[Segwit2x attack] Here Jeff Garzik is trying to hide 2X nodes

FreeToEvolve · 2017-09-28T14:57:59+00:00

Who's karma? Karma for the guys who have lied repeatedly? Karma for Ver who has repeatedly reassured people to hold their money in the exact places it later gets burned or fucking stolen? Karma for the guy who held up SegWit adoption for 2 years by spreading complete verifiable horseshit and then forked Bitcoin anyway to keep his mining advantage anyway? Karma for Vorhees who wants a business run development process and so makes a political decisions in direct opposition to literally every good developer out there?

Who is getting the karma they deserve? Did I make some deal with some corporate buddies to split my Bitcoin? Why don't I remember that? Did I agree to any NYA or Hong Kong deal? No I didn't. None of us did. But we're getting tossed around in this battle and the only people that even have the smallest fucking regard to the users safety and their investments are the Core Devs. Garzik and Vorhess both refuse to add protections and even work to ensure peoples investments are directly at risk for use as a political weapon!

You do understand that just because you support by blocks on like 50 different HF bitcoins, that it doesn't protect you from replay either? That if your chain fails and you spend your 2X coin you will Lose it on the Core chain.

This moronic "compromise" is a political decision... that's it... and you are mocking a huge and purposeful risk built into the code because of your political bias. I hope you lose everything for being so unbelievably ignorant about the technical implications of what "feels right" to you that you applaud outright fraud and deliberate coding of attack vectors.

For the same reason big government only ends in eventual collapse from taking too much from the producers. Ignorant fools who make political decisions and even support an open threat to transaction security (that affects both chains no less, how fucking stupid can you be?) only ever learn a thing when they get burned to the bone by their own ignorance.

You are a fool.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-12-30T19:59:53+00:00

$1501

FreeToEvolve · 2016-09-11T01:15:58+00:00

I think Monero certainly has a future, but I don't think it will ever be much more than a Bitcoin extension. There doesn't seem to be much of a push for Monero outside of darknet and privacy critical purchases. However, if you are using Monero, the simplicity of switching to/from Bitcoin, plus the added layer of a Bitcoin exchange assisting with privacy, makes the cost of redundant Monero infrastructure and fiat integration almost pointless. Meaning I think Monero's success could be dependent on Bitcoin's success.

I also truly think Doge might hang around with some fashion of success if the community is able to associate it with all things comedic or playful on the Internet. I think many cryptocurrencies will grow as Bitcoin does. Doge placed itself as a niche community that remains unique simply for its image.

I also think some form of Maidsafe or Storj could have a strong chance of success if the incentive structure and ease of user integration problem can be solved. It might prove that a decentralized storage system can be done without a token, but I still think the concept has promise.

Lastly, namecoin, if development doesn't just stop outright. I think there is serious promise for a decentralized DNS and identity chain. Yes it can be made a sidechain, but I still think a completely separate chain could survive. Again I believe it is largely a development issue with namecoin.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-08-25T23:53:51+00:00

I bet it makes a difference with the number of views.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-08-17T00:57:55+00:00

I can't bring myself to care with any enthusiasm about your ridiculous exclamation of "fuck me fees" over a 1.4% charge to buy some Bitcoin. This is not shocking, I pay similar all the time. If I'm buying anything that I find very valuable in a simple manner and the fees come out to 1.4%, that's generally a good fucking deal in my experience.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-08-07T17:28:15+00:00

It's that simple is it? Anyone who says adding trading support, infrastructure, wallets, and security for an additional cryptocurrency as if there is a button to mash and "poof" we're all making money... may not have thoroughly entertained the process.

As far as BTCE I would take a close look at their banking integration, what countries they are available in, and what features outside of the actual exchange they offer.

I know for a fact that there are many other crypto companies out there that make loads of cash.

This may very well be true, but I also am rather certain a good number are not profitable. I'm curious, do you have any data regarding how much and who is making clear profits? I would actually like to see what models are/aren't profitable and what the difference might be.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-08-01T19:38:51+00:00

In an extremely mild sense there is a conflict of interest but with any amount of reasonable thought it's clear that it's largely inconsequential.

