 20, 2015, 11:26:39 AM

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

... there is no reason why the core devs can't update the fork when the dust settles.

"Update the fork" ?

How is that suppose to work again?

You just negotiate a deal with the NSA where you provide chinese miners as slaves in return for access to the mothership.

Or find common ground with the XT team and agree on an update. Or just do what Gavin and Hearn is doing.

Nahh.. NSA/Mothership.

common ground with the XT team ?? Cheesy

you haven't been following too well have you.

there is no place for common ground in XT: https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#who-is-involved

Quote

Decisions are made through agreement between Mike and Gavin, with Mike making the final call if a serious dispute were to arise.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 11:22:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 11:23:35 AM

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

There are no devs working on Bitcoin atm. They are all working on altcoins if you also include XT in that category.

what are you talking about

Aren't they all working on sidechains, LN, Eth, and XT?

Oh yeah you right!

BTW I just spoke with one of them and they'd ask that you stop looking over their shoulders. It's your breath they say. It stinks of bullshit.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: Fatman3001 on August 20, 2015, 11:19:05 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 11:22:57 AM

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

... there is no reason why the core devs can't update the fork when the dust settles.

"Update the fork" ?

How is that suppose to work again?

You just negotiate a deal with the NSA where you provide chinese miners as slaves in return for access to the mothership.

Or find common ground with the XT team and agree on an update. Or just do what Gavin and Hearn is doing.

Nahh.. NSA/Mothership.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: Fatman3001 on August 20, 2015, 11:19:05 AM

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

There are no devs working on Bitcoin atm. They are all working on altcoins if you also include XT in that category.

what are you talking about

Aren't they all working on sidechains, LN, Eth, and XT?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

... there is no reason why the core devs can't update the fork when the dust settles.

"Update the fork" ?

How is that suppose to work again?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

There are no devs working on Bitcoin atm. They are all working on altcoins if you also include XT in that category.

what are you talking about

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

There are no devs working on Bitcoin atm. They are all working on altcoins if you also include XT in that category.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

... there is no reason why the core devs can't update the fork when the dust settles.

Norway

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 251

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

There is nothing you can do anyway. It's not in your hands. I hope you are not disappointed Wink

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 10:53:40 AM

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

And leave Bitcoin in the hands of "benevolent" dictator Mike Hearn and his blacklists? Sure... Roll Eyes

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

Norway

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 251

Quote from: Norway on August 20, 2015, 10:44:02 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 10:36:46 AM

Quote from: Norway on August 20, 2015, 10:44:02 AM

Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?

An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.

With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.

What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.

LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.

The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

We ?

Who is we?

Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"

If there is so little significant support for XT, what are you afraid of? Wink

Afraid?

I'm just trying to show you the light Wink

The light is built into the system. If a group of developers fail to deliver, WE replace them Wink

The "we" you're referring to is the crowd. The "we" you represent doesn't have a say in this issue Wink

The chinese mining pools are not happy with status quo and push for 8 mb limit. Will be exiting to see what they choose in january. At that time, I guess Wladimir has been pushed to come up with a core solution. (No, not the "wait for lightning"-solution, he he).

Solution will come in due time. Unlike what Gavinco would like you to believe there is no rush.

If there is consensus right now amongst relevant actors, it's that XT is not that solution.

See you weren't so wrong. The proper "we" will take action and the ones left in the dust will be Mike & Gavin.

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 10:36:46 AM

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on August 20, 2015, 05:19:06 AM

Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?

An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.

With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.

What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.

LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.

The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

We ?

Who is we?

Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"

If there is so little significant support for XT, what are you afraid of? Wink

Afraid?

I'm just trying to show you the light Wink

The light is built into the system. If a group of developers fail to deliver, WE replace them Wink

The "we" you're referring to is the crowd. The "we" you represent doesn't have a say in this issue Wink

The chinese mining pools are not happy with status quo and push for 8 mb limit. Will be exiting to see what they choose in january. At that time, I guess Wladimir has been pushed to come up with a core solution. (No, not the "wait for lightning"-solution, he he).

Solution will come in due time. Unlike what Gavinco would like you to believe there is no rush.

If there is consensus right now amongst relevant actors, it's that XT is not that solution.

See you weren't so wrong. The proper "we" will take action and the ones left in the dust will be Mike & Gavin.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

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

Good morning gentlemen! I went to bed last night with the price crashing to 223. Glad to wake up & see that we didn't go any lower. I was worried I'd wake up to sub 200. I've lost confidence, I didn't even know what to expect. Anybody have an opinion on what's going to happen next? Serious responses only please.

My dream last night was that the BTC price was crashing up to around $3,000, and i kept trying to sell a few BTC at a time, as the price was continuing to crash up, in order to lock in profits and to buy again when the price came back down...

however, my sell transactions kept failing to go through.

Norway

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 251

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 10:36:46 AM

Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?

An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.

With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.

What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.

LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.

The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

We ?

Who is we?

Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"

If there is so little significant support for XT, what are you afraid of? Wink

Afraid?

I'm just trying to show you the light Wink

The light is built into the system. If a group of developers fail to deliver, WE replace them Wink

The "we" you're referring to is the crowd. The "we" you represent doesn't have a say in this issue Wink

The chinese mining pools are not happy with status quo and push for 8 mb limit. Will be exiting to see what they choose in january. At that time, I guess Wladimir has been pushed to come up with a core solution. (No, not the "wait for lightning"-solution, he he).

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?

An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.

With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.

What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.

LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.

The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

We ?

Who is we?

Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"

If there is so little significant support for XT, what are you afraid of? Wink

Afraid?

I'm just trying to show you the light Wink

The light is built into the system. If a group of developers fail to deliver, WE replace them Wink

The "we" you're referring to is the crowd. The "we" you represent doesn't have a say in this issue Wink

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233