text:
U.S. Bank Foreign Exchange Operations Specialist 4 in PORTLAND, Oregon
The Foreign Exchange Operations Back Office supports the processing of Spot, Forward, Swap and NDF contracts booked on behalf of our correspondent banking partners along with our interbank, corporate and commercial clients. The department is comprised of Static Data, Settlement, Confirmation and Investigation teams that perform a variety of duties related to the processing of Foreign Exchange products, services and related functions consistent with applicable regulations, policies and procedures. Flexibility in scheduling is needed to provide support coverage expanding multiple time zones.
Performs a variety of duties relating to the processing of international banking products, services and related functions consistent with applicable regulations, policies and procedures. Products and services include foreign exchange settlement, collection, credit, foreign currency drafts, foreign remittances, banks acceptances, offshore lending and investment activities, etc. Communicates verbally and in writing with all parties concerned to resolve discrepancies and/or to obtain necessary approvals. Prepares payment and settlement schedules and disbursements. Ensures that all operational arrangements are in place for proper servicing.
Basic Qualifications
International business technical, trade, or business school certificate
Five or more years of experience in international banking services or financial services industry
Preferred Skills/Experience
Advanced knowledge of all international banking products, services and general bank operating policies and procedures
Strong critical thinking, analytical, organizational, problem-solving skills
Strong relationship management skills
Excellent PC skills including spreadsheet, word processing and database manipulation
Excellent verbal and written communication skills
Well-developed ability to integrate knowledge, anticipate outcomes and use personal judgment
Ability to multi-task and prioritize work in deadline driven environment
Job: Operations
Primary Location: Oregon-OR-Portland
Shift: 1st - Daytime
Average Hours Per Week: 40
Requisition ID: 180026690
U.S. Bank is an Equal Opportunity Employer committed to creating a diverse workforce.
Equal Opportunity Employer Minorities/Women/Protected Veterans/Disabled


text:
2016 Auto Expo: Mahindra e2o Sport unveiled
Mahindra has just shown us the e2o Sport at the Auto Expo 2016. Right from the first look, there is no mistaking that this is no regular Mahindra e2o. It features a wide body kit, rear spoiler, wider and lower profile wheels with sticky rubber as well as massive disc brakes both front and rear. Inside the car gets two racing bucket seats with six point harnesses and a Momo racing steering wheel.
But this car isn't just about the looks. The Mahindra e2o Sport uses an electric motor that makes 143PS (105KW) and 180Nm. And as with all electric vehicles, all that power is available right through the rev range.
This enable the little Mahindra to hit 60kmph in 4 seconds and 100kmph in 8 seconds while being capable of a top speed of 120kmph (all claimed). The steel shell lithium ion battery gives the car a range of 200km on a single charge.
It will also feature the ability to be charged wirelessly thanks to tech from GE.
For more from OVERDRIVE on the Auto Expo 2016, click here
To stay at the cutting edge of automotive news in India, follow us on Twitter (@odmag) or on Facebook (facebook.com/odmag). Or download our app from the iOS or Android app stores today
2018 Honda CR-V first drive reviewBob Rupani | 13 Aug 2018
Top Stories
- NewsF1: 2018 will be Fernando Alonso's last season in Formula 1
- NewsIndia Baja 2018: TVS Racing announces six-rider line-up
- News2018 Msports X30 Karting Championship: Shahan Ali Mohsin overcomes early upsets to win in Junior category
- NewsBMW M2 Competition set to debut in India soon
- News2019 Honda HR-V crossover facelift unveiled, to be powered by 1.5-litre i-VTEC
- NewsLiberty Walk transforms the Suzuki Jimmy into a mini G-Class
- NewsBMW X7 flagship SUV shows its off roading capabilty in new teaser
- News2019 Kawasaki Ninja H2 gets more power, Brembo Stylema calipers and a self healing paint
- NewsBajaj Pulsar NS160 with rear disc brakes spotted at dealership
- NewsToyota Rush SUV to launch in Pakistan soon, India launch next?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
How many contributors does Core have? Were they all at that hong kong meeting? Didn't think so.
Since when did we want bitcoin's future to be decided by cartels holding closed door meetings?
Since when did we want bitcoin's future to be decided by cartels holding closed door meetings?
It's not normal for Bitcoin to be controlled by closed door cartel meetings, but in Hong Kong it is. :P
Since when did we want bitcoin's future to be decided by cartels holding closed door meetings?
YES! This. Oh my god, exactly.
