Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 58 results by Cuber Krypton
If JihanCoin garners the majority approval of Chinese Bitcoiners, yes, I will use JihanCoin, and I imagine it will work out splendidly. This Chinese FUD is unwarranted and biased. I imagine if the majority hashpower were in the USA, noone would be fearing centralization.
However, it will not work better for Jihan himself or for Bitcoin as a whole, so I pretty much wish that Bitcoin doesn't lose Jihan's Hashpower.
Since I do not like the fundamental principal behind UASF coercive deployment, leaving Jihan little choice in my view, I would also have a hard time supporting the alternative chain on philosophical grounds.
So yes. I will use Jihancoin.
I do not expect that we will come to that though.
However, it will not work better for Jihan himself or for Bitcoin as a whole, so I pretty much wish that Bitcoin doesn't lose Jihan's Hashpower.
Since I do not like the fundamental principal behind UASF coercive deployment, leaving Jihan little choice in my view, I would also have a hard time supporting the alternative chain on philosophical grounds.
So yes. I will use Jihancoin.
I do not expect that we will come to that though.
I want a real chance for users to vote.
This means a chain split and we will vote with our money. The Full Node propaganda is crap and even if it had any technical support, any sane user, and by user I mean Exchanges who control the money flow, will just run 2 nodes. The only way for ALL users to have a say, is for both Chains to be listed and let users dump whichever they don't like.
So yes. I want a chain split so I can have a say in this
This means a chain split and we will vote with our money. The Full Node propaganda is crap and even if it had any technical support, any sane user, and by user I mean Exchanges who control the money flow, will just run 2 nodes. The only way for ALL users to have a say, is for both Chains to be listed and let users dump whichever they don't like.
So yes. I want a chain split so I can have a say in this
You forget about gory details and nasty repercussions
The most serious one which exchanges never fail to stress seems to be related to the so-called replay attack which is possible when a chain split happens (just like it happened with the Ethereum split). This attack comes down to spending coins on one chain, and the respective transaction inadvertently (or not so inadvertently) propagating to another chain, so coins end up having been spent on the two chains. I read that Coinbase lost some monies due to this kind of attack. It might well have been a deliberate attempt by someone rebroadcasting every transaction from one chain to the other. Without doubt, there should be a host of other issues too
This is why I have been abundantly clear everywhere that I perfectly support Hard Forks in these cases. I think this soft fork represents much more danger. Because until users get to vote safely (no replay, reorg), you are stuck in a limbo game of chicken while everyone else is watching from the sidelines wondering what will happen with our money.
If you made it a hard fork, this could be immediately be solved in the market.
In fact, the only way I understand the UASF adoption procedure as a soft fork, is that game theory wise, it diminishes the hashrate need for it to go through. Instead of 51%, you now only need 51% - x where X is the market share of the biggest mining pool. Also the fact that whoever splits the chain definetively, altcoins themselves. This is the game of chicken preparing for the game of blame that will come after and the rights to Bitcoin brandname.
It creates increasing and exponential pressure for miner adoption rather than a real vote. As a user, until there is a Hard Fork, you are just participating in a peaceful sit in. Or a vigil. Or a meetup. It has its merits, but no practical utility.
I want a real chance for users to vote.
You have that chance, you need to download bitcoin core softward and launch a node. No need to commit to mining, just having a node gives you the opportunity to vote on the type of transactions you're accepting.
You can find the download link to the software at the top of every page on this forum at: News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core...
I realize you think it's crap but it's literally how you activate your vote. The money comes second. You don't get a choice to to decide the favored chain if you're not running a node. You just get to decide to go with the flow or go with the "no". It's like the feeling people have voting in a two party system...they feel compelled to vote for one of the two major parties and voting a third party would be like voting for the dying coin version.
I find it a misconception. If there is no Hashrate in the UASF chain, there isn't even a vote to be had. So whichever node you run has little meaning. This is all between the Miners and Exchanges. Miners will propose solutions, Exchanges will delegate the vote to the crowd by listing them.
UASF would be just the same without the 1 person 1 node propaganda. You might argue it has social relevance. Like a sit in in front of the white house. Or a hunger strike. It's a legitimate way to show discontent. But in the end, it is not how you exercise your vote. By running a node, you are just signalling intention. To act upon it you have to put your money or it is meaningless.
Your money is how you vote. Which is a perfect system for me, because it ensures you vote responsibly and look for information rather than being spoonfed by CNN.
I want a real chance for users to vote.
This means a chain split and we will vote with our money. The Full Node propaganda is crap and even if it had any technical support, any sane user, and by user I mean Exchanges who control the money flow, will just run 2 nodes. The only way for ALL users to have a say, is for both Chains to be listed and let users dump whichever they don't like.
