Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 7425. (Read 26731413 times)

^
This kind of coupling keep you young, hit it hard

Sometimes a badger just can't undock.

They don't want the badger to undock.

Zooming out...

Seems correlated?

Bitcoin Optech Newsletter #107


https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/07/22/

---

Back after a few hard days.
Greetings to all. #nohomo

StrongHats

This is trigger man come from Mars it seems that he is at the highest level.

besides noticing the poor trigger discipline amongst these gentlemen...its that the hand of saruman?

Fix you misquote please as I am not sure why my statement is included here. It is out of context.

Man, Halloween in Africa looks like a good time.

This account is one of the oldest member here on our forum, he/she delete most of this post so cause of reducing its activity and the only remaining are the threads created which is the 71. This man already topic in our meta This member has weird stats. and I think before that man gains the legendary rank it takes a long run again to make a lot of post and activity right now its active again.

BobLawblaw

Ok, I'll bite.

The protocol? Not the actual network as in the current BTC and BSV mining state or diversification of nodes?

That's fair.

Or not... Because there are differences in the protocol that BSV introduced that leads to more centralisation. Mainly the (too much) bigger blocks. You (more than significantly) increase the barriers of entry for verification/mining nodes and you indeed introduce a centralisation factor... which degree I am not going to evaluate. But it is there. And it is a difference in the protocol. Can we agree on that?

Too bad it is all predicated upon a lie. If you believe that 'good rebuttals' contain complete falsehoods presented as truths...

Is your omission intentional? Or do you not understand? I said that from a technical viewpoint the BTC protocol and the BSV protocol are exactly as decentralized as each other.


No. You inaccurately state your entrance into this branch of the thread. Are you lying, or trying to put one over on us? Or can you simply not remember what your position was those scant few days ago?

You went straight to implying that I was redefining 'decentralization', TOTALLY Without any supporting rationale for your implication.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54783389

Indeed, it was myself who first asked you for a definition of decentralization, so that I may try to discern what it was you had issue with in my statement.

You did not request that I provide a definition of decentralization until further downthread, after actively evading the question yourself.

See, this is the sort of false hyperbole that passes for 'common knowledge' that I have to deal with. Coinbase will do no such thing.

Coinbase will send you and the IRS a 1099-K accurately reflecting revenue from your trading activity upon their platform.

Then they will not hound you. They have fulfilled their duty by so sending, so they have no reason to take further steps.

Also: the 1099-K has nothing to do with crypto gains. 1099-K is strictly an indication of monetary inflows.

Such woud seem the fundamental dichotomy, yes.


Not today. Certainly, it is well within the purview of insubstantial computers with good internet connections to do so for BSV today. At some time in the future, yes. Hobbyists will end up dropping off.

But that is not A Bad Thing. I mean, it's a tradeoff. Sure, its... nice if everyone is trivially able to validate the chain. But at what price? Demonstrably, so-called second layer solutions were not ready in time to stave off Blockalypse I. Nearly four years later, they still are not ready to stave off a potential Blockalypse II. (Of course, with none of the second layer solutions of which I am aware transacting on chain, they are completely invisible to the so-called 'validators' anyhow, though that's a separate discussion.)

But perhaps more germane... Humanity muddled along for one or two dozen thousand years with no discernible increase in standard of living. It is only in the last few centuries when specialization of labor has allowed us to rise out of the muck of scarcity into a stratified realm of (relative) abundance. Do you insist on developing and building your own automobile?  How about a semiconductor chip? Do you think everyone should design their own computer? Build their own fab to crank out the chips? One only need refer to the seminal essay 'I, Pencil' to see the folly therein. Why would the maintenance of the financial system be the one thing that is the enforced domain of the lowest common denominator?

I say they should not. The system should grow to accommodate demand. Those that are good at validation will remain validators. That are not will fall by the wayside, and find other things to do. Things more matched to their unique set of gifts. There is nothing wrong -- and everything right -- with that.


B does not follow A. At least not without an explanation as to how A necessarily leads to B.

Oh, lighten up. It was low-hanging fruit, and it sparked a mini-discussion about the origins of Roger Ver's bitcoin divinity.

Yes, I argue


Maybe occasionally. Not with intent. OTOH, we have immediately above an accusation that you make that I am not answering your questions. When demonstrated that you have not even rendered any questions to me to go unanswered, you deflect the conversation - presumably in order to gloss over your demonstrably false statement.


I seem disingenuous? From time to time? Weak. I assure you, my arguments are sincere.


Of course one has to carefully parse what I write and post. These topics are nuanced. The points are sometimes subtle. The differences and dependencies thereupon require careful evaluation. (It doesn't help that people keep ascribing things to me which I have not said.) Are we too lazy to engage in meaningful dialogue?


I'm still waiting for someone to step up with the accepted definition of 'decentralization'. So far nobody in this cast of dozens has been able to do so. It's kind of hard to argue about the definition of decentralization when nobody is bold enough to step up to the plate with what they believe is an actual definition.

As a corollary, I think your characterization that I am arguing over the definition is false.


So then why can't anyone provide such? From the outside, it appears that the accepted dogma is that 'decentralization' is exactly equivalent to 'today brand X has lotsa lotsa non-mining fully-validating clients' - no more and no less. But it must not be that simple?


I hope that's not supposed to be a definition - because it ain't. It may be a characteristic of a decentralized financial system, but it sure ain't a definition of 'decentralization'.


Indeed, you are one of the few hereabouts that seem open to thinking.


I'm not sure style has anything to do with discussion of reality, but whatevs.

Actually, in most areas of life I can interact in a friendly manner with people with whom I disagree. Indeed, a great part of my professional life was developing standards for technology amongst representatives of competitors with $billions on the line. The difference in such a professional venue is that people who reach such committees can and do treat each other with respect regardless of how strongly they disagree with the presented ideas.

You'll note that there is a coterie here in this thread with whom I carry out cordial arguments, and others which I (somewhat regrettably) treat with verbal contempt. The latter class has self-selected themselves into that group by initial aggression.


Fair enough. I disagree. That's all.

Well, that's even stupider than most of the shit you sling. I have never ascribed god-ness to Ver nor Wright.

Pretty fuckin' cheap-ass way to try to score a popularity point, nutildah.