Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on May 28, 2016, 07:55:29 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 28, 2016, 07:43:05 PM

Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on May 28, 2016, 06:29:31 PM

Quote from: Cryddit on May 28, 2016, 05:27:10 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 27, 2016, 06:59:54 AM

miners are sufficiently smart to recognize that they don't want to be part of a mining poole that acts so recklessly and takes stupid and unjustifiable positions.

You write as though you are under the impression that more than 10% of Antpool's hash rate isn't owned by a single business.

What one miner decides is what 90+% of Antpool's mining power will do. And I'd bet on 90% of the stuff he DOESN'T own just sucking along for the ride.

You're quoting someone who thinks "protecting" an ill-defined "non-mining node decentralization" is worth capping the potential growth of Bitcoin... while keeping ALL of his coins on a centralized exchange. The man's an enigma.

The more cunning of the Blockstream apologists advocate making BTC less competitive to encourage price appreciation in altcoins like Monero. JJG doesn't own any. A mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Look at you beastmodeBiscuitGravy, I mean lambie. Continuously studying me in order attempt to distract with irrelevant skewed personal details. Why don't you provide some details of your own trading strategy and cryptoholding practices to the extent we may be able to believe any of it?

Let me see if I can summarily respond to your nonsense regarding more or less what I am advocating (one individual, me), at the moment?

1) I mentioned the mining poole topic because if some dumb ass miner poole leader suggests that his mine poole is going to take some partisan position to not adopt seg wit etc, merely because they want to get a blocksize limit increase - like taking a hostage threat, they are likely going to lose business, either mining power or increased competition against them in other ways.

2) I advocate that bitcoin is not broken or technically flawed and suggest that there are a lot of solid innovations in this space. Accordingly, any proposed changes to the status quo should be achieved with evidence and logic in order to persuade that the change is necessary. If any new proposal cannot achieve an overwhelming level of support by the decentralized powers that be in the bitcoin community, then the proposed change does not get adopted. Yeah, it can be revised and re-preposed and tweaked and if it is good, then it will get adopted sooner or later, but we do not need to rush into adopting something that is not agreed-to because currently bitcoin is not broken... and if evidence is presented that there is some kind of break of bitcoin, then proposals to fix such break would likely be adopted fairly quickly.

Poole? Poole?

Stahp, please, my sides.

hahahahahahah

Me too. It is just like you Lambie, get caught up in irrelevance.

Looks like we are crashing all the way to $600, no?

Stahp, please..... Cheesy