According to the Hong Kong agreement, as long as Core had included the code for a block size increase to 2MB, all of the signing miners have already agreed to activate Segwit before the block size is increased. Why didn't the miners oppose Segwit then, and why were they willing to agree to activate it first?
Because Jihan is counting on the witness being moved into block header after the hard fork so that covert ASICBOOST still can work? Nice try though. I mean seriously, Bitfury, BTCC, BitmainWarranty, and F2Pool have no problems signalling Segwit even though they attend the HK agreement. Antpool is about the only one who is vehemently against Segwit.
This answer doesn't make sense to a non-developer like me. If "Core" signed this supposed agreement, then it is a very good question as to why they would not keep this promise. As an interested, but undecided outsider, it appears to have been a delay tactic. There must be anither reason.
If "Core" signed this supposed agreement
It didn't under any shade or color. This is such an absurd and abusive lie... it's infuriating to see this repeated.
Several people who sometimes contribute to core went to go have some mutual communication with miners (after being urged to not go by others...) and agreed that they would personally work on some less crazy blocksize hardfork proposals after segwit if the miners didn't signal the crazy classic hardfork. This was a personal commitment they made, for activity after segwit, and they had neither the right or authority to commit anyone else to anything, and they didn't. Once the whole thing was made public they were criticized for being politically naive, and that the whole thing would be misrepresented... "I told you so."
In the week after F2Pool outright broke the agreement by signaling Classic, but Luke and some others trucked on and implemented what they said they would. But it went over like a lead balloon, Luke even went on to try to make several other alternative proposals-- but continued to run into the same problem: The only people really urgently clamoring for this stuff are people who want unrealistic 'effectively no limits' proposals, either out of ignorance, or because they active want to split the system.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Classic's BIP109 proposal caught fire on testnet-- months after they wanted it activated on Bitcoin-- and failed all on its own with a bit of help from Bitcoin Unlimited's flawed 109 implementation triggering the split. But do we hear a "Gee, thanks for the bullet dodged there"? nope.
If "Core" signed this supposed agreement It didn't under any shade or color
Can we please restore the name to Bitcoin-Qt? I understand the reasons behind the change, but it didn't turn out well. I'm getting tired of this "core did this" rhetoric. We'd never have the same problem with "Bitcoin-Qt signed the HK agreement" because it would be absurd at face value.
They'd have to say "Blockstream did this" or "Greg promised that". Which could be shown to be true or false, but it least it would be clear who were involved. Now it seems like if I run a full node, or even worse if I got a patch accepted, I somehow have to defend some agreement that I wasn't part of.
I think the name should be changed back to the original name-- Bitcoin; but I'd probably be alone on that. The original goal was to avoid confusion with other Bitcoin software-- but it has hardly worked, e.g. "Bitcore" is constantly confused. Whatever it's called, so long as its successful someone is going to intentionally name something similar to it.
The Bitcoin name was already very overloaded, the protocol, the blockchain, the currency and the software was all named that. Capital B only differentiates so much. So the change to "-Qt" was a little bit easier to understand.
But, sure, I'd also prefer it to "Core". That name is constantly confusing instead. It's also a little bit to close in meaning to a cabal of sorts. It was a bad idea that I hope we can fix someday. But as they say, "naming and cache invalidation ...".
"Bitcoin Core" and "Bitcoin-Qt" did not refer to the same things. The Qt client is the reference client GUI. "Bitcoin Core" is the entire reference client, including the daemon.
People were not using "Bitcoin-Qt" but only "Bitcoin" to refer to Bitcoin-Qt. It's way more clear now with Core than before with Bitcoin-Qt.
People who wanted to stay correct wrote "Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind", which is tiresome.
I think Bitcoin-Qt is a good abbreviation for Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind
Qt is just the UI framework used in the code. It should not be the name of the software project. Originally, and still referred to as such in the user agent it announces, the Bitcoin Core client was called the Satoshi client. Which of course also can be easily confused with other things.
I personally like bitcoind. There are other similarly named projects, like systemd.
I think the name should be changed back to the original name-- Bitcoin
the problem with that is it further increases any ambiguity between Bitcoin the client and Bitcoin the currency/protocol.
what follows is an array of poorly researched "the ceo of bitcoin said...." articles
edit: bad at words
it further reduces any ambiguity between Bitcoin the client and Bitcoin the currency/protocol.
*increases ambiguity
I will always know Bitcoin as Bitcoin. It's only when I started frequenting Reddit that I learned of all this bullshit.
I think the name should be changed back to the original name-- Bitcoin; but I'd probably be alone on that.