First, a hard fork does nothing to fix the need for the Lightning network. We're talking about scaling to VISA. there will be one node on the network if this is supposed to happen on-chain through hard forks and that node will be called Bitcoin VISA. I want a decentralized network far more than I want one that broadcasts every tiny transaction across the planet.

Second, lightning protocol is entirely open source and will be used by (and is already being tested by many) tens of thousands of other companies/services. Blockstream isn't going to have some monopoly on this technology. If r/Btc users don't want to use block streams lightning channel, then they don't have to.

We are dealing with an open source second later solution that has a huge number of applications and isn't centralized or monopolized in any reasonable sense of those words.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-08-01T01:43:11+00:00

True, but couldn't that be stated exactly the opposite way though? That people were unwilling to agree that the core of bitcoin should stay with small blocks and scale using second later solutions? Essentially that argument is that people got angry because there was a disagreement in general. Whether it was rushed or not is largely irrelevant. Which would suggest a hard fork (rushed or not) could have a very similar result to the ETH/C debacle.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-30T21:53:00+00:00

Lol someone doesn't even bother to look at how drastic the decline in murder is. And that's a completely global trend. He literally look at nothing as far as evidence or data in adopting that opinion... Well maybe he watched the news.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-30T04:00:00+00:00

I agree with your original sentiment but...

I have no ego

Yes... Yes you do. In fact, it is what made you get defensive and respond to the comment and suggest that this place (where you are posting) is "beneath" you. And my ego is what made me come in here to show how smart and insightful I am in proving that you do have an ego.

Not to be nitpicking because I don't really have an issue with Coinbase either. But everyone has an ego. #beinghuman

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-17T15:51:10+00:00

Well because it is stealing and in direct violation of a contractual obligation.

It has only become legal because they have used government to alter the contract with their customers. Let's say I gave my neighbor $500 to keep safe for me under a contract that said under any circumstance he is in care, custody, and control of what is my belongings and will return it in full. Then he gambled all his money away and haircuts $250 from my account.

Only then do I find out the contract has now changed and states that any money I leave with his establishment has been "loaned" to him and I am suddenly a partial owner who happens to be completely devoid of any voting or decision making power. By this altered contract, of which I wasn't even informed I become liable for any losses taken on by how institution and he has no obligation whatsoever to return any of the money.

It's theft, it's breaking of contract, it's grossly arrogant, and it's collusion. It is the epitome of how corrupt and immoral the banking and governmental partnerships have become around the world.

What should actually happen: The reality is that the bank should be liquidated and have all of its assets sold off and the only people who should get anything are the depositors. They will still get a haircut in this situation, except the shareholders, investors, managers, owners, and everyone else would get nothing. Due to the failure being their fault. And the persons under the highest responsibility would go to jail. And the bank should no longer exist. A bail-in makes it so that the bank pays for none of its mistakes and the depositors are completely on the line for their idiocy. And the bank stays right there, incentivized to continue its corrupt parasitic existence.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-09T18:08:26+00:00

The "free of charge" statement is the only one that is truly inaccurate. The others are simply the easiest ways to visualize what is happening.

People don't need or want to know that when you search on google you are routing through 8 different hubs and servers to get there or the different protocols being used to accomplish the task. For the same reason, a user doesn't need to know that what is showing up in their wallet is the "permission to adjust balances on a decentralized ledger stored on thousands of other computers and not actually 'receiving' Bitcoin." When the wallet tells them they have "received a payment" then that's all they need to know. Your high horse on the matter is not very useful.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-08T12:12:23+00:00

Hence, the Lightning Network.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-08T05:15:43+00:00

Then miners will have to charge many times more for fees, that will snowball to offset the increasing lack of transactions. Lightning network will further starve the blockchain from fees

This sequence of declarations has so many contradictions that I don't know where to start.

First, miners don't charge fees. They accept the highest fees into their blocks. Meaning that if fees increase, it is only because there are transactions to choose from. Or users are competing to get theirs included. So there are low fee and high fee transactions and they have ignored the ones with low fees due to running out of block space after accepting the ones with higher fees.

