It was the Bitcointalk forum that inspired us to create Bitcointalksearch.org - Bitcointalk is an excellent site that should be the default page for anybody dealing in cryptocurrency, since it is a virtual gold-mine of data. However, our experience and user feedback led us create our site; Bitcointalk's search is slow, and difficult to get the results you need, because you need to log in first to find anything useful - furthermore, there are rate limiters for their search functionality.
The aim of our project is to create a faster website that yields more results and faster without having to create an account and eliminate the need to log in - your personal data, therefore, will never be in jeopardy since we are not asking for any of your data and you don't need to provide them to use our site with all of its capabilities.
We created this website with the sole purpose of users being able to search quickly and efficiently in the field of cryptocurrency so they will have access to the latest and most accurate information and thereby assisting the crypto-community at large.
Content | Score | Started by | Date posted | ||
BitcoinExchange.US [Domain Name] Services
This not the right section .you need to put this in auction section so that you…
|
n/a | pondjohn | July 10, 2017, 05:32:52 AM | ||
BitcoinExchange.US [Domain Name] Services
I procured the domain bitcoinexchange.us some time ago because I thought it was…
|
n/a | pondjohn | June 29, 2017, 09:01:42 AM | ||
[ANN] Bitcoin PoW Upgrade Initiative Project Development
I believe the best option would be the addition of multiple proofs of work. Perh…
|
n/a | pondjohn | March 19, 2017, 04:24:16 PM | ||
Proposal: Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA). Self defense HF Development & Technical Discussion
A big issue with this is that although online nodes might be able to detect a lo…
|
n/a | pondjohn | March 19, 2017, 02:28:29 PM | ||
Proposal: Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA). Self defense HF Development & Technical Discussion
I’m very worried about the state of miner centralisation in Bitcoin.I always fel…
|
n/a | pondjohn | March 18, 2017, 11:05:50 AM | ||
Increasing blocksize dynamically w/economic safeguards - the ideal compromise? Development & Technical Discussion
out of band fees can work in both directions, e.g. including rebates. (and, in…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 10, 2017, 08:58:38 PM | ||
Increasing blocksize dynamically w/economic safeguards - the ideal compromise? Development & Technical Discussion
There are no mandated fees in the Bitcoin protocol so the natural response to sc…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 10, 2017, 08:20:00 PM | ||
Increasing blocksize dynamically w/economic safeguards - the ideal compromise? Development & Technical Discussion
Aside from the "fuzzy consensus" bit, would the same shortcomings not apply to n…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 09, 2017, 05:47:10 PM | ||
Increasing blocksize dynamically w/economic safeguards - the ideal compromise? Development & Technical Discussion
For me, the ideal compromise should tick three boxes:1) An algorithmic element b…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 09, 2017, 12:57:34 PM | ||
Increasing blocksize dynamically w/economic safeguards - the ideal compromise? Development & Technical Discussion
Another way to do it is instead of averaging out the votes, say 5 votes: 0 + 0 +…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 09, 2017, 10:02:20 AM | ||
Increasing blocksize dynamically w/economic safeguards - the ideal compromise? Development & Technical Discussion
There are no mandated fees in the Bitcoin protocol so the natural response to sc…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 09, 2017, 07:47:14 AM | ||
Increasing blocksize dynamically w/economic safeguards - the ideal compromise? Development & Technical Discussion
One side of the block size debate wants to hand over control of the block size t…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 09, 2017, 06:38:28 AM | ||
Sidechain protocol creating an addressable "Internet of Blockchains" for scaling Bitcoin Discussion
a side chain still is a chain. still has to store data. but i see the concept yo…
|
n/a | pondjohn | October 07, 2016, 04:05:10 AM | ||
Sidechain protocol creating an addressable "Internet of Blockchains" for scaling Bitcoin Discussion
Sidechains seem an inevitable tool for scaling. They allow Bitcoins to be transf…
|
n/a | pondjohn | October 06, 2016, 05:47:24 PM | ||
Buzz: an idea to bring infinite, turing complete scaling to Bitcoin Bitcoin Discussion
Hi all. I had an idea to implement infinite scaling, possibly to be used on some…
|
n/a | pondjohn | September 26, 2016, 04:01:23 PM | ||
Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork. Development & Technical Discussion
Hi ZoomT, I attempted to provide a non-technical explanation of the principal fo…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 12, 2016, 08:24:32 PM | ||
Hard vs soft fork: is there a third way to increase the Bitcoin block size? Bitcoin Discussion
It does share elements of a hard fork where the protocol is updated, yes.I'm not…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 12, 2016, 06:49:48 PM | ||
Hard vs soft fork: is there a third way to increase the Bitcoin block size? Bitcoin Discussion
This doesn't make sense to me. What it is saying is that, to get around a hard f…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 12, 2016, 06:02:31 PM | ||
Hard vs soft fork: is there a third way to increase the Bitcoin block size? Bitcoin Discussion
Did you read the article? Here's an extract of the key part:QuoteThere is an ent…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 12, 2016, 05:44:19 PM | ||
Can Bitcoin make Banks disappear? Bitcoin Discussion
I actually explored this exact topic in a recent blog post you should find inter…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 12, 2016, 04:35:08 PM | ||
Hard vs soft fork: is there a third way to increase the Bitcoin block size? Bitcoin Discussion
There just might be!Here's a discussion as to how, let me know your thoughts:htt…
|
n/a | pondjohn | January 12, 2016, 04:27:50 PM |