Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st
by lawn on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:27AM
(#14759906)
Uh I'm obviously referring to BIP148 when I say UASF, but way to argue with semantics.
> BitMain is very adamant about not wanting low fees.
Yet Bitmain supports larger blocks, you're not making sense.
> Your personal attacks and failure to address the technical issues speak for themselves, so I have not quoted them, nor responded.
What personal attacks? Sure, continue dismiss it as "FUD" or "non-technical people".
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st
by rothbardrand on Monday July 17, 2017 @12:37PM
(#14790115)
It's not semantics when you're talking about different activation mechanisms... that you think it is proves to me you don't really understand what's going on.
I point out a contradiction in Bitmains position and you say that means I'm not making sense? Once again, you are arguing that your ignorance somehow trumps the facts.
And of course, you resorting to insults is all the proof I could have needed.
Go educate yourself. Start at bitcoin.org
Who profits from high fees? Core? No. Miners. BitMain is very adamant about not wanting low fees. The idea that Segwit, which quadruples block size and offers a fee discount is an attempt to keep fees high is absurd on the face of it.
>And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not.
You're convincing me that you're operating from a script and have no technical knowledge of the situation.
Segwit2X IS a UASF.
> And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not.
Segwit2x is the majority of signaling right now. (Though it's a fake out because Bitmain plans a hard fork.)
Your personal attacks and failure to address the technical issues speak for themselves, so I have not quoted them, nor responded.