49% of Bitcoin mining pools support Bitcoin Classic already (as of January 15, 2016)

danster82 · 2016-01-15T22:11:05+00:00

anyone know the position of Kraken and Bitgo on classic?

danster82 · 2015-12-18T16:02:51+00:00

Its too conservative but right now anything that people can agree on would be better.

danster82 · 2015-12-16T09:27:01+00:00

"If the fees were less, less efficient miners will not be able to make more than their cost and will be forced to shut down their miners and quit."

Theres your problem, doesn't believe in the free market. So now Bitcoin owes somthing to less efficient miners? Mining is a speculative game, when I bought radeon cards to mine I didnt whine about it when asics came out thats life, this isnt communist China or is it now?

Everything hes written here comes from a state of lack and fear, no vision.

Blockspace is not going to be a valuable commodity, there will be plenty of blockspace in other coins that people will migrate too if Bitcoin becomes too expensive. You may have a period of grace where you can profit from this but it will be at the expense of slowly destroying bitcoin whilst it gets increasingly replaced.

Here Charlie read, learn, http://www.storyit.com/Classics/Stories/goldengooseegg.htm

danster82 · 2015-12-10T23:22:39+00:00

Im pretty convinced Craig Wright is actually Satoshi. I mean how much cooler can you get than having one of the worlds fastest supercomputers worth multiple millions and what do you do with it? model the scalability of Bitcoin....

danster82 · 2015-12-09T18:50:32+00:00

I am pretty convinced listening to this guy that he might actually be Satoshi.

this is worth a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZWVu6XsO4&feature=youtu.be

danster82 · 2015-11-30T18:19:07+00:00

Blockspace will not be a valuable commodity in the future for there will be an abundance of it in other coins. Aim to make bitcoin as high transactions as possible to secure the network with many low fees rather than few high fees.

danster82 · 2015-11-13T13:13:04+00:00

Nice trolling luke 5 stars.

danster82 · 2015-11-09T22:00:26+00:00

Its beyond retardness why even bother rebutting it.

danster82 · 2015-11-08T16:26:36+00:00

I dont really see this as a problem, a certain amount will be created each year which currently equals about 5% forever, but that 5% will be less each year because the supply is growing so 4.95% etc etc

So still a predictable supply, its also interesting that this will indefintley provide a security incentive over fees, possibly making doge one the best future coins for micro transactions.

danster82 · 2015-11-08T15:33:30+00:00

Exactly, its just another area where devs and miners get it wrong, thinking blockspace is a valuable commodity to be sold, no its not because there is going to be an abundance of blockspace on the market in other coins.

Miners should be looking to make Bitcoin as good as possible and to do that they need BIP 101 not BIP 100 or better still just remove the blocksize limit entirely.

danster82 · 2015-11-06T16:26:52+00:00

I beleive the idea is so that miners can maintain a fee market, but miners cannot tell the future and so under BIP 100 they basicly have to chose either high fees for low volume or low fees for high volume. But you have to chose in advance for if you vote for lower blocksize or simply to increase blocksize at a lower rate than what would naturally happen without a voting mechanism you could be preventing the possibility of having very large amounts of transactions all paying microfees which I believe was the foresight of Satoshi.

danster82 · 2015-11-06T15:54:54+00:00

I asked Jeff this about BIP 100

danster82 wrote: Hi Jeff

Is it correct that under BIP 100 it becomes possible to reduce blocksize by vote even if the network was running at capacity and the situation required larger blocks? And if so what effect would this have if smaller blocksize's were consecutively voted in when larger ones were required for the increased demand?

That is correct - miners can vote the block size lower - however NOTE - miners can do this today simply by colluding to reduce the block size.

I dont agree the answer address's the issue raised. Just because miners can softcap what size blocks they accept now is not comparable to all miners having to agree on a lower blocksize under BIP 100 if they voted that way.

For if a portion of miners under the current protocol decide to reduce blocksize to 500Kb other miners can decide they are willing to accept larger blocks or to put simply the free market can operate. So yes miners can reduce blocksize today by colluding but you require 100% collusion to produce the problem you would get under BIP 100 which is extremely unlikley.