So yes. I want a chain split so I can have a say in this.
This means a chain split and we will vote with our money. The Full Node propaganda is crap and even if it had any technical support, any sane user, and by user I mean Exchanges who control the money flow, will just run 2 nodes. The only way for ALL users to have a say, is for both Chains to be listed and let users dump whichever they don't like.
So yes. I want a chain split so I can have a say in this.
The highest % of the outcome is that this is all a big fat bluff, just like xt, classic, and unlimited were. The actors at play know the consequences of a hardfork
SegWit 2x is not a hard fork until the change to 2MB base blocks, three months after SegWit activation. XT, Classic and Unlimited never had enough mining support to happen, and were not "bluffs", just "failed proposals".
Unlimited had a pretty high % of hashrate, higher than BIP141 in fact.
Now BIP141 is going up by the way, it's hitting all time highs recently. There's still time for miners and everyone else involved in the hardfork to avoid a war they will lose at the expense of every holder's loss, by enabling segwit by means of BIP141.
I think SegWit will get activated. But I do not think this would be a losing war for the Miners.
. I reckon they just can't hedge the risk.I just noticed the spike.
I do not find a clear explanation as to what this coin is about. Can anyone help me here?
I tried to read many times over. Is it something in the lines of a cooperative or something? A mutual investment vehicle?
How are profits distributed? What mechanisms are in place to replace trust?
If someone would be so kind as to clear this up I would very much appreciate it.
I do not find a clear explanation as to what this coin is about. Can anyone help me here?
I tried to read many times over. Is it something in the lines of a cooperative or something? A mutual investment vehicle?
How are profits distributed? What mechanisms are in place to replace trust?
If someone would be so kind as to clear this up I would very much appreciate it.
Re: Bitcoin Idea is about: Kill the MiddleMan. Guess what? There are new ones:
Bitcoin was made for a future where code is as universal as mathematics.
Only when you master code you can truly explore all the freedoms of Bitcoin.
This is like wanting to implement English as a global language when not everyone speaks it. There will be schools offering this service. There will be translators. There will be all kinds of services that will no longer be needed at some point in time.
It is a process we have to endure. Exchanges facilitate users by taking some risk for a fee. Wallets facilitate usage by giving code to those who don't understand it. It is a necessary step. If you yourself learn the necessary tools, you can enjoy real freedom. Because in Bitcoin you have a choice where to employ your value.
This is years ahead of its potential.
Only when you master code you can truly explore all the freedoms of Bitcoin.
This is like wanting to implement English as a global language when not everyone speaks it. There will be schools offering this service. There will be translators. There will be all kinds of services that will no longer be needed at some point in time.
It is a process we have to endure. Exchanges facilitate users by taking some risk for a fee. Wallets facilitate usage by giving code to those who don't understand it. It is a necessary step. If you yourself learn the necessary tools, you can enjoy real freedom. Because in Bitcoin you have a choice where to employ your value.
This is years ahead of its potential.
Why are you so consistently trying to distort the meaning of the words?
If someone gave me 100 bitcoins and I lost them, that would mean exactly that, i.e. losing 100 bitcoins, and I would say that I lost 100 bitcoins, as simple as that. But that doesn't in the least mean but they cost me anything in monetary terms (let's assume for simplicity that I just found them to avoid unnecessary complications). Loss and cost are different things, which you seem to be deliberately trying to confuse here, again. Aside from that, costs have nothing to do with either realized or unrealized gains. Open any economic dictionary (or textbook, for that matter) finally and read for yourself. Gain (otherwise known as profit) is the difference between what you received when you sold the coins and what it cost you to obtain them. If this difference is negative it will be a loss. I'm really fascinated that you are still trying to continue this futile argument, or do you really think that having the last word in it will somehow make your point more plausible?
If someone gave me 100 bitcoins and I lost them, that would mean exactly that, i.e. losing 100 bitcoins, and I would say that I lost 100 bitcoins, as simple as that. But that doesn't in the least mean but they cost me anything in monetary terms (let's assume for simplicity that I just found them to avoid unnecessary complications). Loss and cost are different things, which you seem to be deliberately trying to confuse here, again. Aside from that, costs have nothing to do with either realized or unrealized gains. Open any economic dictionary (or textbook, for that matter) finally and read for yourself. Gain (otherwise known as profit) is the difference between what you received when you sold the coins and what it cost you to obtain them. If this difference is negative it will be a loss. I'm really fascinated that you are still trying to continue this futile argument, or do you really think that having the last word in it will somehow make your point more plausible?