You're absolutely not alone thinking that's a good idea. Anyone who understands open source should understand.
Bitcoin is an open source project, you don't go call the Linux project for "Linux Core" or vim for 'Vim Core", so for me it makes no sense to call the Bitcoin project "Bitcoin Core".
Sure people can fork off the project if they want other features/strategies, for example, neovim forked off vim, and it was successful!
Now, Bitcoin is also a decentralized network that requires absolute consensus amongst the nodes, otherwise the system will be set to a malfunctioning state, so we have a fundamental difference here between normal open source projects and Bitcoin. We need differentiate between forks that change the consensus rules and those who don't.
Forks that do change the consensus rules (hardfork) should maybe be considered altcoins.
2 more replies
I think this really stems from lack of understanding about what "core" is.
Anyone using that term as a noun to describe people is doing a disservice to productive discussion.
There is no "core" in terms of people. It's a software project that belongs to all of us.
We should stop using that term in that way.
Now if there are issues with specific people or specific devs those should be addressed...if there are even issues with the process itself then those should be improved.
This isn't US politics. We don't need "sides" -- we are all part of core and everyone should encourage open and fair scientific driven discussion about what should be included in Bitcoin.
It's a software project that belongs to all of us.
I have no final say in what gets accepted. This privilege is reserved for a selected few.
Those people stand for Core and if any of them claim or sign something then it is Core who did.
How would we fix that? No matter the system or the people involved, some humans would ultimately have to decide what gets in the repository.
12 more replies
Earned, not selected. IMO if you have the technological chops to contribute, you can contribute. Bring solutions to the table, not problems.
And who decides who earned it? Whatever way you spin it there are gate keepers.
This is normal and ok.
But you can't say it belongs to all of us.
I think you are describing a fact of life, not specific to bitcoin.
I think a very significant piece of this issue is that people are completely misunderstanding the nature of the group called Bitcoin Core. This is especially obvious from the fact that many, including Jiang Zhuoer, keep trying to demand promises from Core in exchange for supporting Segwit.
To have someone capable of making the kind of promises they ask for would mean that the group had a leader capable of coercing the group into fulfilling those promises. This is obviously impossible, but I don't remember seeing anyone pointing it out before.
The group called Bitcoin Core is way too decentralized for something like that to be possible.
Edit: Well, except for things for which there's a consensus. Although even then, there can't be promises.
This post should be your signature until everyone knows it like their own pocket!
Thank you for clarifying this. It's good to hear both sides on any debate. First time I've heard this side.
To be fair, one of the signers
(thebluematt?)admitted on Twitter a couple days ago the purpose of the HK agreement was to stop Classic's momentum.
Did anyone think otherwise?
I know Greg calls Adam, Peter T, Luke-Hr, thebluematt, etc "politically naive" (among other things) but I thought they did Greg and the small block crowd a huge favour stopping Classic in its tracks. Classic was a very different proposition to BU and miner adoption might well have tipped the balance at the time.
It was also another unmaintained trashfire. Look what happened in the time since-- BIP109 blew up on testnet, rather than fixing it they ripped it out-- then stuffed in the unlimited stuff. Or I should say, 'He'-- because there is only one person working on Classic.
You can try to argue that it might have been different otherwise, but the software is the software. I think the people involved were not adopting a good perspective and were overly concerned about the drama of the day. The end result is prolonging and intensifying this nonsense considerably. You might note that the false narrative about 'the agreement'-- who was a party to it, what they said they'd do, when it would be done-- is the centerpiece in this and almost every argument being made now.
Ultimately, we cannot answer drama with capitulation because someone can always create a even bigger drama. Either Bitcoin has what it takes to stand up to this crap or it doesn't. There is no need to get bent into a pretzel trying to "save" it.
I don't think anyone's said it out loud like I saw on Twitter the other day, but damned if I can't remember who said it. Just checked Johson Lau's tweets and it wasn't him either. Will probably delete that comment soon until I can figure out who said it.
Edit: Come to think of it, it may not have been a signer but simply a Core contributor.
I'd love to see Blockstream's president/king/dipshit comment on this post..
after being urged to not go by others...
Why the fuck we they be urged not to go? Because those doing the urging figured that those going would be too weak and cave to coming to a compromise?
At this point, segwit isn't going to happen. IMO, a UASF isn't going to happen either. So it seems the two camps need to come to an amicable solution to split the project. Let the market decide on the winner.
fuck we they be
Those are some words I know.
Let the market decide on the winner
It will, inevitably. There's nothing anyone can do to stop that happening.
