Helped a friend to exit the BTC pyramid scheme. Paid 20 USD and the transaction still didn't get in the next block....
The BTC mempool never rises above 90 MB, but transactions with low fees keep disappearing. Are they deleted from the mempool by the miners? Is this how the miners want to keep the mempool constant?
Yes, nodes drop transactions. That happened to one of my "low-fee" transactions.
The BTC mempool never rises above 90 MB, but transactions with low fees keep disappearing. Are they deleted from the mempool by the miners? Is this how the miners want to keep the mempool constant?
Yes they are being dropped. I think it was change made at the previous ath backlog.
The BTC mempool never rises above 90 MB, but transactions with low fees keep disappearing. Are they deleted from the mempool by the miners? Is this how the miners want to keep the mempool constant?
Futurama - Bender's first meal
42,333 views•Mar 13, 2018
495
9
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
- Satoshi Nakamoto
We are just organisms. Products of evolution. Do you hate other species as well?
ticks but they are still not as bad as humans.
We are just organisms. Products of evolution. Do you hate other species as well?
For some reason the price of everything in the world suddenly just decreased by 30%. I took the opportunity to do some impulse shopping.
I also love anonymity, but unfortunately it was never part of Bitcoin's original design and was not mentioned in the whitepaper. The 'cash' aspect very much was.
Which, of course, doesn't mean that we can't build anonymity on top of Bitcoin if we want to. CashFusion, for example.
I would argue that in addition, true anonymity was clearly a goal; just one that was too complex to implement or even really fully grok in the "1.0 release"
I also love anonymity, but unfortunately it was never part of Bitcoin's original design and was not mentioned in the whitepaper. The 'cash' aspect very much was.
When the ethos of BTC, as well as the technical details, changed to disallow Bitcoin's main function (transcactional currency, aka 'cash'), it became incompatible with the whitepaper.
I would argue that in addition, true anonymity was clearly a goal; just one that was too complex to implement or even really fully grok in the "1.0 release"
I agree that Bitcoin is a concept, and in principle it can apply to more than one chain. It's just that BTC, specifically, has very clearly renounced that concept.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin as a "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". That is the concept, the set of principles you referred to. The BTC people have flagrantly turned away from that.
When the ethos of BTC, as well as the technical details, changed to disallow Bitcoin's main function (transcactional currency, aka 'cash'), it became incompatible with the whitepaper.
I agree that Bitcoin is a concept, and in principle it can apply to more than one chain. It's just that BTC, specifically, has very clearly renounced that concept.
*Technically* there was a blocksize limit between 2010 and 2015, but it was clearly meant to be temporary. There was never supposed to be a limit on transactional capacity.
When the ethos of BTC, as well as the technical details, changed to disallow Bitcoin's main function (transcactional currency, aka 'cash'), it became incompatible with the whitepaper.
| BTC is a very limited version of Bitcoin, that's all.
The problem here is people thinking that there is only one Bitcoin ("the real Bitcoin"), whereas there are at least 3.
*Technically* there was a blocksize limit between 2010 and 2015, but it was clearly meant to be temporary. There was never supposed to be a limit on transactional capacity.
Bitcoin is a concept, a set of principles, not a chain. BTC is a low-capacity high-fee version of Bitcoin. BCH is a higher-capacity low-fee version of Bitcoin.
Sure, Bitcoin is a concept, but presenting BTC and BCH as two possible implementations is misleading. BTC is not compatible with the concept of Bitcoin, as defined in the whitepaper.
I've simply stopped referring to BCH as Bitcoin Cash, and now refer to it as Bitcoin.
This is because it's what it is, and because it pisses off BTC maxis (for luls)
Maybe the word "scam" isn't a perfect fit, but BTC is a VERY intentional effort to destroy Bitcoin from the inside out and render it useless.
It's actually much worse than a scam - it wasn't created just to steal money, but to supress one of the greatest innovations in history (and prevent it from threatening the regime).
BTC is a bad, old, and inefficient technology, but its very far from being an intentional scam.
Maybe the word "scam" isn't a perfect fit, but BTC is a VERY intentional effort to destroy Bitcoin from the inside out and render it useless.
One particular scamcoin (posing as "Bitcoin") is single-handedly taking up 54% of said marketcap...
