Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bitsko]

guys, anything beyond the development collectives assessment for safety is a poison block. and that is an attack. 2mb is plenty for bch

 

[Norway]

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

guys, anything beyond the development collectives assessment for safety is a poison block. and that is an attack. 2mb is plenty for bch

Yeah... - -

ABC coin is a council of wizards without economic dependencies with the rest of the ecosystem dictating what the others should be allowed to do. Again.

 

[Norway]

The real limit of BCH is 2MB, proven by the latest tx spike. I will not be surprised by a BCH split this year.

The pigs agree to not agree, and run two farms instead of one. Oink oink.

 

[cypherdoc]

more pro BSV rhetoric, as evidenced by guys like @freetrader and @jessquit , whether they realize it or not. facepalm:

[doublepost=1567442723][/doublepost]note how the BCH miners are under no competitive pressures to increase their processing powers of validation or propagation under the 32mb regime. I'm sure they're quite fat and happy where they are.

 

[Norway]

@jessquit calls the transactions on BCH an attack. What's wrong with these people?

 

[bitsko]

Fool me once, shame on greg maxwell.

Fool me twice; no fuck that amaury- im not falling for that shit.

 

[79b79aa8]

@jessquit calls the transactions on BCH an attack

that's one doozie.

another one, expounded by both séchet and @solex, is that current BCH capacity is orders of magnitude above demand so its increase is not a priority. this, based on assumptions about what organic growth looks like.

except that there are far-reaching applications of the blockchain, e.g. machine learning applications based on demonstrably reliable datasets, that require capacity to be guaranteed ex-ante to justify the appropriate investment.

but apparently to say such things is the height of gullibility, and a sign of having been duped. fine, believe what you will.

 

[cypherdoc]

you can't trust any developer once they gain notoriety and control of the github. go with an open source project that conforms to the rules you know to be sound today (without future promises for tomorrow) and has demonstrated a trend towards real scaling tomorrow (like BSV's progressive blocksize increases since inception and planned limit removal come February). if they go rogue, like BCH's @deadalnix, just fork away. the good news with BSV's basic approach is that it's devs have basically removed themselves from the politics of development by locking down the protocol so that the chances of going rogue is almost zero since any such move would immediately be red flagged and their incentives are perfectly aligned with the community's and sound money making a future hard fork unnecessary.

 

[cypherdoc]

oops

 

[cypherdoc]

he can say this all he wants but is this what's actually happening?

 

[cypherdoc]

BU dev is masochistic:

 

[Norway]

I expect some "unifying" news or statement from the BCH conference. Some kind of peace agreement, negotiated behind closed doors.

But it will break apart weeks or months later, because all the pigs want to control the farm.

 

[cypherdoc]

[doublepost=1567468628][/doublepost]I really don't smell much unity there @Peter R

 

[bitsko]

BU needs to team up with roger Ver and seize control of bitcoin cash. ive said this before havent I? start looking at which social media you have on your side, etc

 

[Zarathustra]

They are indeed united. Sadists and masochists team up in a symbiotic relationship. But at least they had the courage to drive @Norway away. That's much more important.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Oh, and don't forget, it was important to close exit doors from this relationship by kicking support of bsv.

It's really a tragedy. Let's call it a clusterfuck of epic dimensions

 

[Norway]

They are indeed united. Sadists and masochists team up in a symbiotic relationship.

LOL, too funny!

 

[Norway]

Peter's double spend conference in Italy was not very unifying when they cancelled the invitations to the nChain representatives. It was a pure power grab, oink oink.

 

[cypherdoc]

more pro BSV rhetoric, as evidenced by guys like @freetrader and @jessquit , whether they realize it or not. facepalm:

[doublepost=1567442723][/doublepost]note how the BCH miners are under no competitive pressures to increase their processing powers of validation or propagation under the 32mb regime. I'm sure they're quite fat and happy where they are.

it should also go without saying how the default limit(s) set by devs is the exact reason for BCH's tx backup the other day. Miners are just (get) too lazy (fat and happy) under this dev led command and control regime. they can't /won't reconfigure their multiple nodes every q6mo download. i shouldn't have to say that directly but we have a bunch of dummies/saboteurs infiltrated within this thread now.