You can keep the last word. Seems pretty straightforward to me where the incentives lie. It can cost 0 Dollars to lose 21 B. So it costs nothing. Seems legit.
Indeed, it could cost nothing
If you didn't spend anything to obtain 21 billion dollars' worth of coins, your costs would be effectively equal to 0, so it is perfectly legit. Imagine that someone has sent you 50% plus 1 coin to your wallet, and now you can either destroy the coin or sell the coins. Destroying the coin would mean that you lose a certain amount of some other currency which you could receive if you chose to sell your stash for that currency. But your costs associated with the acquisition of this stash will be the same in either of these cases (read you could destroy the coin in question without spending anything). I guess that should help somehow at last
I already understood your point, as I am sure you understood mine.
I do not think acquisition costs are the only costs towards incentive to attack or not attack.
Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.
Well, as long as noone conclusively wins outright, we will have a standoff that will leave Miners on Legacy Chain very much obliged to slowly move towards UASF chain with the growing risk of reorg.
Doubtful. I would expect that the legacy chain will leave the UASF chain in the dust, with no hope of ever coming close to such reorg. Even if it did, however, there are trivial means to ensure such a reorg does not occur (e.g., invalidateblock).
I am not so sure. UASF only needs 51% minus the share of the biggest pool. If this pool is as big as it is said, then they need very little for all the other miners to have a clear incentive to move and not run the risk of being moved on.
I hope it fails, because of how it was handled. But I do not think it is farfetched.
Re: 6 Interesting Points from Jihan Wu Future of Bitcoin Speech
5. In order to solve this problem of protocol tyranny and hijacked implementations, Wu suggested that for the future of bitcoin to remain beautiful and grow, the community will need multiple implementations.
Satoshi was against multiple implementations.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611.
I don't believe that we should religiously follow everything that satoshi says, but I've seen a lot of people like jonald_fyookball talk about satoshi's support of larger blocks, so I thought I'd throw it right back.
Quote from: satoshi
If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.
He did say this before your quote:
"A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version."
We are way past this phase and it is not uncommon for Protocols to have multiple implementations.
Although I think Satoshi laid out as many ground as he could, and very well at that, of course he couldn't predict everything.
That said, it is as sound an argument as saying 1 MB blocksize limit was Satoshi's vision and the true Bitcoin vision of one person one node.
This Satoshi arguments don't serve anyone.
Heck, what are you talking about?
I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable
I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable
Not really. It is simple economic logic. If you build something for 0 that is worth 21B, your earned 21B at no cost. If you then destroy it, you destroyed 21B of your value. Therefore it cost 21B.
I don't see the flaw in this argument
No, this is nowhere near the case
As I told you before, you are distorting the concepts and twisting the terms so that your "theory" could look somewhat plausible. If you created something for X amount of money (i.e. spent that amount of resources in monetary terms), it cost you exactly that, i.e. X amount of money. If you lose it or intentionally destroy it, your losses would amount only to the costs that you incurred while building or creating it. Your costs simply can't magically turn equal to the current market price of whatever you chose to dispose of. If what you say were even remotely true (i.e. costs would always be equal to market valuation, which is your point), no trade would be possible altogether. Really, why would anyone want to sell anything for no profit at all? In short, stop talking bullshit
You are mixing Unrealized and Realized gains in the mixture.
But through your rationale, if someone gives you 100 BTC today as a present, and then you lose the Private Key, you would say you lost nothing. It didn't cost you anything. This is only true if you consider BTC doesn't have any value, present or future, unless you realize it in FIAT
Why are you so consistently trying to distort the meaning of the words?
If someone gave me 100 bitcoins and I lost them, that would mean exactly that, i.e. losing 100 bitcoins, and I would say that I lost 100 bitcoins, as simple as that. But that doesn't in the least mean but they cost me anything in monetary terms (let's assume for simplicity that I just found them to avoid unnecessary complications). Loss and cost are different things, which you seem to be deliberately trying to confuse here, again. Aside from that, costs have nothing to do with either realized or unrealized gains. Open any economic dictionary (or textbook, for that matter) finally and read for yourself. Gain (otherwise known as profit) is the difference between what you received when you sold the coins and what it cost you to obtain them. If this difference is negative it will be a loss. I'm really fascinated that you are still trying to continue this futile argument, or do you really think that having the last word in it will somehow make your point more plausible?
You can keep the last word. Seems pretty straightforward to me where the incentives lie. It can cost 0 Dollars to lose 21 B. So it costs nothing. Seems legit.
