...
about 90%+ of satoshi's code has been rewritten. we ARE seeing steady improvements to the code like the recent 0.1 with 3h MC download times now. that's an extraordinary improvement of about 10x. i put up that link of that Seagate 8TB SSD the other day. storage is outpacing MC growth and now costs $0.03/GB. i'm actually quite satisfied with where we are even now. with a few, or even one, tx hop one can have provable deniability for anonymity reasons if they want. 10 min block times isn't conceptually ideal but works perfectly well for me. i'm not sure what all the complaining is about.
No you didn't. Words (e.g., 'SSD') mean things. We've been around and around on this storage thing over the years. Everyone agrees that bulk storage is not and has never been an issue (until Gavin slips in his exponential growth scheme at least...). Total blocksize is a useful tool to fool fools in trying to make a point. Most people cannot conceptualize that just sitting on data is quite a different thing than actually accessing it so discussions here are aggravating, pointless, and futile.
who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half. forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize. now is the time to do this.
When one has worked on code and complex systems it becomes very apparent that the gains and optimizations one can achieve are highly exponential
in nature. It is common to be able to obtain a 10x improvement with minimal effort
at first. Very quickly it becomes physically impossible to achieve even a 1x improvement. This is what people are talking about when they mention 'low hanging fruit.'
this headers only first download capability just got implemented with the last update. i thought you said we were already at the stodgy stage?
fundamentally, i think allowing an offramp for BTC units over to insecure SC's is economically and technically flawed for all the Sound Money reasons i've already articulated.
Not to be offensive, but most of what you say about most things (economic, engineering, technology, investment, etc) is very primitive and often enough laughable incorrect. Another short-hand term I've used in the recent past to describe this is 'ass-clown'.
there's only one way for me to address these types of insults unfortunately but you force me to. and i'm not bragging:
so how do you explain me being the first to publicly state that M-Pesa could be a great target case for Bitcoin, how do explain me posting to sell/short gold and silver at their peaks in May and August 2011 despite your objections and trolling which turned out to be wrong? how do you explain me (& you) buying at $1.98? how do you explain me stating that mining centralization will even out & not become a problem (we see striking evidence of this in the pool chart i always put up)? how is it that i got into Bitcoin 2.5 yrs before Adam as close as i can pinpoint it? is it all luck? if so, i'll take it. no ones perfect, esp me over the last 6 mo of price drop, but at least i get more concepts right than wrong in this Bitcoin space and that has not been easy to do. and the fact is, many ppl understand and agree precisely with the line of reasoning i've provided regarding this SC issue. sure, we could be wrong, so i'm still listening. but when i read about Adam ruminating (not recommending) changing the issuance curve or allowing gvts to construct a SC depending on his definition of what they're doing as not being evil, i get concerned. as NewLiberty said a while back, why would you want a competing altcoin (Truthcoin) or a gvt coming in and setting up business next to your core engine business (on a SC which can siphon BTC from MC)?
no one remembers you for predicting anything except when i acknowledge you being with me @1.98. most of what you say is just socialistic babble.