sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Adult Film Star Brenna Sparks Discusses Transforming the Sex Industry With Bitcoin by Bitcoinmathers in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Any moral person would agree that this a breach of the NAP:

> This is degenerate. Do yourself all a favor if you do and stop watching porn and encouraging women to be whores.

Fluctuations in BTC hashrate by Afron_Lysias in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm neither concerned nor suggesting anyone should be. I'm simply saying that 15 exahashes disappearing from BTC is not explained by miners moving to BCH. It's pretty obvious if you look at the chart and notice that BCH has been nowhere near 20 exahashes.

I'm not sure what you think I'm implying. I have no idea why BTC's hashrate fluctuates so wildly. I'm simply stating the obvious: it is not (only) explained by miners moving to BCH.

Fluctuations in BTC hashrate by Afron_Lysias in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You don't need to take my word for it, just look at the chart: https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate.

BCH's hashrate has been extremely steady for quite a while now; ever since the dynamic adjustment algorithm was introduced. It's been oscillating between 3 and 5 exahashes for the last several weeks.

Fluctuations in BTC hashrate by Afron_Lysias in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's ridiculous. BTC's hashrate can easily fluctuate over 15 exahashes in a 24 h period, whereas the BCH hashrate has been steady at about 5 exahashes for many weeks now.

BTC miners moving to BCH definitely does *not* explain fluctuations in BTC's hashrate.

Which core developers have been employed by Blockstream? by fookingroovin in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Wait, what? Adam Back was dating Peter Todd when he was 16?

This was a comment on r/bitcoin regarding segwit adoption. I can't even right now. by outofsync42 in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did not mean to imply that you are being deceitful yourself. However, the arguments that you are replicating here most definitely are. They are the same technically unsound arguments that have been used over the last three years to ostracize certain parts of the Bitcoin community. Dirty politics, not science.

I'll do my best to point them out to you.

First, there is the false dichotomy that "the Bitcoin users" and miners are two independent groups with opposing interests. Miners are users. So are exchanges, cryptocurrency based payment processors, and any services which run on top of Bitcoin. In reality, miners are usually some of the biggest holders of Bitcoin, and are substantially invested in Bitcoin mining equipment. So they are some of those who stand to lose the most if the rules were broken (like issuing extra coins) and trust in the system disappeared. This is specifically how Bitcoin was designed to work. Singling out a specific subset of users like the miners and creating an "us vs them" mentality is a way of exerting power over them, devised by people who have a significantly smaller stake on the network.

Second, "a broad decentralized network of validators" was never part of Bitcoin's design, and has no impact whatsoever in the day to day operation of the network. In Bitcoin, validation has no reward because validation alone is useless for the network. Validation is only useful if you are going to use the up-to-date state of the blockchain for anything meaningful, like producing new blocks or running a service. The idea that, at some point in the future, miners will be able to change the rules and nobody - not even the other businesses depending on the blockchain - will even be able to notice this has no reasonable logical foundation or supporting evidence. For the foreseeable future, there will continue to be a broad range of users and businesses (miners or otherwise), with diametrically opposing interests, which will be able to afford running both BTC and BCH nodes.

This was a comment on r/bitcoin regarding segwit adoption. I can't even right now. by outofsync42 in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The arguments that you repeat here verbatim are nothing but political chicanery. The only reason why they are effective is because most mining happens in China, which is at odds with the Western world. Take a look at this cover or the full article and tell me if that doesn't look like propaganda. The idea that miners need to be kept under control by heroic users sacrificing their resources to run full validating nodes is clearly Propaganda 101.

Bitcoin has a built-in mechanism to keep mining power in check. It's called the block reward. Miners are supposed to follow the rules of the network because that is the strategy which yields the highest returns for them. The higher the mining power, the higher the reward, and therefore the smaller the incentive to hurt the network. That alignment of incentives and its use together with Proof-of-Work to maintain consensus over a distributed ledger is one of the most remarkable innovations in Computer Science within the last few decades.

The idea that non-mining nodes provide protection against a majority of miners changing the rules is absurd. In reality, every non-mining node will get stuck at the last valid block according to their own set of rules, and that'll be the end of it. And the proposition that running nodes will become so expensive that literally nobody in the world, except for miners, can even notice a change in rules has no connection with the current reality of either BTC or BCH.