Im on the decision of taking profit right now and convert my btc into fiat because i am really afraid of august 1, but after reading all the post here i am convince that many people here are being optimistic and see bitcoin will surely rise after the said downfall, and now i realized that the bip148 will surely helps us to make the fees low and for a faster transaction.
If BIP148 is gonna happen. According to this article, (link: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/countdown-segwit-these-are-dates-keep-eye/) segwit2x will activate segwit first in July 25 though BIP 91 minimizing the risk of chain split if they follow the agreement in New York thus, BIP 148 will not activate. and since more than 80% of the hash rate are in support on segwit2x although intentional the real signalling is July 21. it seems that miners is in support of segwit after all.Actually, Miners have very little choice here whether they support SegWit or not.
Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.
You are basing your conclusion of a supposed need for 2mb blocks on facts that do not exist... there is no clogging of the bitcoin blockchain, except for the extent to which some miners must be directing their hashpower to make such appearances of clogging... such recent precipitous rise and then drop in mempool back up seems abundantly obvious evidence that the clogging of the mempool is not based on some kind of actual organic growth - but instead is a fabricated situation that would not be solved by a mere doubling of the blocksize limit.. and therefore a doubling of the size of the blocksize limit would likely cause more troubles than it resolves.
So, yeah, it is possible that some day there is going to exist a situation in which a hard increase of the blocksize limit might be necessary, but it is not even close to being true in today's level of bitcoin usage... and surely it will be interesting to witness how segwit plays out and whether any of that would cause any changes in the blocksize usage, either in one direction or another.
Well blocks have been increasing in size and fees have been rising. For sure I agree that this has not been organic, and has been a deliberate attempt to force the issue. There is is no doubt there is/was a huge volume of spam transactions, but both the big block AND segwit sides could have been doing it or indeed both of them to show that their solution was needed.
But if you look at the situation now, the mempool has shrunk from it's highs of over 100k to currently around 12k, but fees are still high at 270 sats/byte and there is still a backlog forcing these fees.
I disagree that doubling the blocksize wouldn't have helped, at it's simplest level the cost for the 'spammers' would have doubled to maintain the backlog, yes they may have done that, but then if the premise is that it's the big blockers spamming to force their solution then why would they need to spam once they had it, and once we are post segwit there would be no need for the small block side to do it either.
What matters to me is how quick it takes to confirm a transaction and how much it costs.
And that will likely shape the coming battle, if post-segwit doesn't live up to the hype and significantly reduce both then it makes it more likely that the 2MB part will go through, or if it does help a lot then maybe the desire for bigger blocks will wane.
I just want a long term solution which this agreement isn't, but it's better than nothing.
Yeah but you are not really addressing the elephant in the room - and that this issue has been used as an attempt to change governance... there are pissed off people, and they would likely not even be satisified with a 2mb increase.. .. and also doing this as a hardfork, would need a really high level of consensus...
So you really believe that any decentralized and open source system, such as bitcoin is going to move into a kind of la la land with a lot of hugs and harmony if there is some kind of segwit 2x that gets implemented this year? There will be whining about something else and a lot of these big blocker nut jobs are just emotional about the process that core has been following and the apparent power dynamics and influence that some voices have within core.. .. so there seems to be a kind of emotional hatred that is not really a technical solution but a desire for a coupe, no?
That's why we get several emotional poster nutjobs with a seeming agenda that is not really very topical but just want to assert how much they hate core, they want core to disappear and diminish, whatever the fuck that means.
I have issues with the way UASF means to go about it. This is the only reason why I distrust their motives. Furthermore, mutual distrust is at the Core of Bitcoin. So it bears no significance how long have Devs proven their worth or not. Only the way to Consensus matters.
If they wanted to really put it up to choice, they would have hardforked. The merits of a soft work fall short when you put into perspective that hardforking without a 95% approval would actually mean they would be activating SegWit on an alt-coin. I understand this is a risk they cannot take.
They are counting on the remaining Miners to also keep that in mind. Everyone wants to keep Bitcoin.
Well, as long as noone conclusively wins outright, we will have a standoff that will leave Miners on Legacy Chain very much obliged to slowly move towards UASF chain with the growing risk of reorg.
As long as BIP 148 is within 51% minus the biggest MINER marketshare, all other Miners have the incentive to change. Because they can get outmined or outsmarted by the biggest Miner if he jumps ship first.
Basically, they are counting on Miners to have no choice but to Hard Fork, and then say BIP 148 is Bitcoin because they soft forked it, or instead, to go with BIP 148 if they want to keep "BITCOIN". The other solution is that Miners activate SegWit before August 1.
It is a brilliant plan that leaves little choice. But it is sadly coercion and not consensus. I am saddened by the precedent and how the community is so drowned In anti-Miner sentiment that they are oblivious to the lengths they are going to to get what they want. Cut-throat politics have arrived. Brace yourselves.
