What if classic coup is just a large-scale manipulation by altcoin pumper gang?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on March 21, 2016, 07:46:30 AM

Gmax had interactions with Bilderberg banksters. You start playing conspiratard soon enough there will be nobody left. Lauda, I'm a little disappointed in you.

Just because I say that there is a possibility, that doesn't mean that I'm trying to advocate that it is necessarily true (i.e. conspiracy theorists). Doesn't seem like you had interaction with probability theory. Usually I do not care at all unless there is really strong evidence supporting such a claim (there isn't in these cases).

Quote from: ?? on ??

Whether it's true or not, i don't care as long as they don't want to make bitcoin centralized or stay at 1MB block size.

There's nothing wrong with staying at a 1 MB block size limit (if there weren't any available options to pick from).

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Lauda on March 21, 2016, 04:42:00 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on March 21, 2016, 03:18:45 AM

You mean multiverse theoretically possible? Don't be retarded, Lauda. Not even for a minute. Lips sealed

He had interaction with them, the possibility is present.

Gmax had interactions with Bilderberg banksters. You start playing conspiratard soon enough there will be nobody left. Lauda, I'm a little disappointed in you.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on March 21, 2016, 03:18:45 AM

You mean multiverse theoretcally possible? Don't be retarded, Lauda. Not even for a minute. Lips sealed

He had interaction with them, the possibility is present.

Quote from: johnyj on March 20, 2016, 11:45:29 PM

Payment channel itself is coming from traditional finance practice, so it will also make bitcoin works more like a traditional financial system. I don't think this is what bitcoin should become. It is a challenge to scale bitcoin on-chain, but that technical difficulty should not change your course to transform bitcoin into something else

No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it won't make it true.

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 21, 2016, 04:06:18 AM

Prove that a corporation is directing (i.e. not simply funded by) people like Greg Maxwell or Peter Todd. You can't, no such evidence exists.

All they have is circumstantial because e.g. Maxwell has a different view of scaling. The problem here is that people with limited or no experience in scaling systems are trying to tell people who have experience with scaling large scale systems before.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2016, 09:04:21 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 20, 2016, 08:53:36 PM

I do love how you resolutely avoid answering difficult questions, and dive in head first when you spot an opportunity to subtly (covertly) endorse the anti-Bitcoin agenda.

i love bitcoin.. just not blockstream or classic.

sorry but if you want corporate control. which i assume you do due to your obvious ploys to deflect any bad stigma against blockstream. then please atleast admit you want a job with them, and man-up and be honest about it.

Prove that a corporation is directing (i.e. not simply funded by) people like Greg Maxwell or Peter Todd. You can't, no such evidence exists.

Whereas, you hanging around bitcointalk nigh 365/24/7 is a provable fact. Can you prove that you have a job? Is this it? Are you proud of your job, Franky?

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Lauda on March 20, 2016, 07:32:03 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on March 20, 2016, 04:39:06 AM

What if Gavin works for the CIA?

That possibility exists.

You mean multiverse theoretcally possible? Don't be retarded, Lauda. Not even for a minute. Lips sealed

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

With this clearing oriented development (payment channels and large discount for institution type N-N transactions), it is encouraging the centralization of transaction processing to wallet services and exchanges. And that is exactly what bitcoin do not want to do

In this ecosystem, there is no FDIC or FED to be the lender of last resort, if there are many large institutions similar to banks, and they will start to form an alliance, loan to each other to deal with the short term liquidity problem and doing FRB to gamble with customer money. And when they blow up, the whole system will just collapse, millions of users will lose their money and no one is responsible for that, like MTGOX

Payment channel itself is coming from traditional finance practice, so it will also make bitcoin works more like a traditional financial system. I don't think this is what bitcoin should become. It is a challenge to scale bitcoin on-chain, but that technical difficulty should not change your course to transform bitcoin into something else

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 20, 2016, 08:53:36 PM

I do love how you resolutely avoid answering difficult questions, and dive in head first when you spot an opportunity to subtly (covertly) endorse the anti-Bitcoin agenda.

i love bitcoin.. just not blockstream or classic.

if you think that blockstream is bitcoin. then you need to lay off the corporate kool-aid.

but it is nice to see that you want anyone hating corporation control as being anti-bitcoin. i have seen many of your posts telling people to just give up and stop using bitcoin.

which is a sure fire way to let the corporations win.

sorry but if you want corporate control. which i assume you do due to your obvious ploys to deflect any bad stigma against blockstream. then please atleast admit you want a job with them, and man-up and be honest about it.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2016, 08:37:33 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 20, 2016, 08:13:53 PM

all this free time from, that allows you to post on this forum all day long, 365 days a year?

though u cannot prove the statement because infact i am not on all day 365...
but i could ask you that same question

It is difficult, because I don't actually spend much time here. But there has never, ever been one single day that I've been here when you've not been here too. At all times of the day and night. How one man achieves this on his own, I'm not entirely sure.