I know the best words! But seriously, why would devs be urged not to go and discuss the roadmap for btc with miners?
It will, inevitably. There's nothing anyone can do to stop that happening.
I'm sure it will. But it appears those that have power/influence are inflexible. So until they loss power/influence(by moving on, dying, getting bribed) it appears we're stuck at an impasse.
This is such an absurd and abusive lie... it's infuriating to see this repeated.
Or maybe it's just an easy to digest misunderstanding made worse by your refusal to see any validity in it.
to see any validity in it
It's just untruthful on its face. You'd be frustrated too if people were constantly going around claiming that you agreed to do something absurd.
"Hey every, xhiggy is supposed to give me all his stuff and is renegging!"
that's bullshit! /u/xhiggy give him all of your stuff! You said you would!!!!!
It's fair to say that him thinking of the agreement in the way that he does is a mistake. Why not forgive him this mistake, and focus on what you both have in common? It's also possible you had a role in him thinking of it the way he does.
edit: It is an extra burden on you, but he's the main obstacle to what you want to do, right?
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
[/r/bitcoin] Can we get this comment from /u/Nullc stickied at the top of this sub? This comes up CONSTANTLY
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / ^Contact)
1 more reply
If "Core" signed this supposed agreement, then it is a very good question as to why they would not keep this promise.
There's no such a thing as "Core". There is only individual contributors to an open source project. "Core" is not run as a top-down management where people at the top can order people at the bottom. Each individual contributor needs to reach near-universal agreement on what is being merged. Likewise, they also need to take into account what the community want (I wouldn't be surprised if anonymous whale-eater like Loaded in Bitcointalk already convinced some of the contributors that they will continue the old chain)
"Core" doesn't sign the agreement, only a few individual signs the agreement (possibly under duress). These individuals have no power over what is being merged into "Bitcoin Core". In fact when they signed the agreement they receive the same treatment like what is being received by bcoin team when they released extension block proposal. Even so, the way I see it each of them still persevere even though Antpool is running Bitcoin Unlimited and F2Pool is running Bitcoin Classic. Johnson Lau is still working on spoonnet and Peter Todd is still working on TXO commitment (which is probably will also be blocked because it is incompatible with ASICBOOST)
Personally I think HK agreement is now moot since Antpool is already running Bitcoin Unlimited and F2Pool is already running Bitcoin Classic.
Oh, that makes a lot of sense. I wonder who these individuals are and if they now support an increase in Blocksize or not.
One thing you point out that I really like is that there are individual contributors. The "Core" vs "Miners" has been overly simplified and makes it too easy to fight each other. Would be great to see those individuals that tend to be in the middle rise to the top.
Would be great to see those individuals that tend to be in the middle rise to the top.
The problem is that once you stated your opinion openly you are vulnerable to smear campaign. For example are you certain /u/13057123841 is not a Core dev? What about /u/bip37? Or /u/dj50tonhamster? (Note: I'm not saying they are, but from the comments they seem to qualify as one)
Lots of knowledgeable people here on Reddit. Unfortunately you will need to be knowledgeable yourself to weigh each of their opinions.
Oh it's very clear that smear campaigns happen all the time on both this sub and the /btc sub. It's disgusting. Especially those attacking Theymos, Roger, Null, Jihan, etc... etc.. that are known people; when they themselves want to remain hidden behind the u/. They have zero credibility.
If "Core" signed this supposed agreement, then it is a very good question as to why they would not keep this promise.
They have, it is part of the misinformation channel's campaign to make you believe they haven't.
Segwit as a softfork is ready for activation and a 2MB hard-fork is ready to be pulled, that is what was agreed to and that is what they have done. I know a lot in core are busting to get segwit out of the way so we can start looking at what/when/how the 2MB patch gets pulled.
However, I don't think anyone (rational) is busting to do 2 major changes simultaneously.
Many people consider a structural solution to the block size (A) to be much more important and urgent then a malleability fix (B).
If a developers team offers software with B, these users choose not to run the software because they are unsure if A will ever be provided. Hence they switch to software that does provide A even if this reduces the quality of the software they use.
This is rational selfish behavior. The only party that is not behaving in selfish rational way is the Core team, who seem to be very reluctant to provide what users are asking for and regaining market share. They only keep accusing potential users who don't choose to run their software for above reasons of "blocking B".
Many people consider a structural solution to the block size (A)
Which is based on the assumption of Moore's Law.
Moore's dead. Now what?
Changing a constant does not an O(n) make.
provide what users are asking for
You've misspelled "I" as "users"-- there is little to no evidence that as a group that Bitcoin users are asking for incompatible rule changes to be shoved involuntarily down the throats of other users.