I hope for the sake of Bitcoin that this doesn't work and a real consensus can be formed.
I thought I was the only one who understood UASF as a dangerous precedent.
A real honest test would be implement it as a Hard Fork and let the economic majority, whom is claimed to be supporting this, truly decide which chain had value.
This way, it's just a clever way of gaming the system and add a little bit more incentive through the dangers of replay and reorg.
For those who claim they don't want to disrupt the system and thus apologize for soft forks, this one is candy...
This is coercion at its best, regardless of pretended chivalry of what is being fought for.
The fact is, Bitcoin's brand is valuable. Noone wants to risk forking off to a new coin. This is the only reason this is being done through a soft fork in my eyes.
A real honest test would be implement it as a Hard Fork and let the economic majority, whom is claimed to be supporting this, truly decide which chain had value.
This way, it's just a clever way of gaming the system and add a little bit more incentive through the dangers of replay and reorg.
For those who claim they don't want to disrupt the system and thus apologize for soft forks, this one is candy...
This is coercion at its best, regardless of pretended chivalry of what is being fought for.
The fact is, Bitcoin's brand is valuable. Noone wants to risk forking off to a new coin. This is the only reason this is being done through a soft fork in my eyes.
Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.
As there is no way to make bigger blocks backwards-compatible, there is no point wasting our time with talk of them.
So we have rather to see this 'bug' as a feature and work with it.
So we have rather to see this 'bug' as a feature and work with it.
There are many valid arguments. This is not one of them. Any interested party would update the software... This is just clearing dead weight anyway.
Look Craig, you are very ill. You have mental health problems. You need to concentrate on getting better. We will be here as and when you are capable of honesty and rationalism.
Now I get it. Thanks for the effort of constructing a rational argument that just blew my mind.
I was blind and now I see.
Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.
As there is no way to make bigger blocks backwards-compatible, there is no point wasting our time with talk of them.
So we have rather to see this 'bug' as a feature and work with it.
So we have rather to see this 'bug' as a feature and work with it.
There are many valid arguments. This is not one of them. Any interested party would update the software... This is just clearing dead weight anyway.
Heck, what are you talking about?
I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable
I guess you should go find out what the term cost actually means. As per dictionary, the cost is "the amount of money that is needed in order to buy, do, or make it". In this case specifically, cost means how much you paid to be able to close the whole business. If you are the creator and premined 51% of all coins, that would likely cost you only electricity consumed and time spent on developing the coin. Honestly, you are now shamelessly twisting your position so that it could somehow look even remotely plausible while in fact it is completely untenable
Not really. It is simple economic logic. If you build something for 0 that is worth 21B, your earned 21B at no cost. If you then destroy it, you destroyed 21B of your value. Therefore it cost 21B.
I don't see the flaw in this argument
No, this is nowhere near the case
As I told you before, you are distorting the concepts and twisting the terms so that your "theory" could look somewhat plausible. If you created something for X amount of money (i.e. spent that amount of resources in monetary terms), it cost you exactly that, i.e. X amount of money. If you lose it or intentionally destroy it, your losses would amount only to the costs that you incurred while building or creating it. Your costs simply can't magically turn equal to the current market price of whatever you chose to dispose of. If what you say were even remotely true (i.e. costs would always be equal to market valuation, which is your point), no trade would be possible altogether. Really, why would anyone want to sell anything for no profit at all? In short, stop talking bullshit
You are mixing Unrealized and Realized gains in the mixture.
But through your rationale, if someone gives you 100 BTC today as a present, and then you lose the Private Key, you would say you lost nothing. It didn't cost you anything. This is only true if you consider BTC doesn't have any value, present or future, unless you realize it in FIAT.
You are thinking about Equity here, not a Currency.
Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.
All anyone else has is MOAR BLOCKSIZE
Yes. Thereby cleanly -- and in one fell swoop -- solving the biggest bug in the Bitcoin system today (well, yesterday and the day before as well...)
Often the simplest solution is the best one.
Re: Ladies and Gentlemen, Bitcoin is about to be Centralized
When you ransom the BTC Protocol to advantageously position patented products.
I don't think I understand. Can you give an example -- actual or hypothetical -- of such ransoming?
Patenting hardware and make sure the Protocol is biased towards that hardware.
Patenting some 2nd layer solution and position the protocol to be biased towards that solution.
I suppose this is a normal economic game in open protocol development and there is no easy way to clear the fog on this. In the end, users will vote with their money anyway. But I expect these problems in the future. I have no idea if they are here yet.