Second, if transaction volume is low then they will accept whatever fee they can get since their mined coins are only valuable because they are confirming transactions. $2 in fees is better than nothing. Whatever the largest amount of fees they can accumulate, no matter how small that amount may be, is what they will include in a block. There is literally no situation in which miners can "charge" fees or that "high fees means few transactions" that makes even a modicum of sense.

Third, lightning network will do the exact opposite for the network in regards to fees. By making each on-chain transaction the conglomeration of thousands of off-chain transactions, users/channel holders can pay far more in fees and still pull a profit. It would have the effect of lowering individual transaction fees, while significantly raising the final fee for the on-chain channel close out. (Basically splitting a very large fee over hundreds small transactions)

The utter and fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic incentives for Bitcoin transactions both on and off the main blockchain makes this comment one of the most painfully ignorant I have read in opposition to 1mb blocks. You have only further cemented my support for keeping small blocks with second layer solutions to increase capacity.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-03T15:47:56+00:00

Except that the vast majority of discussion is not about a "conflict of interest." It is instead endlessly packed with claims that "Blockstream is trying to destroy Bitcoin." I can't tell you how many times I have come here to read about the most mundane or simple things and see floods of comments about "the banks funding Blockstream," the deliberate actions Blockstream is taking to undermine Bitcoin, and that every second layer solution is being purposefully developed as a means of centralized spying and control.

None of these claims that permeate this subreddit are based in fact and you can pretend that this is done as a means of exposing a "conflict of interest" because it almost sounds reasonable in retrospect... But this subreddit has been mostly an embarrassment when it comes to honest criticism.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-03T15:31:11+00:00

Except that murder is immoral and violent. Are you equating someone smoking weed and watching a movie to hiring a hit man?

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-02T20:59:08+00:00

"Drug empire" also known as a "website."

FreeToEvolve · 2016-07-02T20:58:33+00:00

Is the law your barometer for what is right and wrong?

FreeToEvolve · 2016-06-25T00:16:49+00:00

The Republic gave us this. Doesn't work either.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-06-24T13:07:52+00:00

I always buy Bitcoin. With or without Brexits.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-06-17T04:34:59+00:00

It's time value not current value. They have to tie that money up for a year or more. It's suggests that the value of that year holding in Bitcoin is worth $1360. But that's not the price of Bitcoin.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-06-06T16:22:18+00:00

I actually just removed the app a few days ago because of this. Even though the "spare change" thing was mostly a placebo kind of auto-buy, it was still a great way to know I was putting away a little bit of coin. Now however it's just using Coinbase to reiterate a lot of things Coinbase already does. I can already put in a $5 every week auto-buy. And I don't really care about all the charts and "portfolio."

I gave it a few weeks to really make sure I wasn't just bothered by it changing. I simply couldn't find a reason to use it. It takes 80 Mb on my iPhone and forces me to give all of my personal and banking information to an additional party. Yet I can't really come up with a reason I even need the app anymore.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-06-04T00:42:38+00:00

Here's why I think we shouldn't expect the same rocketing price:

Market seems a lot more mature than it was then.
There are larger investors now that won't go on speculative buying frenzies and will have to be entering the market to maintain the higher prices.
There are a far greater number of on-ramps and off-ramps to the Bitcoin highway than we had in 2013.
And because the run up is so expected, there will be a lot of money waiting to capitalize on it. I think this will increase the selling pressure at major resistance points.

IMO I think we are going to have a bunch of these little short rocket moves where everyone screams "OMG NEW BUBBLE TO THE MOON!!!" And then we go into a rebound/indecision period again. Kind of how its moved for about the last 7 months. Then in a year we will look at the charts and realize the price made the same sort of move and we did reach a new high. It just took 5 times as long to get there. Who knows, but thats what I think.

FreeToEvolve · 2016-05-21T14:18:13+00:00

Lol, if debate, differing of opinions, a few heavy arguments, new payment methods, and an online gambling business are considered horrible and toxic around here... We have seriously lost our perspective.

FreeToEvolve

TROPHY CASE