Barricade

Joined Apr 15, 2018

Profile not set

Send
qrnlqdywvesencjyhs755ekyq4twh5xln5he8ejzlz

Legacy Address
1N9Nr52qku1a8RPgW4wF9NMTfT8TR8ZvRN
Actions 1,598
Following 91
Followers 49
Topics following 14
That's not exactly right: they don't let anything, we just don't need their permission to fork off.
But isn't Gab censored for certain subjects? Never used it though.
The market is irrational. And LTC has a good network effect because it was the first altcoin.
The best solution is to not take place in fights. Fighting with strangers over Internet solves nothing.
Their "visions" have nothing to do with it at all, they're merely excuses. Distractions. Cover stories.
What does Avalanche once a block is mined?
How can just post on memo using chat.chat? I still don't understand what chat.chat does...
I am Jihan. Hello Memo!
What's the point? Don't make 0-conf safer in order to not improve 2nd layer solutions?
Could you explain a little more about finalization?
I’ve abandoned this thread for Bitcoin SV thread. Good luck to all! I’m so happy with my fortunes in BSV
No, Avalanche doesn't affect consensus, because is pre-consensus. It improves 0-conf safety, which is needed for adoption. Forfeits are great, but only useful for big purchases.
Very optimist, but I hope that's going to happen.
In early forks caused by bugs miners are incentived to upgrade. Respect later forks, what was the solution? BCH. Segwit was a soft fork, is not comparable, anyway, we forked away.
Yes, chekpoints are a new attack vector, a better solution is needed. But in case of attack, both a deep re-org or a chain split are bad situation, so miners have to choose less bad.
There was really agreement on checkpoints? ABC Included them as a client policy, but I think other implementations (BU, XT, etc) didn't.
Maybe are they censoring txs that go to exchanges addresses to sell, or txs which BCH counterpart used OP_DSV...