They only keep accusing
choose to run their software
What does that have anything to do with it? You don't have to run the Bitcoin project software to get segwit.
You linked the word 'no' to an article which shows 49.2% of people who were asked "Are you in favor of a non-Segwit-based blocksize increase, via hard fork or otherwise?" said 'Yes' while 39.3% said no.
Some other choice quotes from that article:
I would like to see a compromise between miners and Core such that the miners are comfortable with the road map.
Nick Tomaino, Principal at Runa Capital
From what I've read, I do feel SW is the right path forward, but miners need something as well. By expanding (beyond the SW-alone increase) blocks a bit more I think there is room to align both sides.
Sean Moss-Pultz, CEO of Bitmark
I wish Core would simply put a 2mb blocksize increase alongside segwit. If they did this, I think the community would rally around them. (Anon 7)
This is a political and not really a technical debate. Activating Segwit plus an increase to 2MB block size seems like a straight-forward reasonable compromise to me. (Anon 13)
I hope the hard-fork comes sooner rather than later, so that Bitcoin + segwit can move on and scale into the future. (Anon 14)
I think that neither segwit nor a BU blocksize increase will gain necessary consensus to be adopted in 2017. Looking forward to seeing some sort of compromise that will be broadly adopted in 2018 — perhaps segwit+2mb. ... (Anon 15)
You've misspelled "I" as "users"-- there is little to no evidence that as a group that Bitcoin users are asking for incompatible rule changes to be shoved involuntarily down the throats of other users.
Aren't miners supposed to use your software? If 38% of the mining power is asking for something, wouldn't it best to try to make them happy either by providing them what they want or offering them an alternative they like better?
How else are you planning to get new features like SegWit through?
Sorry, this might be the words of Core developers, but I get the idea that miners are "blocking SegWit" is a common narrative in the community.
What does that have anything to do with it? You don't have to run the Bitcoin project software to get segwit.
I understand this, but I think it would help the network if each software team would try to gather as much market share as possible by providing the potential users of their software what they want.
I get the impression that you don't want to provide part of your users with what they are asking for, because you believe this would be bad for other users.
I don't think that is a sustainable way to develop a decentralized network.
The people screaming for a blocksize hardfork are a tiny minority, go look at the link: for the most part people DO NOT WANT "Unlimited", even given the relentless deceptive marketing of it-- (more than a few of whom who do have been bamboozled by a well known conman...)-- and what that minority is demanding is for people to spend their own efforts, uncompensated, acting against their own interest and judgement to do harm to other users of the system. Not fucking going to happen.
Personally, I think acting against your own best judgement and against the integrity of the system due to coersive pressure would not be a "sustainable way to develop a decentralized network".
Every one of those measures shows a minority (good job incorrectly rounding up to 50%); and there I was simply linking to the most recent report, and not one that was full of engineers-- in the technical community the ratio is closer to 50:1.
5 more replies
I think you missed the "or provide an alternative they like" part.
If you believe that anybody asking for a structural solution to the blocksize is bamboozled you seem to be misjudging users. The same link you provide shows the majority consider themselves "Big Blockers".
coersive pressure
Oh come on. Fighting for market share != coersive pressure. It is simply understanding your role in the ecosystem as a developer team.
I consider myself a big blocker, but I also see there are significant issues with blocksize scaling currently; quadratic signature hashing, Sergio's recent quadratic script findings. NB: the latter is not enabled by Segwit but Segwit does make it worse due to it allowing for bigger scripts - in my understanding a side effect of Segwit's block size increase.
Before a structural increase in block size can be introduced, these issues need to be addressed; allowing block size increase now is just begging for an attacker to rent some hashrate and create a malicious block to fuck up the network. Instead of hammering on about "Core" not delivering the requested block size increase and them being assholes for it, maybe ask why some of the more prominent Core contributors are not, and you might find yourself actually agreeing with them. I did.
These issues are trivially addressed by limiting the transaction size (which BU does).
I understand why Core contributors are rejecting the blocksize increase but I disagree as I believe it stems from misunderstanding of Bitcoin's scaling and security model, most notably the fallacy that SPV requires fraud proofs to be secure.
"or provide an alternative they like" part.
I'm not your slave boy.
shows the majority consider themselves "Big Blockers".
Keep reading: 23% support "Unlimited", 75% want segwit activated (as an aside, 30 out of 61 is a minority, not a majority).
