Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Segwit last won the day on March 25 2017

Segwit had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Segwit

  • Rank
  1. Your voice has been heard. The Blocksize debate is now officially over. A new debate has emerged however: "Open Source" vs "Closed Source". I think it is obvious which one Satoshi Nakamoto would choose. And all the BU supporters are now vacating the bitcoin community to join the scamcoins. https://themerkle.com/bitcoin-unlimiteds-closed-source-development-puts-community-on-edge/
  2. The trend is meaningless if" 1) you don't have enough history 2) it is based on too few miners. One miner switches to the other side and it messes up the whole trend chart. It is kind of like doing technical analysis for an altcoin with only $1000 in marketcap. It is generally agreed by the professional developers that 75% is not enough to successfully hardfork (meaning not ending up with an altcoin). Generally it is agreed that 95% should be the minimum. But in truth all this doesn't matter. The users are the ultimate decision makers. See the following excellent article: http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/ True that Segwit could be adopted by another crypto, but not true that this is not going to happen because of its controversy. First of all, Segwit is not controversial. Those against Segwit don't criticize Segwit as such, but believe that Bitcoin Unlimited should be implemented first as, what they claim, the scalability issue is of prime importance (note that they already said that 3 years ago when BitcoinXT was introduced ). What is controversial is Bitcoin Unlimited for the simple reason that it is filled with bugs and ran by incompetent developers in addition to increased centralization which in my book is the coup de grace for Bitcoin. As a matter of fact, Litecoin might be the first crypto to adopt Segwit. http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php I've been discretely loading myself with Litecoin because of that, and as you can see, LTC price has increased in the last few weeks. Actually I believe that Charlie Lee will hardfork his coin without waiting for miner's adoption. This in itself could save Bitcoin from a deadly hard fork as people will see1) how well Segwit works and 2) that a hard fork should be avoided. LTC can do a harfork as it is an altcoin in itself.
  3. You failed to refute my previous statement as you are more concerned about trolling than about educating yourself. Ironically, the link you provided above of coin.dance proves that the majority of miners still prefer either the status quo or Segwit (56.5%). Now, even if the majority of miners were to vote for BU, it still wouldn't matter if the majority of users won't acknowledge the new rule since hardforks are not forward compatible. This means that any hostile hardfork by a majority of miners will inevitably end up in an altcoin. In this case BU would be better off creating a simple fork the way Namecoin did. It is already set by the miners that if there is a fork, BU will have a new ticker "BTU" and Bitcoin will keep its ticker "BTC". The chance that BU will steal Bitcoin is extremely unlikely due to strong opposition by the community. "A Keynesian to you is someone that askes for a market driven blocksize? Well that makes as much sense as your other opinions." No, a Keynesian is someone who favors spending over saving/investment. A consumption society is more wasteful and less ecological than a savers' society. BU is Keynesian because it sees solution by increasing its resources to accommodate more spending. A simple example is like a company which has a factory with a maximised car production of 10,000 cars per year and 1000 employees. To increase the car production to 20,000 car, the "Bitcoin Unlimited" management would decide to build a second factory, hire an additional 1000 employees, and then will be able to produce 20,000 cars total. All sounds good so far, doesn't it? Except that its Segwit competitor with the same problem decides not to build a second factory and not hire an additional 1000 employees. Instead, the Segwit management fires half of the employees and replaces them with robots. By doing so it will be able to increase the car production to 20,000 while reducing the payroll cost and keep the same rent cost. Unlike the BU management, Segwit management will sell more cars at a cheaper price since it increased its efficiency while still being able to meet the increased demand. For your education please read the following link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-19/bitcoins-fork-road
  4. Fully agree that bjoorn opened a can of worm in this forum and that this kind of trolling belongs to r/btc
  5. I entirely disagree with your statement and would like to rephrase it as follow: A payment system needs to be convenient and that's about it. To prove it, lets see what we are most commonly using: cash and plastic. Cash is fast, it is reasonably priced (the cost of printing), but it is not secure (everyone at least once got counterfeit and it can be stolen). Plastic is not fast as it takes 120 days for full confirmation (charge back) , it is not reasonably priced (2.5% to 3.5% fee), and it is certainly not secure (your private key is written in front of the card for everyone to see). Most of the credit card fees is to cover for its insecurity. Credit cards are more convenient than cash because you don't need to budget every single day for what you need to bring with you. Credit card popular use is the proof that convenience supercedes cost, speed, and security. As a payment system, Bitcoin is reasonably fast (6 confirmations take 1 hour to less than a week), reasonably priced ($1 fee will secure faster confirmation and is still cheaper than credit cards depending on the amount spent), and way more secure than the alternative. However, as explained in my previous post, Bitcoin is not meant to be spent as it is becoming too valuable to be spent along with an ever increasing transaction fee. Any shit/scamcoin can be used as money, but no merchant want them either. So lets keep using IOUs (currencies) as this is what everyone wants to receive for the sake of spending. Bitcoin will remain the best store of value out there.
  6. Wachtwoord not only understand Bitcoin well, but also understands "money" and economics very well. On the other hand bjoorn is repeating a common myth that comes from main stream and tends to be Keynesian. Bitcoin is functioning the way it was supposed to. Inflation started very high with 50 bitcoins per block and decreases by half every 4 years. Today's bitcoin inflation is now at an acceptable yearly 4% level. 4 years from now it will be at 1.7%. Because of the constant decrease in inflation rate, miners' revenue is slowly moving from inflation based income to fee based income. This is not an abnormality as it has purposefully been designed in the algorithm. This is the way Satoshi Nakamoto wanted it, which is a coin that derives its value from deflation and scarcity as a store of value rather than a coin which derives its value from utility as money. In other words, mining rewards started to be at a cost paid by holders for the benefit of absent transaction fees (in the early days your transaction went through without paying any fee) to a reward paid by those who use it as money for the benefit of bitcoin savers (Roger Ver admitted that Bitcoin's value comes from the savers, not from the spenders). Unfortunately, not anymore mentioned in the media, what matters is the overall bitcoin transaction cost, something that bitcoin critics used to lament in 2013 and 2014 when the cost was high. This was actually a valid concern as decentralized systems tend to be not as efficient as centralized systems. However Bitcoin is presently proving that it can be very efficient according to the latest chart which shows that today's transaction cost is at the same level as far back as in 2010. (See chart on blockchain.info) So in summary, not only is bitcoin rightfully moving from inflation based income to fee based income, but by doing so, it is also becoming more efficient. I believe that Shaban from Everdreamsoft already understood back then that true ownership of game assets is irrelevant if ownership is not secured by a strong blockchain. Game asset ownership is for holders, just as bitcoin is for holders, more than it is for spenders. Playing SOG does not require constant movement of game assets. Game asset ownership is proven without any transaction required. As such, Bitcoin based assets are best suited for game asset holders. In addition, when SOG assets get sold/purchased on the open market, higher transaction fees will contribute to an ever increasing price of the game assets as higher fees create a new bottom.
  • Create New...