Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 03, 2019, 08:13:17 AM

Quote from: hv_ on October 02, 2019, 12:54:52 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 02, 2019, 08:25:09 AM

Quote from: hv_ on October 01, 2019, 05:50:49 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 01, 2019, 05:26:07 AM

Quote from: franky1 on September 28, 2019, 09:46:33 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 28, 2019, 08:30:05 AM

You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

gotta love that comedy.
so developers say no to developing onchain scaling.. sniff sniff, smells like they are censoring community needs/desires

Who's censoring? How can it be censored? There's a person out there who is saying his coin is Bitcoin for crying out loud. He has bitcoin.com, /r/btc, and had the @bitcoin Twitter account promoting that his coin is Bitcoin.

Community needs/desires? You make it look like that the WHOLE community wanted big blocks. Plus you said that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into Core and Cash. Which one does the community want/the market want?

Quote from: franky1 on September 29, 2019, 12:56:42 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 29, 2019, 10:15:03 AM

Quote from: franky1 on September 29, 2019, 08:10:57 AM

more comedy gold.
trying to say bitcoin cant scale because of physics..[facepalm]
scaling is about timely growth, which physics actually proves is possible.
whats not possible is huge single leap to an impossibly large number.

What have I been telling you? Bitcoin can't simply increase the block size without scaling in/centralizing the network. But users shouldn't run full nodes, so it's OK, right?

it can simply increase the blocksize actually.. todays technology is far more superier than the requirements of 1mb base
yes i said todays tech. oh and it only costs $50 for such tech

centralising the network?? how... go on say that scripted joke, you know th one, the one your friend told you about servers..
..
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices
again
my response: people will run full nodes on home devices

Not when the network increases its block size whenever a demanding minority wants, preventing it from scaling out, increasing costs.

For decentralization, Bitcoin's main value proposition, static node requirements are better for the network eventually.

Quote from: hv_ on September 29, 2019, 02:07:52 PM

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

The UASF begs to differ, and to see that it started as the minority that the majority followed.

I hope u remember how the voting / signaling for segwit worked. Even that without the 2x promise it d ve never ever happened.

Uasf is sooo lol and shows u re all in for trolling

You're clearly trying too hard to mislead the readers by acting like that. But if you believe it's making me angry, it's not. I'm very happy to reply with the facts for everyone to read.

Newbies, learn your history, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

Cool

No prove that proof of raspi did anything. Just simply PoSM

You say "no proof", but you cannot disprove the movement. Segwit activation through the initiative of the UASF is proof enough.

Quote

Mislead newbees to finance ur dumb btc ponzi.

Cannot be taken seriously, especially from a person who misleads everyone, and say that "Craig Wright is Satoshi". You have lost.

Quote

Sane ppl know all that or find it out in a day of due dilligence

Nope

The only kick for activation came from the 2x promise / NYA.

Wanting to ignore this makes u full retard ponzi scammer.

This is proof