Coercive pressure is thing like people demanding incompatible changes to Bitcoin and threatening to spend $100 million attacking the nodes that follow the protocol and reject the invalid blocks...
As far as fighting for market share goes, perhaps that is a discussion you should have with the people pushing consensus incompatible software.
The same link you provide shows the majority consider themselves "Big Blockers".
49% consider themselves ''Big Blockers". I am one of them, but that doesn't mean I support shoving big blocks down the throats of all users on the network. If there is wide consensus then I would support a certain hard fork proposal to bigger blocks, but Unlimited is just a very bad way to do it. Segwit as a soft fork is by far the better option and therefore has much bigger community support behind it, except a few miners who control a disproportionally large amount of hashrate have decided to block it and keep us in this deadlock. Such a shame it is, we could have made much more progress by now but it is being stalled. :(
I get the idea that miners are "blocking SegWit" is a common narrative in the community.
Considering how Bitmain failed to deliver litecoin miners to their customers and instead chose to (let their associates) jump into litecoin mining on a massive scale just when Segwit was looking likely to activate there (~ 80% hashrate out of a required 75%), this really does seem like a likely scenario.
If 38% of the mining power is asking for something, wouldn't it best to try to make them happy either by providing them what they want
That's a rather extreme view of changes should be made. The discussion is worth having, but the statement as it stands is almost absurd. It is not unreasonable that a majority of the miners would to cancel or postpone the next halvening. I think most users would answer that with a resounding "no" as it is simply too far from the Bitcoin we invested in.
Miners have invested a lot of dollars (or yuan) in hardware, but most it is a business and they are selling what they mine. Companies formed around Bitcoin have an order of magnitude more invested, and end users are more invested still. And those are the ones holding Bitcoin.
I don't really see how your ideas rhyme with a decentralised network.
If miners would want to postpone the halving (which would be very stupid), how are you preventing them from applying such a simple patch?
You cannot design the network as a whole, as everybody will and should work in their own interest.
Developers can only offer software. If miners want X then devs can either provide X, offer Y which miners also like, or lose market share among miners. It's not a complicated market.
Developers serve users and users serve the network.
(which would be very stupid)
I dare you to substantiate that claim, from the perspective of a miner. They buy their hardware with perhaps a six month return in mind. The difficulty increase only allows for that.
how are you preventing them from applying such a simple patch?
With economic incentives. Since all full nodes enforce protocol, such a patch would be a very expensive exercise in futility. This has already happened, while clearly not on purpose, so there's really no need to delve in speculation.
If miners want X then devs can either provide X, offer Y which miners also like, or lose market share among miners. It's not a complicated market.
With software, yes, but not with protocol extensions. Is this really up for debate? It would clearly have been beneficial for miners to postpone the halvening (after all it clearly ruined at least one big company in that space), and they are clearly not stupid enough to patch their software to change consensus rules.
I dare you to substantiate that claim, from the perspective of a miner. They buy their hardware with perhaps a six month return in mind. The difficulty increase only allows for that.
A single miner changing the difficulty would find himself on a lonely chain.
If say 75% of the miners would collude to change the difficulty they would find their coins to be worthless. Nobody would give a dime for their bitcoins.
Contrary to popular believe, non-mining full nodes have little effect on this. Sure they can continue on the 25% chain with existing rules, but this chain would also be worthless as the attacking 75% can easily obliterate that chain by withholding/releasing attacks.
PoW security cannot exist with the mining majority acting against it.
With software, yes, but not with protocol extensions. Is this really up for debate?
The primary principle of a decentralized network is that anyone can do whatever they want. Consensus simply means that people choose the same rules, which happens because of the incentive to do so.
There is no way to force people to use certain rules.
Many people consider a structural solution to the block size (A) to be much more important and urgent then a malleability fix (B).
Yes. They have been screaming about the sky falling for three years soon, and yet we are close to an ATH. Maybe these people are just wrong?
I haven't been screaming that the sky is falling, but I do believe A is most important. But that doesn't really matter.
This is a decentralized network. Everyone acts in what they believe is their own selfish interest. Just reiterating what people should want isn't really helping.
However, I don't think anyone (rational) is busting to do 2 major changes simultaneously.
You are very wrong on this 1.
If you class anyone who disagrees with you as irrational, then nobody. You're not getting a full picture however.
Typical SJW debating tactics. Start off by saying you have the moral superiority. I understand why people don't even bother posting on this sub any more.
How about you provide actual arguments instead of saying "you are wrong" and then when pressed for arguments throw up some bullshit about SJWs. This isn't rthedonald.