I do love how you resolutely avoid answering difficult questions, and dive in head first when you spot an opportunity to subtly (covertly) endorse the anti-Bitcoin agenda.

When people ask you what you do for a living, do you tell them that you're a Bitcoin Troll? No, you lie to those people too, don't you? Are you proud of what you're doing? Because you should be thoroughly ashamed. That's how non-psychopathic humans react ordinarily, when they are publicly exposed as being deceptive and manipulative.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 20, 2016, 08:13:53 PM

all this free time from, that allows you to post on this forum all day long, 365 days a year?

though u cannot prove the statement because infact i am not on all day 365...
but i could ask you that same question

i do love how you meander into a different topic to avoid providing details to disprove what i say. so lets reign the subject back on course..

show us that blockstream is not a corporation and that you shills who love your altcoins and offchain, less secure payment methods, are the opposite of what the OP is accusing classic of.

blockstream and classic are both as bad as each other when it comes to the corporate agenda.

bitcoin should not be controlled by any corporation. either obviously or subtly in any way.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2016, 08:02:49 PM

i do know the difference. im just wording it to get you blockstreamers to admit that lightning is not the same as bitcoin. not as secure as bitcoin and the mechanism that collates the many microtransactions into a leaner within the hub ready to broadcast to the main bitcoin network, is less secure. and more possibilities that those within the hub can abuse transactions due to it not being as protected (while in the hub!) as real bitcoin onchain transactions are.

So where's all this famous logic and qualifying statements that actually prove what you are asserting? Every sentence of the above paragraph is littered with unbacked assertions, ironic how much this resembles your now famous complaints of ad hominem attacks against your ideas (.........duh). Franky: the man who insults inanimate concepts Wink

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2016, 08:02:49 PM

to use your blockstreams favourite scenario.. the authorization part of visa is LESS secure then the settlement part.

I rarely talk about Blockstream. You talk about it non-stop, all day.

Remind us again, Franky, where do you get all this free time from, that allows you to post on this forum all day long, 365 days a year? (oh yeah, I've asked that question probably 3 times now and you've never replied). Aren't you supposed to be playing the role of the ordinary, working man? If so, where's your job?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 20, 2016, 07:28:46 PM

I can, but it's a waste of everyone's time, mine in particular. Let's take a simple example:

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2016, 07:14:59 PM

EG. if closing the channel to combine and sort out the micro transactions is as risk free as a real bitcoin ONCHAIN transaction.. then there would be no need for peta hashes of miners because hubs(channels) are just as good at collating and administering peoples transactions.

If you can't understand the difference in the roles that mining plays in comparison to payment channel nodes, then why are we talking? Why are you talking?

i do know the difference. im just wording it to get you blockstreamers to admit that lightning is not the same as bitcoin. not as secure as bitcoin and the mechanism that collates the many microtransactions into a leaner transaction (within the hub!) ready to broadcast to the main bitcoin network, is less secure. and more possibilities that those within the hub can abuse transactions due to it not being as protected (while in the hub!) as real bitcoin onchain transactions are.

to use your blockstreams favourite scenario.. the authorization part of visa is LESS secure then the settlement part.
because if authorizing a payment was more secure.. there would not need to be a settlement layer because people will just use and trust the authorisation database.

which blockstreamers blindly want people to think that LN offchain is just as secure and no one can manipulate transactions while offchain.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

I can, but it's a waste of everyone's time, mine in particular. Let's take a simple example:

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2016, 07:14:59 PM

EG. if closing the channel to combine and sort out the micro transactions is as risk free as a real bitcoin ONCHAIN transaction.. then there would be no need for peta hashes of miners because hubs(channels) are just as good at collating and administering peoples transactions.

If you can't understand the difference in the roles that mining plays in comparison to payment channel nodes, then why are we talking? Why are you talking?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 20, 2016, 07:20:41 PM

Franky1: the only supposedly adult human that believes he can make a false statement increasingly truer by dint of simply repeating it again and again and again. The liar's classic.

waiting for logical, rational attempt by you to correct me....

