Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 02, 2017, 02:50:06 PM

Quote from: corebob on April 02, 2017, 02:46:54 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 02, 2017, 02:44:37 PM

Quote from: corebob on April 02, 2017, 02:32:54 PM

I wonder if BU is aware of the legal implications of a hard fork, forcing a community of investors to accept an incompatible change to the technology they invested in.

If BU succeeds, every Bitcoin holder can probably sue them for their losses.

cool story.

can i sue Blockstream if Bitcoin loses marketshare to Ethereum
due to the high fees they are promoting?

No, they are not changing the commodity, and they are open about what they are doing

changing bitcoin from p2p cash as envisioned by Satoshi into a settlement network, nah thats not changing it at all

Quote from: rik_khaos on April 02, 2017, 02:58:23 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on April 02, 2017, 11:15:32 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on April 01, 2017, 09:36:33 PM

Who ever mines BU will lose all the money they spent on mining it. So that 50% threshold means nothing. Any fork of Bitcoin will be attacked ruthlessly by those who have enough resources to destroy any miners foolish enough to try.

The large miners/pools know this. The April's fool joke is on anyone who believes that signaling means anything on Bitcoin. It doesn't.

I've awoken from my inactivity period to take my part in this pursuit.

Although economically we all understand BU has and never shall have any standing, a fork is incumbent and it's outcome is still obscure.

Core hasn't been keeping the system updated, and their refusal of further updates and generally increasing the Block size is alarming and drives support away. The bitcoin unlimited bound failure doesn't lift any responsibility away from the core devs...

That said, I am here to pledge my computing power and spare time onto the complete disruption of the forked blockchain, transaction, nodes and miners. I will play my role, when the day comes I expect others to join me.

Just to side-step here, I am of the opinion this form has gone a bit nutty on this whole fork partisanship and ideology.

Pledging to commit basically crimes and exploits is a tad extreme for a mere cryptocurrency. Like most early adopters I feel my allegiance going towards this new concept, the anonymous decentralized peer to peer market and economy.

The meme has sprouted and the revolution begun. Advocating for the founder's "view" is almost laughable, satoshi would have never thought of such widespread adoption and implying so is absurd.
Conservationism in revolution is an oxymoron. As much as you can be emotionally attached with whatever made early adopters millionaires and gave you a platform for incredible and astonishing innovation, the technology is bound to become obsolete and if you don't simply move on you're in fault...

Please all bear in mind I am not stating this is the end, or idk giving technical opinions in evaluation of the bitcoin's intrinsic value, forks or whichever.
All I'm stating that as sacks of silver carried on your belt, bitcoin too will one day fade away in favor of something more efficient.

Both of you have what you think are good intentions, but you fail to recognize the most salient fact.

When you two are blind to the most salient fact, then all your other conclusions are unfortunately ignorant nonsense. Not be disrespectful, but you really need to pay attention.

If anyone can mutate the main blockchain, then the money is no longer immune to manipulation. And thus it is no longer a stable metric which achieves the absolutely critical goals of Nash's ideal money which is what gives crypto-currency is reason to exist in the first place.

I know this is very difficult for you to wrap your mind around, because you think adoption = success, but you are mathematically incorrect.

Read again very carefully the two posts I linked in the quote below. Click the links within those two post and click the links in the posts that you clicked to. In other words make sure you understand all the detailed reasoning.

In finance, the tail doesn't wag the dog, rather in finance it is always the stable value of the reserves which determines whether person who is providing the finance has an accurate mathematical estimate of the quality of the reserves and thus whether they are maximizing their ROI. And in finance, the most valuable set of reserves dominates any system with less value. Until you understand finance and understand how MPEx made his million "Buttcoins" by simply providing liquidity to the speculation power brokers, then you understand nothing about money.

So if you mutate Bitcoin, you remove all its value. Period. That is why the whales will never allow you to do so, and @dinofelis and I analyzed in great detail how small blocks enables the whales to destroy any miners who attempt to fork Bitcoin. You can't mutate Bitcoin, because the tail doesn't wag the dog. Also small blocks keeps the riff-raff out of Bitcoin, because democracy is a manipulation given that the cost of voting (i.e. politics) is not free. By allowing users to vote on Bitcoin's changes, it is the same as turning Bitcoin into a fiat system that will be manipulated into another hell. We've been there done that all over the world and totally fucked up our world with it. We can instead put that clusterfuck into Litecoin and then the discipline can be maintained with Bitcoin's financial dominance of Litecoin.

There is a way to get scaling and that is to mutate Litecoin. And approximating 9/10th of the value created by scaling Litecoin will end up back in Bitcoin (after Litecoin's price rises back to $100 since it is so highly undervalued given it is the only option for moving forward). So there is absolutely no justifiable reason for your idiocy and squabbling. It is pure ignorance, that's all. Please rectify your ignorance so we can move forward.

Quote from: iamnotback on April 02, 2017, 01:22:10 PM

Quote from: r0ach on April 02, 2017, 11:49:55 AM

My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Quote from: r0ach on April 02, 2017, 11:45:38 AM

Bitcoin is not a real commodity

@r0ach was already referred to the relevant work of Nash and he is quite proficient at ignoring the reality:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18394149#msg18394149
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18422543#msg18422543

Because @r0ach is an obstinate fool who wears a tinfoil hat blindfold that prevents him from comprehending (and perhaps even reading) what Nash wrote, especially what Nash wrote about what makes gold valuable and why it is not as ideal as Bitcoin.

Quote from: miscreanity on April 02, 2017, 06:12:10 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on April 02, 2017, 10:44:57 AM

Bitcoin is not a medium-of-exchange. It is a unit-of-account and a store-of-value. Litecoin will be the medium-of-exchange. Small blocks will make Bitcoin for settlement amongst power brokers of finance.

It's been a long time coming

Quote from: miscreanity on April 23, 2013, 02:23:38 AM

Bitcoin is the individual's method of garnering a similar handle on wealth. Ripple and other systems will develop into more effective fiat replacements, allowing Bitcoin to act as a settlement currency - gold's digital analog.