Crypto Community Services GCCHub

Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.

Centrally planned blocksize is not a desirable feature - it's an insidious bug which is slowly and quietly suppressing Bitcoin's adoption and price and market cap.
And SegWit's dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" hack isn't just a needless kludge (which Core/Blockstream/AXA are selfishly trying to quietly slip into Bitcoin via a dangerous and messy soft fork - because they're deathly afraid of hard fork, knowing that most people would vote against their shitty code if they ever had the balls to put it up for an explicit, opt-in vote).
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
You Do The Math, and follow the money, and figure out why Bitcoin has been slowly failing to prosper ever since AXA started bribing Core devs to cripple our code with their centrally planned blocksize and now their "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit poison-pill.
Smart, honest devs fix bugs. Fiat-fueled AXA-funded Core/Blockstream devs add bugs - and then turn around and try to lie to our face and claim their bugs are somehow "features"
Recently, people discovered bugs in other Bitcoin implementations - memory leaks in BU's software, "phone home" code in AntMiner's firmware.
And the devs involved immediately took public responsibility, and fixed these bugs.
So the difference is: BU's and AntMiner's devs possess enough social and economic intelligence to fix bugs in their code immediately when the community finds them.
Meanwhile, most people in the community have been in an absolute uproar for years now against AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize and their deadly Anyone-Can-Spend hack/kludge/poison-pill.
Of course, the home-schooled fiat-fattened sociopath Blockstream CTO One-Meg Greg u/nullc would probably just dismiss all these Bitcoin users as the "shreaking" [sic] masses.
Narcissistic sociopaths like AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CTO Adam and their drooling delusional attack dog Luke-Jr (another person who was home-schooled - which may help explain why he's also such a tone-deaf anti-market sociopath) are just too stupid and arrogant to have the humility and the shame to shut the fuck up and listen to the users when everyone has been pointing out these massive lethal bugs in Core's shitty code.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr, and Theymos are the most damaging people in Bitcoin
These are the four main people who are (consciously or unconsciously) attempting to sabotage Bitcoin:
These toxic idiots are too stupid and shameless and sheltered - and too anti-social and anti-market - to even begin to recognize the lethal bugs they have been trying to introduce into Bitcoin's specification and our community.
Users decide on specifications. Devs merely provide implementations.
Guys like Greg think that they're important because they can do implemenation-level stuff (like avoiding memory leaks in C++ code).
But they are total failures when it comes to specification-level stuff (ie, they are incapable of figuring out how to "grow" a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market by maximally leveraging available technology).
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos apparently lack the social and economic awareness and human decency to feel any guilt or shame for the massive damage they are attempting to inflict on Bitcoin - and on the world.
Their ignorance is no excuse
Any dev who is ignorant enough to attempt to propose adding such insidious bugs to Bitcoin needs to be rejected by the Bitcoin community - no matter how many years they keep on loudly insisting on trying to sabotage Bitcoin like this.
The toxic influence and delusional lies of AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are directly to blame for the slow-motion disaster happening in Bitcoin right now - where Bitcoin's market cap has continued to fall from 100% towards 60% - and is continuing to drop.
When bitcoin drops below 50%, most of the capital will be in altcoins. All they had to do was increase the block size to 2mb as they promised. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
u/FormerlyEarlyAdopter : "I predict one thing. The moment Bitcoin hard-forks away from Core clowns, all the shit-coins out there will have a major sell-off." ... u/awemany : "Yes, I expect exactly the same. The Bitcoin dominance index will jump above 95% again."
