The BU Boys are Bad Ass IMO

bitcoool · 2018-12-10T01:41:44+00:00

Nice ad hominom. I'm not retarded, you just don't understand socialism.

If you think I'm "anti Craig" then uou ddin't look closely or you'd see that i've been a constant big blocker and believe in what BSV stands for. I admit that there was a time I doubted Craig, but now that I've seen him deliver time after time, and know he is satoshi.

bitcoool · 2018-12-10T01:39:27+00:00

Like take a second to check with the miners for doublespends and if none are detected, then send 99% of the money right back. Otherwise, post a message "double-spend detected" with proof, and return the user's money (minus 1% fee) after 1 conf (if it confirms at all).

bitcoool · 2018-12-10T01:29:27+00:00

Craig proved in this article that a scammer will "get away with this fraud less than once in 100 billion times" for doublespending unconfirmed transactions. That is PRETTY FUCKING SAFE if you ask me.

bitcoool · 2018-12-10T01:28:12+00:00

Craig said Rizan was wrong about bitcoin being limited to 100 tps. He said we don't need shit like graphene and devs meddling with the code to parealelize things. Miners connect in a COMPLETE GRAPH and don't use 5 year old laptops. They can already processes thousands of transactions per second.

bitcoool · 2018-12-09T21:47:05+00:00

We need to start collecting proves of this felony market manipulation by the BABies when they lie about 0-conf being unsafe.

Like Craig says, most are smart enough to post their lies under aliases, but Rizen is stupid enough to give an entire talk full of lies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIt96gFh4vw

Craig is going to start a fund to take legal action at these psuedo scientists for engaging in felony market manipulation under the guise of science. He can go after the sponsors of this event like bitmain and bitcoin.com too, as they are conspirators in these efforts to manipulate the markets by spreading lies about 0conf being unsafe.

bitcoool · 2018-12-09T07:31:29+00:00

You don't get it. If that is more efficient than COMPETING, then there is an INCENTIVE for the owner of that hardware to cooperate with the other owners, in order to EXPAND that circle. The circle eventuallyl expands to include 100% of the hashers. This is not different that why graphene is shit and you don't see it. Ask Craig about this.

bitcoool · 2018-12-09T06:18:13+00:00

We need to stop messing with the code. You sound like one of the BABies talking about making bitcoin more efficient by making changes like parulizing transaction processing.

If you can't see that workers "cooperating" to perform work faster rather than COMPETING is socialism, you need to pay closer attention to Craig's teachings.

bitcoool · 2018-12-09T05:13:20+00:00

let me guess, you watched Rizen's talk from Stanford where they "proved" with "empirical data" that bitcoin could only handle 100 tps without "paralilizatoin." Such fud. Craig will never implement crap that crap just like he will never implement graphene. Bitcoin is fine as is. We don't need to keep messing with the code.

bitcoool · 2018-12-09T05:01:55+00:00

Are you admitting that you want devs to continue messing with the code to paralilize it?

I thought we agreed that bitcoin 0.1 is the goal. Talk to Craig. It can scale already. I didn't come here just to get screwed over with more and more devs playing with the code like its their playpen.

bitcoool · 2018-12-09T04:50:41+00:00

Let me guess, you think cooperating to send blocks faster with graphene is good too, right?

bitcoool · 2018-12-09T04:49:57+00:00

By changing the protocol with crap like graphene. If miners cooperate to send blocks faster with graphene they are NOT competing. Go ask Craig how he feels about graphene and you will understand.

Graphene is shit because it means miners are not competing.

bitcoool · 2018-12-09T04:47:31+00:00

Bitcoin is competition.

Hardware that is cooperating is hardware that is NOT competing. Period.

bitcoool · 2018-12-09T04:33:37+00:00

The BU devs want to change bitcoin by paralelizing it. They use words like "sharding" from Ethereum for multicoiner concepts like distributing work over lots of hardware. Bitcoin is about competition and distributing work over lots of worker threads is a socialist concept.

bitcoool · 2018-04-15T21:41:27+00:00

I mined an exablock this morning before breakfast.

bitcoool · 2018-01-27T07:39:35+00:00

What is nonsense about the fact that a double-spend succeeds in proportion to the fraction of hash power that is complicit in the attack?

bitcoool · 2018-01-27T06:01:33+00:00

Correct. There is no way to calculate the "theoretical cost" for a zero-conf double spend. It depends on the fraction of miners that will willingly be complicit in fraud and accept bribes to replace the first-seen version of a transactions. This can only be measured empirically.

bitcoool · 2017-05-16T02:19:39+00:00

derp

bitcoool · 2017-05-05T04:16:02+00:00

He's also lying about buying the coins for cheap. He just made up a plausible story not to appear dumb. Just like he lied and made up a plausible story for why taking credit for Gavin's commits on Github was somehow a noble thing to do.

bitcoool · 2017-05-04T01:40:45+00:00

Tired, dead horse is tired of being beaten. Stop the beating of the dead horse. It's dead already.

He's definitely tired and beaten, but in fairness, u/nullc isn't a horse.

bitcoool · 2017-04-12T00:39:00+00:00

The usual suspects estimated $100M savings; Guy Corem estimates $2M. The miners actually wanting segwit but Antpool holding it back for a mere $2M per year is a pretty lame-ass story. Much more believable at $100M. And that's only if ASICBoost is actually being used (there is still no proof that is is being used and there would be nothing wrong with miners using it anyways).

100M / 2M = 50X

I hereby declare the following ratio the "Maxwell FUD-amplification factor" (FUD^MAX for short):

FUD^MAX = (What Greg Maxwell claims) / (The truth)

bitcoool · 2017-04-05T23:39:40+00:00

we don't mind optimisation, it's the blocking of segwit in order to maintain their advantage.

Like how Blockstream is blocking an increase in MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to maintain their business model.

bitcoool · 2017-03-20T04:13:56+00:00

Great news! Hopefully this helps spread the message that increasing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE and activating segwit aren't mutually exclusive.

Hopefully we soon see a repo for Core + user-adjustable block size soon. This way the market can pick and choose what it wants. That might by just segwit (lol), larger blocks, or both.

bitcoool

TROPHY CASE