1KJBLu2QbTgzcxXxS5vuhSFvQBCy9s2wYy (190) ·
We let our game do the talking.
Numpties.
Now.
Streamanity.
Better than the NBA bubble and all crypto conferences combined.
No masks.
https://streamanity.com/video/dWtgFgcWHxSd
Replies
1KJBLu2QbTgzcxXxS5vuhSFvQBCy9s2wYy (190) ·
@931 @109 @4179 @17294
1KJBLu2QbTgzcxXxS5vuhSFvQBCy9s2wYy (190) ·
*May take a few minutes to render on @14352
1EzXMDpxp3cYvHGUBZ9sF7BHStRVxayKaw (6218) ·
1. thanks for answering my questions. i might be wrong and remember something incorrectly(i doubt) but for the most time i am following crypto i was following roger. not nchain or craig. i think i have seen enough interviews from roger.
1EzXMDpxp3cYvHGUBZ9sF7BHStRVxayKaw (6218) ·
2. Roger was always a"bigger" blocker but when debating core/crypto mainstream people he never challenged the idea that users should not have the ability to run their own nodes and verify. his argument was that you can raise the blocksize and still do that
1EzXMDpxp3cYvHGUBZ9sF7BHStRVxayKaw (6218) ·
3. i dont mean he said they should or should not but that its rather important aspect of crypto. i remember an interview where he clearly says that and agrees with the crypto consensus.
1EzXMDpxp3cYvHGUBZ9sF7BHStRVxayKaw (6218) ·
4. with the big blocker camp i meant the bch era. i was not talking about gavin or mike. i dont know everybody in bch but the consensus was that onchain scaling with truly big blocks(gb,tb..) could not work. not only amaury
1EzXMDpxp3cYvHGUBZ9sF7BHStRVxayKaw (6218) ·
5. dont remember his name but some devoloper said the software … itself after 20 or so mb blocks. another guy whos name i just cant remember(from BU i think) was surprised that bsv could handle bigger blocks after the split.
1EzXMDpxp3cYvHGUBZ9sF7BHStRVxayKaw (6218) ·
6. the idea of onchain scaling and bigger and bigger bocks being possible on bitcoin without a major change/fix to the protocol only came from craig. i am surprised you guys dismissed it. i think tk got my point a bit.
1EzXMDpxp3cYvHGUBZ9sF7BHStRVxayKaw (6218) ·
7. just remembered that steve even pushed roger on that and said that can we now agree that they (abc?)were wrong after we saw the 300mb blocks on bsv. roger was not really convinced and asked if the bsv miners were in the same facility or not.
1EzXMDpxp3cYvHGUBZ9sF7BHStRVxayKaw (6218) ·
"some of the arguments i have been hearing for years in btc AND bch... that around 20 or 30 mb you run into fundamental technical problems." min 24:30 steve is making my point to roger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrnwlCQ-l9o&
1EzXMDpxp3cYvHGUBZ9sF7BHStRVxayKaw (6218) ·
he even says that he heard this arguments from everybody.
(yes calling me a coingeek reader rustled my jimmies)
1KJBLu2QbTgzcxXxS5vuhSFvQBCy9s2wYy (190) ·
Lol.
I always assumed scale no issue and thought that was shared. Shocked by rare dissent.
@4179 might shed more light.
1JsbK5xhevVwKG9XBDEeJHgJeEXYbjYRfX (3350) ·
Pausing to write this : @109 if you believe selling BSV now is a wise decision after it has already declined -70% against BTC, this might be a good and reasonable argument for trend reversal?
I see people capitulating left right and center. I am buying !!!
1JsbK5xhevVwKG9XBDEeJHgJeEXYbjYRfX (3350) ·
I too stand by @4179 and @2956 sentiment. I would be absolutely devastated if i were to miss the BSV boat. In the meantime, i dont mind missing on few percentages here and there. But reality is at BTC´s ATH, alts will fly as well. learning from the past.
1z4hdDnjSwqkukN6VuSFjfmA9Zj29YHWc (25395) ·
Im personally in it for the long haul just as @109 suggested he believes is the right move. I think there a few guys right now racking up money on altcoins to buy more bsv down the line.