Market volume (ie, blocksize) should be decided by the market - not based on some arbitrary number that some ignorant dev pulled out of their ass
For any healthy cryptocurrency, market price and market capitalization and market volume (a/k/a "blocksize") are determined by the market - not by any dev team, not by central bankers from AXA, not by economically ignorant devs like Adam and Greg (or that other useless idiot - Core "Lead Maintainer" Wladimir van der Laan), not by some drooling pathological delusional authoritarian freak like Luke-Jr, and not by some petty tyrant and internet squatter and communmity-destroyer like Theymos.
The only way that Bitcoin can survive and prosper is if we, as a community, denounce and reject these pathological "centralized blocksize" control freaks like Adam and Greg and Luke and Theymos who are trying to use tricks like fiat and censorship and lies (in collusion with their army of trolls organized and unleashed by the Dragons Den) to impose their ignorance and insanity on our currency.
These losers might be too ignorant and anti-social to even begin to understand the fact that they are attempting to sabotage Bitcoin.
But their ignorance is no excuse. And Bitcoin is getting ready to move on and abandon these losers.
There are many devs who are much better than Greg, Adam and Luke-Jr
A memory leak is an implementation error, and a centrally planned blocksize is a specification error - and both types of errors will be avoided and removed by smart devs who listen to the community.
There are plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in C++ - plus plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in other languages as well, such as:
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos are being exposed as miserable failures
AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, their drooling attack dog Luke-Jr and their censor Theymos (and all the idiot small-blockheads, trolls, and shills who swallow the propaganda and lies cooked up in the Dragons Den) are being exposed more and more every day as miserable failures.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos had the arrogance and the hubris to want to be "trusted" as "leaders".
But Bitcoin is the world's first cryptocurrency - so it doesn't need trust, and it doesn't need leaders. It is decentralized and trustless.
C++ devs should not be deciding Bitcoin's volume. The market should decide.
It's not suprising that a guy like "One-Meg Greg" who adopts a nick like u/nullc (because he spends most of his life worrying about low-level details like how to avoid null pointer errors in C++ while the second-most-powerful fiat finance corporation in the world AXA is throwing tens of millions of dollars of fiat at his company to reward him for being a "useful idiot") has turned to be not very good at seeing the "big picture" of Bitcoin economics.
So it also comes as no suprise that Greg Maxwell - who wanted to be the "leader" of Bitcoin - has turned out to be one of most harmful people in Bitcoin when it comes to things like growing a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market and economy.
All the innovation and growth and discussion in cryptocurrencies is happening everywhere else - not at AXA-funded Blockstream and r\bitcoin (and the recently discovered Dragons Den, where they plan their destructive social engineering campaigns).
Those are the censored centralized cesspools financed by central bankers and overrun by loser devs and the mindless trolls who follow them - and supported by inefficient miners who want to cripple Bitcoin with centrally planned blocksize (and dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit).
Bitcoin is moving on to bigger blocks and much higher prices - leaving AXA-funded Blockstream's crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust
Let them stagnate in their crippled shit-coin with its centrally planned, artificial, arbitrary 1MB 1.7MB blocksize, and SegWit's Anyone-Can-Spend hack kludge poison-pill.
Bitcoin is moving on without these tyrants and liars and losers and sociopaths - and we're going to leave their crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust.
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Mom's Basement Investments Analysis Services: Newsletter #1

