Create account

Saturn7
replied 2264d
The bottle neck was ABC Code couldn't generate tx fast enough. This fork doesn't fix that problem.
ABC wants to fork for one op code?
Expect mass bannings on r/btc by end of month
En Fri Mand
replied 2263d
SV forked the ABC code. Did SV fix these bottlenecks?
replied 2263d
No, they ignore the bottlenecks. Only ABC wants to fix them it seems.
Saturn7
replied 2262d
Bitcoin SV Roadmap.
https://bitcoinsv.io/roadmap/

ABC creates the problems then pushes shit like CTOR which does nothing to fix issues.
replied 2262d
Nothing on there addresses the bottlenecks we saw during the last few stress tests. Why bump up block size to 128 MB (or at all) when it's clear we can't safely make 32 MB blocks yet?
replied 2262d
Why is it taking so long to fix the bottlenecks? It's been 8 months.
replied 2262d
8 months since... ? These stress test were in the last few months and were our first real chance to see how the network would practically handle such an influx of transactions.
replied 2262d
Yep you are right. I was thinking back to the last upgrade, but the stress test was done in Sept. Brain Fart.
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2262d
🧠💨 lol 😂
Fnuller15
replied 2262d
This!
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2262d
@DashCunning-banned
This guy said what I was trying to say to you but in a much better way.
BitcoinHoarder
replied 2262d
Questions is why any of the groups aren’t putting full energy into ATMP and block propagation bottlenecks
Xib
replied 2262d
Your argument dismantles itself, because then you could say we definitely don't need CTOR because it's just premature optimization not needed yet.
replied 2262d
When did I make an argument? Or even mention CTOR? Im just asking a question, and pointing out the obvious.
replied 2262d
CTOR is a great idea. SV fails because it doesnt implement any kind of transaction ordering. Considering SV is promoted by Blockstream devs it is pretty obvious that SV is hostile.
replied 2261d
Only reason CSW hates CTOR is because it's a competing idea to his patents.

That's it, it's all about the money.

And people like you gobbled it up.
replied 2262d
Nothing like having the sockpuppers using BCH in Memo
Barricade
replied 2263d
Do you mean the code inherited from core? I think it affected acceptance to mempool.
replied 2263d
So you are saying there were no bottlenecks on the SV side during the stress test?
Saturn7
replied 2262d
Im saying that the ABC devs are basilcaly Core. They will keep coming up with problems and push crippling soluitions that won't fix anything. Just like the last 5 years of Core.
replied 2262d
I'm not saying CSW has ulterior/malicious motives, Im just saying I don't understand them, despite having followed the space closely since 2013 and trying hard to see things his way.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2262d
Imagine you had a million bitcoins and you believed that their long term value was about to be destroyed forever. How would you feel? What would you do?
replied 2261d
Imagine you had 10 million Bitcoins and you thought they were going to fly to the moon? How would you feel? See, I can pose pointless and unfounded hypotheticals as well.
replied 2262d
He'd be stupid. Bitcoins value, BCH or BTC isn't just going up in smoke. If he truly believes that, he should sell his coins.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2262d
Careful what you wish for.
Bitmain(China)
Roger
Calvin
CSW(possibly in control of Satoshi coins)
Winkelvi/Novograts
They own 30%+ of all BCH.

It's a billion dollar game of chicken.
replied 2262d
Obviously he can make a new coin, but that's his choice. Bitcoin Cash should stay unified, and it likely will under ABC.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2262d
Timing is everything. And I do believe that "uniting under ABC" does not necessarily secure the future of Bitcoin. It only hands them the keys to the castle. They may lock the gate.
replied 2261d
Just because people are picking ABC now, doesn't mean you're stuck with ABC forever.
replied 2262d
Gotta unite under something. That's what consensus is for.
replied 2262d
We can't just keep forking coins whenever we disagree with someone about something.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2262d
Says the guy rooting for the dev team that wants an update every six months until they can't come up with any more reasons they think Bitcoin is badly designed.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2262d
This argument is coming from an account who's avatar is a V for Vedetta mask. I hope the irony is not lost to anyone.
replied 2261d
I won't be around to trade shitcoins from Bitcoin SV all the way down to Bitcoin Barbie Coin because some rich oligarchs got in a dispute of how the numbers weren't pretty enough.
replied 2261d
Call me ironic all you want.
replied 2261d
LOL.It's not the only post that makes you wonder. LOL.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2261d
How about this instead? https://www.tradingview.com/x/4TiYs9Wm
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2261d
never mind!
replied 2261d
Don't talk to me about freedom.
replied 2259d
I am free to talk to you about anything I want. You are free to listen or not. Daaa...
replied 2261d
Because true freedom is forcing everyone to exist in the christian family unit, and anything else is fucking degeneracy. Your just as bad as LightRider, if not worse.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2261d
Hey 'Zilla, here's a play that's setting up. https://www.tradingview.com/x/j4wlA72a
600 is a reverse H&S neckline.
replied 2262d
been being discussed since before Blockstream even existed. The radical new problems with no explanation all come from CSW.
replied 2262d
The first time I heard discussion of CTOR (often called GTOR - gavin's transaction ordering, or LTOR back then) YEARS ago... This isn't some new change. Implementing tx ordering has...
replied 2262d
How can you say this with no proof? There isn't enough history to prove what you say. All we know is that there were bottlenecks. You are just assuming at this point.
replied 2263d
You seem confused.