Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

tandfonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 344 posts

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#301

Post by kain_niak »

nullc wrote: post #172
ddtaylor wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people commenting here with anonymous brand new created accounts I don't think those kinds of comments are warranted here. I don't see any increase in the number of green usernames in this thread compared to any other post. What kind of evidence do you have to support these claims?

This thread: $ egrep 'class="hnuser"> ' 21978475 | wc -l 35 21977147 (top thread right now): $ egrep 'class="hnuser"> ' 21977147 | wc -l 0 21974514 (second from top): $ egrep 'class="hnuser"> ' 21974514 | wc -l 1 21974117 (third from top): $ egrep 'class="hnuser"> ' 21974117 | wc -l 1 These threads have similar numbers of comments to this one. 21971545 (Next one down with a lot of comments, 2.5x this one): $ egrep 'c…

So what. Most of us take the same username here so you know exactly who we all are.

Do I have to verify with 1Niak6WPi1NDYquYGBc6TYVerheyEGeXM7 or is my very fimilair style good enough for you?

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#302

Post by kain_niak »

nullc wrote: post #191
rib3ye wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selling coins from the fork is the taxable event, not the folk itself.

The IRS guidance appears to contradict you. https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-profes... If that is really their position, it's absurd and untenable... so I'm sure we'll see further clarifications in the future. Like how are you supposed to deal with forks that you do not know about or perhaps could not possibly have had any way of knowing about? You can avoid uncertainty, however, by selling right…

Are you not American? Have you notified the IRS of every single Bitcoin fork and every fork of every fork?

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#303

Post by intabli »

nullc wrote: post #97
ac29 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is an additional layer of complexity an improvement? Why not make bitcoin blocks 10x larger and 10x more frequent? The argument that "only large entities will be able to keep up with that" doesn't really hold - thats the status quo already.

Why add TCP to IP or HTTP to TCP? It's sound engineering. Like in other systems by composing layers you can achieve the advantages of each component while addressing their costs, without creating insurmountable complexity... "have your cake and eat it too". Particularly, the central Bitcoin system is a global broadcast medium-- necessarily for its security. Global broadcast is inherently somewhat limited in its scala…

It’s not sound engineering whatsoever, it actually is horrible engineering especially when the base layer is congested - Engineers and developers who are far more proficient than you have already chimed in on this, including Vitalik the creator of Ethereum, who also firmly supports the path to scale Bitcoin Cash is taking:

https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/12/26/mvb.html

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#304

Post by xorcist »

nighthawk24 wrote: post #293
xorcist wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when those same people removed Gavin Andresen's commit access It's important to tell the whole story here. Gavin stepped back as lead maintainer and appointed Wladimir. No one else. Maintainership is the sole reason to have commit acccess. All changes to the software are made as pull requests. And commit access is only needed to merge these pull requests. Nobody commits directly on master without going through a pu…

Gavin being silenced is just a tip of the iceberg out of the continual banning and censorship of people discussing ideas around scaling Bitcoin Core chain since 2016. Most of the folks have left for other projects since then and all BTC is left is as a tether propped exchange pair while merchants give up on accepting BTC (thanks RBF too). Bitcoin Cash on the other hand has been gaining merchant acceptance and I've en…

That's stretching the truth far too thin. Gavin was never being "silenced" by anyone. Ask himself yourself, he replies to email. It was very much his decision, and while he may have held some controversial opinions in the community, he never let this interfere with maintaining the software which he did in the best professional manner.

He makes no secret about his disappointment with some of the decisions (or, rather, non-decisions) around the project as of late, but this was several years after he stepped down maintaining the software in favor of his chief scientist role for the foundation.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#305

Post by mrsnuffy »

nullc wrote: post #174
DrCraigWright wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry Greg, we will get to you in due time. It's always interesting how you love to cherry pick and take things out of context. Then this was always your motive. The reference you like to quote about my wanting to limit the size of the blockchain is of course completely out of context. The creation of overlay networks allows bitcoin to act as a single reference source while also having different quorum systems…

I can't tell if it's the actual scammer or a parody of the scammer. I know! you could post a digital signature to autenticate yourself. Oh wait!

No post body was provided.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#306

Post by mrsnuffy »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #36

I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers that think they know what is best and want bitcoin to have a perversely small block size and pitiful 7 transactions per second top speed.

"I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers..."

No... we're not.

There are bitcoin nodes which didn't follow the 1MB block size and "segwit" or "dsv" nonsense .... they just use the protocol rules from the original bitcoin.

To say bitcoin scales just great is an understatement. It scales so well it will consume _everything_

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#307

Post by DagAgren »

alwillis wrote: post #249
DagAgren wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet, the vast majority of transactions on the LN proceed without a problem Because LN is seeing barely any usage at all. The routing problem will bite as soon as it tries to scale.

Because LN is seeing barely any usage at all. The routing problem will bite as soon as it tries to scale. Definitely not true. As I previously mentioned in this thread, lightning has over $6 billion USD in liquidity, nearly 11,000 nodes and tens of thousands of transactions every day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21980404

Those stats are either false, or are actually evidence that the network is tiny. Tens of thousands of transactions per day means it's not even doing a single transaction per second, which is miniscule.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#308

Post by BigBubbler »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #36

I still hope that they listen to reason and increase bitcoin’s ability to scale. We are all held hostage by a tiny cabal of developers that think they know what is best and want bitcoin to have a perversely small block size and pitiful 7 transactions per second top speed.

The new "owners" of BTC will not let it grow. BTC was intentionally captured and development-centralized to stop it from being able to scale and become peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#309

Post by BigBubbler »

nullc wrote: post #139
BigBubbler wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "bcash" term is used to attack BCH. It makes many of the attackers (that are everywhere on social media) pretty easy to recognize. Dishonesty and personal attacks are their "bread and butter". They attack BCH because it is the only Bitcoin still working to allow massive scaling. Dark forces captured BTC to stop it from becoming a real peer-to-peer electronic cash for the world's people. BCH is keeping that dream…

"Dark forces" like people commenting here with anonymous brand new created accounts, slandering people who were tirelessly supporting Bitcoin long before they ever heard of it? Come on.

If I remember right, you came to destroy P2P cash later than I began following it. Regardless, your "tireless support" has been a pox on the real bitcoin and the real bitcoin community you and your army pretend you represent.

Re: The senatorial governance of Bitcoin: making (de)centralized money

#310

Post by BigBubbler »

ddtaylor wrote: post #166
nullc wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Dark forces" like people commenting here with anonymous brand new created accounts, slandering people who were tirelessly supporting Bitcoin long before they ever heard of it? Come on.

> people commenting here with anonymous brand new created accounts I don't think those kinds of comments are warranted here. I don't see any increase in the number of green usernames in this thread compared to any other post. What kind of evidence do you have to support these claims?

Attacking my account age is so off-point. Greg's specialty is using true facts to try to claim or imply false information. I am new to this forum. He knows I am not as new to standing up to his form of dishonest distractions used to derail conversations he knows are bad for his house-of-cards.
Post reply on HN