6 more replies
Because Jihan is counting on the witness being moved into block header after the hard fork so that covert ASICBOOST still can work? Nice try though. I mean seriously, Bitfury, BTCC, BitmainWarranty, and F2Pool have no problems signalling Segwit even though they attend the HK agreement. Antpool is about the only one who is vehemently against Segwit.
And if "Core" signed the agreement why are they backing down?
To reiterate, the "big blockers" have never been against Segwit, but only against Segwit without a block size increase.
How many times do we have to repeat "but segwit is a block size increase" until this they stop with this nonsense?
The agreement was for a 2MB HF to base block size along with segwit. You can't just create some circular logic whereby b = a + b because b is a.
An agreement was made and was not kept. Regardless of the terms of the agreement, the terms were not met, it's that simple.
The miners broke that agreement right after making it... why do you keep bringing it up as if anyone but the miners is at fault for breaking the agreement?
There's a difference between a "base space" increase for transactions as they currently are and the increased witness space for Segwit transactions.
Different big blockers have different agendas. Some want sw+hf, some hate sw, some just hate bs and core, many are just bribed and not care. They found the alliance, but I doubt they can have consensus on things
A huge chunk of them are altcoiners working to delay Bitcoin's progress.
You know what gets people on r/btc even more upset than trashing Bitcoin Unlimited? Trashing Ethereum. They get really defensive about that shit.
r/btc support Ethereum just like how we r/bitcoin push Litecoin lately where eth support bigger blocksize/hardfork while ltc integrating segwit. You may read one of the latest posts by Vitalik mentioned that hardfork is cleaner than softfork.
If you visit r/ethereum, you may see majority want bitcoin to be big & successful in order to push crypto forward.
No, ethereum holders these days really want Bitcoin collapse. They keep promoting this concept of "the flippening," where Bitcoin dies and Ethereum takes its place atop the crypto heap.
It is not a true blocksize increase. Only an increase for segwit nodes. It also introduces an ugly discount.
It is a block size increase for anyone that upgrades his wallet to support segwit. Most wallets already do.
The discount serves an important purposes - it aligns the cost-incentives to ensure the UTXO set size stays in check.
The discount also incentives multisig. This is something i just can't get behind and you shouldnt either.
How long do we need to talk until you stop thinking we big blockers are totally stupid?
You've not provided any evidence to the contrary.
After BitcoinXT's blacklists, after Bitcoin Classic breaking down on testnet, after Bitcoin Unlimited's endless crashes, you people still continue to advocate stuff that would break bitcoin. Why?
From what I can tell you have neither the skills nor the experience to realize that these proposals would destroy bitcoin, and your heads are so full of conspiracy theories that you don't believe anyone else when they say.
Don't fool me, belcher. Once I admired your skills and your philosophy, but today you are just fooled by the dragon's trolls.
SegWit as a blocksize increase is a joke. You can preach day for day that ít equals a 2MB increase, but deep inside you know that at best it provides 1.2 to 1.3MB at the cost of 4MB spam.
He is saying Zhuoer is spouting nonsense, not saying that big blockers are stupid. I'm a big blocker and I consider Zhuoer's statement nonsense.
How long do we need to talk until you stop thinking we big blockers are totally stupid?
There is an inverse relationship between the between a big blocker talking and other's perception of their intelligence. You would be best served to sit in silence with a contemplative look on your face. But be careful, there is a fine line between looking like you're working through something and looking confused.
SegWit includes a real, bonafide, actual, motherfucking blocksize increase. A block packed with SegWit transactions could in principle be up to 4MB in size, but in practice is expected to be 2.1MB in size on average. Not "effectively" - actual size.
If you counted all the bytes of a loaded SegWit block, they will exceed 1 million bytes. Not in separate blocks, not using compression - the actual block that contains both the commitments and the witnesses will exceed 1 million bytes.
This is if only all are using segwit ready addresses which could take a very long time when the issue is right here right now.
We still have zero proof of how much this asic boost is actually helping miners. Not only that but we are talking of uasf and pow forks which would effectively destroy btcs network effect
Satoshi by design made bitcoin so that we don't have to trust miners, what we trust is their greed to always want a higher bitcoin price. What amount of money would asic boost save by stalling progress compared to a 5x increase to bitcoin price.
The narrative of how we can't trust miners is propoganda, we never had to trust them in the first place only their need to seek more profits
This is if only all are using segwit ready addresses which could take a very long time when the issue is right here right now.
The extra block space is reserved to those who use segwit transactions. Anyone who thinks we have a issue "right here right now" can just upgrade themselves and start using the extra block space immediately. If anyone avoids upgrading it's probably not a big issue for them.