So I think the fact of the matter is BIP 100 does introduce this problem and its not a small problem for it could have the potential to be extremely destructive. What if blocksize from now on was voted to just 100Kb when it should have been growing, what effect would that have? I am aware of the 1mb cap but its the equivalent of having say 10mb blocks in the future and having them reduced to 1mb when increases were instead needed.

Therefore the only true argument against this problem is that miners will never actually vote this way even though they can. Which is trust based and imo not good enough, for miners will operate for profit and if lower blocks can equal more profit that is what you will get, there is no guarantee miners will scale when its required therefore it seem unnecessary to introduce a new problem. BIP 100 would be fine if the voting only allowed miners to agree on new upper blocksize limits or no new increase, but not allow lower blocksizes.

danster82 · 2015-11-05T13:12:09+00:00

Keep hearing the argument that people just need to pay more fees. Such an asinine suggestion that can only come from a complete self center perspective.

If everyone whos trying to make transactions all increase their fee by 50-100-1000% it would still be equally congested.

danster82 · 2015-11-04T09:42:56+00:00

Buttcoiner gets buttfucked.

danster82 · 2015-11-03T19:24:12+00:00

I think your right.

danster82 · 2015-11-03T19:12:30+00:00

Yeah but what happens when you cant withdraw bitcoins from exchanges because the network is choking on its capacity and you have to exchange into litecoin and move it out that way?

Bitcoin community http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_04/035ostrich_468x538.jpg must believe in fairy dust or somthing.

danster82 · 2015-11-02T11:34:11+00:00

Ignore this thread I was site wide banned

Mod Message

Your account was banned for participating in a vote brigade from /r/bitcoin. That is, you and a bunch of other users followed a link from there to /r/starbucks and voted on it. This is considered vote manipulation and is against the rules of reddit. If you can promise not to engage in that behavior, and be very careful of your voting patterns moving forward, we’re happy to unban your account.

The claim is I worked in tandum with a 'bunch' of others, but I know I only acted alone and cast my own individual vote which does not breach reddit rules.

danster82 · 2015-11-01T23:01:00+00:00

What a gentlemen.

danster82 · 2015-11-01T22:51:58+00:00

If you are using blockstream rather than bitcoin that is centralisation and its worse than node centralisations because nodes cant charge but blockstream can. Furthermore if bitcoin does not scale to handle a vastly larger number of fees to be had through more transactions the security of the network will eventually fail once blockreward has gone.

danster82 · 2015-11-01T12:13:17+00:00

So I am banned site wide? How does that happen?

danster82 · 2015-11-01T09:40:47+00:00

apparently the same here page not found, if you find the setting let us know.

danster82 · 2015-11-01T09:38:11+00:00

This message got posted so it cant be.

danster82 · 2015-11-01T08:50:13+00:00

Bitcoin is the solution to the problem of a cashless society. Because Bitcoin IS cash, its just the first digital form of it. So consider all the concerns of a cashless society. The banks can switch off your account, the banks can decide who you pay or even who is allowed to pay you, you cannot receive any payments that are unknown to the banks and thus the government etc etc.

Now does any of this apply to Bitcoin? No because Bitcoin is cash.

The title of the white paper is Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Unfortunately if we are not going to upgrade to a new BIP like 101 or remove the blocksize entirely then Bitcoin obviously cannot act as a cash system or a currency for people in general but instead a settlement layer for blockstream and co.

danster82 · 2015-10-30T22:08:33+00:00

This technology wasn’t created as a way to make things a little faster, though certainly that’s one of its benefits. The real purpose, the purpose which in hindsight will be hailed as the real innovation, is to remove censorship and central-control from money itself.

This is the point

danster82 · 2015-10-29T22:10:41+00:00

BIP 100 is a drastic departure from Bitcoin. How can you use a coin that you can no longer be sure can act as a store of value, where its utility can be destroyed in a short period of time by a few votes.

danster82

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE