why does every BCH supporter pretend to not hear that this has always been advertised to be a process culminating in the complete removal of the limit come next February along with the stepwise unwinding of as much of the btc perversion as possible?
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else—if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
This is r/btc these days: Pseudo-anarchos who are proud and stupid enough to shuffle and transform their white coins into grey and black ones and at the same time believe to be smarter than Ian Grigg with their anti-law-no-kyc road map (highway to hell).
Last edited:
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Yes, I don't know why smart people have such a hard time to understand what has been said dozens of times.
I can only conclude that they don't want to understand.
Seeing @solex reposting bitmex für without celebrating a 800k transaction block on a bitcoin network makes me sad. Whats on with the vision of emergent consensus? Did you gave up on it because of camp ABC?
Only one Australian bad guy and an angry French guy have been needed to make solex hostile to what he wanted to have since at least 2013.
We have big blocks. 800k tx in one block. Weak nodes are left behind, the miners form an emergent consensus on something like 200mb. Wasn't this exactly what you wanted, solex?
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
_mr_e
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 159
- 266
A bit of all of the above. Casanode stays online and is a full node, got a small amount in a custodial mobile wallet too, and a bit on a non custodial mobile wallet. Watch tower isn't necessary because honestly who is ever offline for an entire week, and the threat of a justice transaction alone makes any attempts extremely unlikely. Of course I'm still mainly playing around but each has its pros and cons for different use cases.
It's still a work in progress, requiring some tech understanding to be fully safe but it's improving quickly and works.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
yet unfortunately the maintainers of the higher performance client are apparently not party to development decisions nor are they even notified when changes are introduced to the protocol.
@trinoxol is a new and welcome voice in the discussion, need not be aware of BU's background history, and is rightly asking questions he feels are important.
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Glad to see you can't help but keep coming back to throw your occasional incendiary bomb.
@Erdogan
I can't be bothered to regurgitate my thoughts on BSV & how it relates to your supposed cult of Craig.
bottom line, i don't trust any devs that head a Bitcoin blockchain project (including CSW) and have decided to favor the chain based on what it does today and hopefully tomorrow in terms of following the principles in the original WP. the fact that bsv could be hard forked if it deviates from this path is comforting to me as a safety valve. there are other things that could be done as well to stop a major deviation of the project. to me the game theory of this approach is sound as it removes the worship of any dev from the equation .
I can't be bothered to regurgitate my thoughts on BSV & how it relates to your supposed cult of Craig.
bottom line, i don't trust any devs that head a Bitcoin blockchain project (including CSW) and have decided to favor the chain based on what it does today and hopefully tomorrow in terms of following the principles in the original WP. the fact that bsv could be hard forked if it deviates from this path is comforting to me as a safety valve. there are other things that could be done as well to stop a major deviation of the project. to me the game theory of this approach is sound as it removes the worship of any dev from the equation .
Last edited:
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
History repeats itself, revolutionaries that dont have the whole picture create power vacuums, socialists mistakenly think they can govern better, over and over, BTC and BCH
Yip all the BU nodes forked off, not because they don't accept big blocks, but because the protocol is not as stable as people hoped.
This is lunacy, nChain is also guilty because some BU members act like pricks too.
@freetrader Why did ABC copy Core and all the bugs introduced after v0.11 when we knew Core were saboteurs? BU has avoided nearly every bug to date because we forked earl enough.
Here is another bug introduced By ABC, not present in BU.
For the record, I don't think you can build the new global financial infrastructure from voluntary donations of fundamentalists who are not invested in the existing global financial infrastructure or the new blockchain-based system they are building, the people who build the new infrastructure must be invested in it succeeding, not voluntary donations.
@freetrader Why did ABC copy Core and all the bugs introduced after v0.11 when we knew Core were saboteurs? BU has avoided nearly every bug to date because we forked earl enough.
Here is another bug introduced By ABC, not present in BU.
For the record, I don't think you can build the new global financial infrastructure from voluntary donations of fundamentalists who are not invested in the existing global financial infrastructure or the new blockchain-based system they are building, the people who build the new infrastructure must be invested in it succeeding, not voluntary donations.
Here we have entrepreneurs who were successful using Bitcoin pre V0.12 offering to pay 1000 BCH to remove features added after V0.12 and developers making excuses to preserve these bugs discouraging adoption.
bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
although it wasnt clear, my quote wasnt directed at specifically him. it was the entire recent history of the thread in general.
sometimes it's nice to relax and not do any critical thinking, this thread is one of the best places to be for that.
>sometimes it's nice to relax and not do any critical thinking, this thread is one of the best places to be for that.
the amusing thing is that you're just the latest nobody (a dev of course) that thinks they can discredit a thread in existence since 2011 with over 4M views and tens of thousands of posts. typical.
the amusing thing is that you're just the latest nobody (a dev of course) that thinks they can discredit a thread in existence since 2011 with over 4M views and tens of thousands of posts. typical.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
-
-
ENSURING BITCOIN SAFETY WITH FUNDS RECLAIMER COMPANY EXPERT TEAM
- AliceKosh
- 0 replies
-
Members online
No members online now.