Sorry, nothing profound today. I want to give investment advice, because I really think it's useful. I want to live in a wooden cabin in a forest as much as I did three years ago, but ironically the way to get there is easier if you have money. I work as a Vaishya in the Kali Yuga, what do you expect?
Hello, allow me to introduce myself. I am the founder and sole owner of Mom's Basement Investments, the world's smallest hedge fund. Between 2013, when we first started, and June 2017, when we stepped out of the market, Mom's Basement Investments has booked an annual return rate of 120%. Today we have started publishing a newsletter, Mom's Basement Investment Analysis Services.
For comparison, the average hedge fund has an annual rate of return of around 9%, depending on the period you study. Warren Buffet in his early years had a rate of around 28.3%, in an economy that was still rapidly growing. The conclusion to draw is quite obvious: Rather than sticking to index funds and investing conservatively, you should blindly do whatever I recommend without the slightest skepticism.
The Investment principle used by Mom's Basement Investments is called Mousehole investing. Compare wealthy people to cats who govern the living room. As a mouse, when I enter the living room to play with the cats, I'm going to be turned into a bloody pulp. However, the cats can't reach me when I run back into my little mousehole.
In the world behind the wall, I stand a reasonable chance of coming out victorious. If the cats know this, they would naturally tell me that they're the boss everywhere. The cats will tell you that the abundance of food you can find behind the wall is nonsense and you should go out and play with them.
Even better yet, the cats might put a bit of cheese on their tongues, call it the SP 500 and tell you that nothing bad could ever happen to you if you grabbed a hold of it. If It feels like you're falling down a cat's throat, the cats will says that you're a conspiracy theorist and that you can't time gravity. This is all you need to know about mousehole investing.
Over at Mom's Basement Investments, we don't claim to know what EUUSD will be doing over the next two weeks, we don't pretend to know the content of Apple's next earnings report and we don't claim to know what biotech stocks you should pick. That's the kind of stuff they tell you to look into. The trick brokers use to take your money is to make you believe you know more than you do. What we do claim is to have a 25-fold return on our investment.
This is trick number one I wish to teach you. Don't go playing with cats when there's plenty of food on the other side of the wall. Ask yourself: "Is it worth a millionaire's time to occupy himself with this stuff?" If it's not worth his time, it might be worth your time. If it's worth his time, it's probably not worth your time. Here's what a millionaire would have said about Bitcoin back in 2012:
What, you're telling me I need to sell my stocks and buy neckbeard playmoney from a fat nerd in Japan on a magic card site? That's not worth my time, sorry.
I'm not comfortable investing in something if people aren't laughing or frowning at me. Which brings me to trick number two I wish to teach you: People panic and overreact. George Soros figured that fact out, came up with a fancy word for it and used his knowledge to become a billionaire. People simply don't correctly estimate the value of something. It happens all the time in the world of cryptocurrency, which is where I earned my spurs. If Bytecoin was worth 7 million dollar in January 2017, that means it wasn't worth 700 million dollar in may 2017. Random walk my ass, stick your efficient market hypothesis where the sun doesn't shine.
Move over to Bitcoin. As you all know, Bitcoin is forking tomorrow. Some people want big blocks, some don't. If you read the wrong (censored) places, you'd imagine one side is right and the other consists of shills. In reality, they simply have different priorities and different visions on the protocol. Segwit is supposed to help keep bitcoin decentralized, but the lightning network it's supposed to enable comes with similar centralization risks as >1mb blocks do.
The solution to centralization is very simple: Multiple coins. For some reason people insist on a decentralized cryptocurrency, but then they do expect their own little coinstash to end up with millions of dollars one day. Hint: That's not going to happen. There will be numerous cryptocurrencies out there, some of them decentralized, highly volatile and anonymous, others highly centralized and less volatile so grampa who found out about Bitcoin through Fox news doesn't die of a heart attack upon checking the price. If you want to be able to keep running a full node on your computer, how about making sure Bitcoin doesn't end up worth trillions of dollars? Nobody is willing to keep bitcoin obscure. Either you become rich, or you keep your obscure hacker currency the way it was when you once fell in love with it. Sorry, we can't always have our cake and eat it too. A widely used Bitcoin is a centralized Bitcoin, whether we like it or not.
Which brings me to my next point. Bitcoin cash is coming into existence tomorrow and it's already faced with a price that will be manipulated by irrational emotions. People will sell Bitcoin cash, not because they think the value is inflated, but because they are emotionally invested in a side of a debate. They're not acting rationally, they simply yearn to watch the price collapse. This creates a tremendous investment opportunity. People will dump this currency, but in doing so they will push its price down to below its genuine value. When people trade based on irrational emotions, you're in a position to earn money very easily. Understand this: Bitcoin cash has a value that exists regardless of your personal opinion on how Bitcoin should scale, in the same manner as Bratz dolls have a value regardless of the fact that you never played with them as a kid.
In addition, consider the following scenario: Ten percent of the Bitcoin community chooses to work with a contentious hardfork rather than working with Bitcoin Core. How much is one Bitcoin Cash coin worth, compared to a Bitcoin Core coin? Ten percent? Wrong. Here's what you don't understand: Most Bitcoin Cash coins will be lost in the time ahead, as people move Bitcoin around and lose access to their old private keys that still held Bitcoin Cash balances. As a consequence, a Bitcoin Cash coin will be worth more than you expect. Bitcoin cash will also appear more popular than it really is as a consequence, which will then turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Finally, Bitcoin Cash will appear at first like a failed project. Because of the lack of hashpower mining this coin, the first blocks will take very long to mine, before the difficulty is finally adjusted downwards. This will make people hesitant to buy Bitcoin Cash and will make it difficult for the network to function correctly. What I expect to see is a catastrophic decline in the price, followed by an eventual recovery.
What will Bitcoin Cash's long term value be? I would guess at the project hovering around 20% of Bitcoin's value. "What? That's ridiculous!" Well, consider that Ethereum Classic hovers around 7% of Ethereum's value and is based on nothing more than people who think a hacker deserves his millions of dollars because of some vague principles. If Ethereum Classic can survive, Bitcoin Cash can survive. If Bitcoin Cash can survive however, it will make people highly critical of Bitcoin and the very concept of cryptocurrencies. This renewed skepticism will lead to a decline in the price of Bitcoin, but Bitcoin Cash will be less affected by this new wave of skepticism, because it's not marketed to appeal to newbies anyway.
So, based on how I see the situation today, I would urge you to consider buying Bitcoin Cash, if the price dives sufficiently. Today the futures trade at 300 dollar. If the price were to decline by 80% or so in the days ahead as people dump their coins on the market, I would recommend buying Bitcoin Cash. You should be able to do so on Kraken quite easily. Godspeed.
submitted by sourdoughryebread to accountt1234 [link] [comments]

