Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on June 15, 2015, 12:08:18 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 14, 2015, 11:59:50 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on June 14, 2015, 11:53:48 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 14, 2015, 11:39:27 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on June 14, 2015, 11:34:20 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on June 14, 2015, 08:02:54 PM

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you? you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.

do unto others as you would have them do unto you ...

do you ever have any real arguments to bring to the debate? or is it always just slander and defamation with you?

Unfortunately that is the standard you have set in your own thread, and on reddit also it seems. I'm just obliging after you choose to play the man and not the ball, on enough occasions now to show that it is not just a fluke, but you are intent on poisoning the debate and swerving away from legitimate technical discussion. Endlessly parroting character smears doesn't make them real.

I kind of regret that I may have armed you with so many big words and concepts that you might actually sound convincingly smart enough to be dangerous, to the unwary reader.

lots and lots of big words. never any justification for preventing Bitcoin from fulfilling it's original vision:

Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
> The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you
> think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes
> (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
> broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.
> Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or
> an average of 100 million transactions per day. That
> many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or
> the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about
> $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg10006.html