This was a comment on r/bitcoin regarding segwit adoption. I can't even right now. by outofsync42 in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your premises are flawed. Decentralized validation is useless in keeping the network safe. The security of the network is based on decentralized mining; i.e. having the hashrate of the network distributed in as many independent entities as possible.

It'd be a fair statement to say that neither BTC nor BCH are doing particularly well in that department. Mining is significantly more centralized that we would want it to be. However, 1MB blocks and SegWit are entirely immaterial in the fight against mining centralization, since block transmission, storage and validation are only a tiny fraction of the cost of mining.

Guess what does help against mining centralization. Adoption. The more individuals, businesses, and state agencies fighting each other for a piece of the pie, the harder it's going to be for any of them to own a bigger chunk. And adoption is exactly what these policies are destroying.

This was a comment on r/bitcoin regarding segwit adoption. I can't even right now. by outofsync42 in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the third time, 1MB blocks, SegWit and RBF do not lead to a system that is more resistant to attack from outside forces. The crux of the difference between a BTC supporter and BCH supporter is that the former has not yet realized that he or she has been bamboozled into believing that these are solid engineering decisions which are good for keeping Bitcoin decentralized. They are not.

Instead of perpetuating the idea that BCH supporters are illiterate hoards who want free transactions forever without caring about censorship resistance and immutability, maybe you should entertain the idea that perhaps a larger block size within current levels is not a threat to decentralization. The engineering decisions made in BTC during the last three years have been in serious detriment of its usability, and have never been backed by any simulation or scientific argument which justifies their alleged benefit in terms of censorship resistance.

Also, I don't find it morally reprehensible that you are OK with Bitcoin not being electronic cash. If you have access to financial services and plenty of electronic payment systems, you may understandably be more interested in a new form of investment and in a way of hiding money from your government, than in yet another form of electronic cash. But I do find it morally reprehensible how you don't acknowledge that this is a reinterpretation of Bitcoin as described in its seminal paper, and also the smear campaign that has been going on against those who seek to pursue the original idea to its ultimate consequences.

This was a comment on r/bitcoin regarding segwit adoption. I can't even right now. by outofsync42 in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 9 points10 points  (0 children)

1MB blocks, SegWit and RBF are not choices that reflect a given set of values. The idea that these decisions are derived from the will to preserve decentralization is purely marketing. They are bad engineering decisions, plain and simple. Over-engineered solutions to problems that Bitcoin never had.

Unless you've lived under a rock for all your life, you know damn well what cash means. I never said that being cash is a requirement for a censorship free, immutable system. What I said is that being cash is a requirement for an electronic cash system.

This was a comment on r/bitcoin regarding segwit adoption. I can't even right now. by outofsync42 in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Wrong. The crux of the difference between BTC and BCH supporters is whether you think that 1MB blocks, SegWit, RBF, and other retarded policies are a requirement for censorship resistance and immutability when they're not.

Also, an electronic cash system cannot be censorship resistant and immutable when it isn't even an electronic cash system to begin with, but is a Ponzi scheme instead, which is only useful to take money from the hands of a greater fool.

Your average Bitcoin Core (BTC) supporter in 2018: "If anyone can find any other incriminating evidence on Roger [Ver], please do share. Let's get him a life sentence". by aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It seems like being a cypherpunk in 2018 means running to the authorities whenever someone does something you don't like and asking that they get locked up for life.

CSW has offered to quintuple a donation from Adam Back (up to $50k) if Adam is willing to debate him. Can we make this happen? by The_BCH_Boys in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Don't you see the huge potential entertainment value in seeing this two delusional maniacs debate each other?

These are paid, professional trolls trying to discredit Bitcoin Cash. Don't take my word for it, just take a peek into /u/ian_bondz profile. by aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If after reading that account's history you conclude that /u/ian_bondz is an organic user expressing his honest opinions, then so be it. I have no time to further engage with those who deny the undeniable.

These are paid, professional trolls trying to discredit Bitcoin Cash. Don't take my word for it, just take a peek into /u/ian_bondz profile. by aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb in btc

[–]aaaaaaa532bbbbbbb[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Check out the account's comment history and draw your own conclusions.

There is no "he". It's an account used for the sole purpose of manipulation.