Bitcoin: How to Get your Bitcoin Core Wallet Up and Running Sore throat and Swollen lymph nodes (Medical Symptom) bitcoin-cli and bitcoind - Breaking Down Bitcoin Ep. 2 Bitcoin - Intro to Political Economy, Lecture9 What are Blockchain Confirmations? Understand Blockchain Technology

Traditionally, no, all Bitcoin full nodes would validate all extension blocks. But traditionally, an extension blocks softfork would only be done for modest max-block-size increases, the kind that you might be able to do with a hardfork. If they try to create huge extblocks in this proposal, then the result will be that almost no full nodes will verify the extblocks. This is not the end of the ... At the moment, only three nodes have more than 1000 public channels open, and as you scroll down the list of nodes, the number of nodes with a given number of channels increases as the number of ... Bitcoin costs then fell from $9,052 to $6,914 on 5 February 2018.[forty] The proportion of bitcoin trading within the Chinese renminbi fell from over 90% in September 2017 to lower than 1% in June 2018.[sixty four] On August 1, 2017 a fork of the blockchain created Bitcoin Cash. High-end cyber safety – Since whole of the trading takes place on-line, it is important to make sure that the ... Blockchain tags along with decentralization through the satisfactory distribution of its nodes. Blockchain incentivization system . These nodes are run by operators or miners who must sacrifice their resources, first to power the platform and to test the blockchain concept, and from 2015 onwards, to truly earn valuable coins as the network incentivizes users. Behind the Bitcoin network is a ... Currently, 4459 nodes channel over $1 million worth of Bitcoin between them and that growth is only expected to accelerate as the infrastructure and product lines become more mature.

[index] [13854] [16438] [45616] [22609] [32506] [14331] [14596] [24984] [4817] [552]

Bitcoin: How to Get your Bitcoin Core Wallet Up and Running

A medical condition caused by infection or irritation of the throat Lymphadenopathy refers to lymph nodes which are abnormal in size, number or consistency and is often used as a synonym for ... How are hashes and transactions determined to be "valid" in Bitcoin? How are nodes determined to be "honest"? How much of this process is automated? Consensus is an agreement on what "valid" is ... What is a Bitcoin Full Node? Why would I want one? - Duration: 11:06. Off Chain with Jimmy Song 19,416 views. 11:06. How To Tell When A Market Is Tradable - Duration: 9:26. Technical FX 37,715 ... Delegated Proof of Stake, Known as (DPOS), is similar to voting for board of directors. Token holders vote for a fixed number of nodes which represent them in verifying and updating the ledger. The number of confirmations is the number of blocks that have been added to the blockchain after a transaction is confirmed. For example, if a transaction is in one block, it has 1 confirmation ...