..waiting

..waiting

ok you cant.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Franky1: the only supposedly adult human that believes he can make a false statement increasingly truer by dint of simply repeating it again and again and again. The liar's classic.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: gmaxwell on March 20, 2016, 06:58:37 PM

Quote from: johnyj on March 20, 2016, 06:41:09 PM

giving it a new name does not give it new life

It isn't just a new name, the channels are bidirectional; which radically improves their utility.

bi-directional.. within??
a small group.. AKA a hub(u call it channel)

the blockchain ledger transactions are not bi-directional.

only the transactions WITHIN the HUB (channel)

if you were in the fashion industry you would flatly refuse that BellBottom jeans are anything like the 1970's Flares.
yet people who use them will see that the jeans are loose and shimmy at the bottom the same way

different names does not mean you can pretend its not a smaller less secure network.

EG. if closing the channel to combine and sort out the micro transactions is as risk free as a real bitcoin ONCHAIN transaction.. then there would be no need for peta hashes of miners because hubs(channels) are just as good at collating and administering peoples transactions.

atleast admit that LN is less secure and people should make an informed CHOICE to do real bitcoin transactions for security or LN for utility/speed. and dont blindly tell people to trust LN for every transaction

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2016, 06:40:17 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 20, 2016, 06:19:36 PM

Franky, you barely satisfy your own criteria there: what logic? You've clearly never attempted your so-called logical deposition that the Bitcoin software runs on a 2005 Raspberry Pi (I have, it works. Nearly.) So, again, why would I bother to waste my time checking your sources and figures? Please.

logic!
Raspberry pi's were not even around in 2005.
i said a rapberry Pi is half the speed of a regular computer of 2005.. (regular computer being twice the power of a raspberry pi)
thus a 2016 computer is even more powerful again.

but hey if you have a 2005 raspberry Pi. then you must break the laws of physics which obviously proves you dont follow the rules of logic
you talk alot to your best friend lauda. so go ask him about the % capacity segwit offers and the extra bytes confidential payment codes adds to a transaction.
because i used his mythical numbers for the procise point that you blindly would ridicule the numbers.. meaning your ridiculing your own pal.

but no, you wont talk about stats or real data.. all you wanna do is insult people without bothering to check facts. as proven by your own words

Ok. Are you making a point? What is it? Does anyone care?

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: johnyj on March 20, 2016, 06:41:09 PM

giving it a new name does not give it new life

It isn't just a new name, the channels are bidirectional; which radically improves their utility.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Lightning Network is the old idea of per-paid card/payment channel, giving it a new name does not give it new life

Micro transaction model (charge by minute/byte) has mostly been abandoned by large telecom operators world wide due to the R&D resource spent on those tiny transactions does not worth the effort, they fired engineers doing micro transaction models and use fixed charge regardless usage model in the end. By doing this they dramatically reduced the amount of accounting on their network and saved lots of money

The only one benefiting from payment channel are large institutions, but since those institutions are very large and have enough resource, they would rather setup their own clearing channel instead of relying on a third party solution

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 20, 2016, 06:19:36 PM

Franky, you barely satisfy your own criteria there: what logic? You've clearly never attempted your so-called logical deposition that the Bitcoin software runs on a 2005 Raspberry Pi (I have, it works. Nearly.) So, again, why would I bother to waste my time checking your sources and figures? Please.

logic!
Raspberry pi's were not even around in 2005.
i said a rapberry Pi is half the speed of a regular computer of 2005.. (regular computer being twice the power of a raspberry pi)
thus a 2016 computer is even more powerful again.

but hey if you have a 2005 raspberry Pi. then you must break the laws of physics which obviously proves you dont follow the rules of logic
you talk alot to your best friend lauda. so go ask him about the % capacity segwit offers and the extra bytes confidential payment codes adds to a transaction.
because i used his mythical numbers for the procise point that you blindly would ridicule the numbers.. meaning your ridiculing your own pal.

but no, you wont talk about stats or real data.. all you wanna do is insult people without bothering to check facts. as proven by your own words

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2016, 03:31:23 PM

seems no one is denying blockstreams has ties to banks

Huh? I do. What ties to what banks are you talking about?

Quote

seems no one denies that blockstream prefer people not to use real secure bitcoin ledger transactions and instead want people using less distributed less secure LN hubs.

I do. What is a "LN hub"? If you're talking about lightning, every lightning transaction is a "real bitcoin ledger transaction" just most are hopefully superseded before they hit the blockchain, without degrading their security. If this seems impossible to you should checkout cut-through transactions as a parallel technology that might open your eyes.

In my vision of lightning there isn't much in the way of hubs, but a mesh of users. If I wanted to build a hub I'd build a chaumanian cash bank. Payment channels were originally proposed by Bitcoin's creator, and the Bitcoin transaction format has specific affordances to support them (e.g. sequence numbers).

Topic: What if classic coup is just a large-scale manipulation by altcoin pumper gang? (Read 2207 times)