We still have zero proof of how much this asic boost is actually helping miners. Not only that but we are talking of uasf and pow forks which would effectively destroy btcs network effect
That's not how network effect works.
Satoshi by design made bitcoin so that we don't have to trust miners, what we trust is their greed to always want a higher bitcoin price. What amount of money would asic boost save by stalling progress compared to a 5x increase to bitcoin price.
Very much in a low margin environment. Say you spend 95 USD for every 100 USD mined. A 30% cost reduction would give a huge increase in profits, and more importantly, this will go on as long as no one else uses ASICBOOST. Meanwhile a price increase has a very temporary effect as the only thing that will happen is that mining will reach a new equilibrium.
We still have zero proof
We have enough proof. There is zero reason for Jihan to spend tons of money to put the function in the hardware and not use it.
segwit ready addresses which could take a very long time
Segwit "ready" addresses is P2SH. Anyone who wants to use segwit can use it pretty much immediately on activation, and several of the largest transaction producers on the network today have said they want to...
This is if only all are using segwit ready addresses which could take a very long time when the issue is right here right now.
3 lies. Every single SegWit transaction increases the block size, we don't have to wait for everybody. "The issue" is not right here right now and that "issue" is not a doubling or nothing. With SegWit people can decide for themselves how big they think "the issue" is and do something about it themselves. Decentralized choice. And if you think"the issue" is so urgent then go tell at Ver and co for blocking and sabotaging the only possible block size increase for more than a year now.
We still have zero proof of how much this asic boost is actually helping miners.
Lie and irrelevant. The data is in the parent applications. Doesn't matter if they made the hardware as perfect as it could theoretically be or not. And it doesn't matter if it's 30%or only 1%. That's all too much.
Not only that but we are talking of uasf and pow forks which would effectively destroy btcs network effect
The bitcoin network is a while lot more than just a few miners.
their greed to always want a higher bitcoin price
Yet their greed is much more short term and in bitmains case it's grabbing a monopoly at all cost. Which makes no sense, but that's what happening.
Oh and not trusting miners means that BU with their EC bullshit absolutely completely out of the question as that gives miners way more power.
The narrative of how we can't trust miners is propoganda, we never had to trust them in the first place only their need to seek more profits
And yet it didn't work. So there we are.
Most wallets already support Segwit. It would not take "a very long time."
We still have zero proof of how much this asic boost is actually helping miners.
that's not what it is about i am afraid.
Covert asicboost was jihan's main weapon to eliminate the competition.
He doesn't care about profit now but instead his goal seems to be monopolizing mining and then hiding it via proxy pools like viabtc btctop ,etc
What amount of money would asic boost save by stalling progress compared to a 5x increase to bitcoin price.
It's been mathematically proven that they earn much more with asicboost on current price than fair play on 5 * price increase.
I haven't seen that, though it could certainly be possible (e.g. if you assume in all cases difficulty will rise until mining is nearly break-even).
1 more reply
BLOCK SIZE is not being increased. Stop using the term "block size" when talking about segwit, it does nothing about the block size. The difference is same as buying peeled nuts and unpeeled nuts. Both bags are same sized but 1 bag hold more peanuts. Peeling the nuts doesn't make the bag bigger. So no, segwit doesn't raise the block size. it only adds some peeled nuts to the mix of unpeeled nuts. It also doesn't replace all the unpeeled nuts with peeled nuts. I like nuts :D
You're simply incorrect. Segwit increases the blocksize limit-- if you insist on being be pedantic, it in fact eliminates the block size limit entirely, and replaces it with a block weight limit-- weight better models the long term carrying cost of a block, and allows blocks to be considerably larger in size (and more importantly: considerably larger in terms of actual capacity for transactions!).
So you agree that it does nothing about block size. What it does is add a new transaction type with a new variable called block weight limit. You go off track with
and allows blocks to be considerably larger in size
It only does this to segwit transactions. There will still be a hard limit of 1mb for old transaction type. In a rational world everyone would agree that this means that the block size limit doesn't change.
You continue with
(and more importantly: considerably larger in terms of actual capacity for transactions!).
This is peeled nuts vs unpeeled nuts. Just cause you have a way to add peeled nuts into the mix of unpeeled nuts doesn't mean that the bag gets bigger. What it does mean is that you are going to have to have 2 bags instead of 1. 1 for the mix and another 1 for the peels that in overal will use more storage than just leaving the nuts unpeeled.
So you agree that it does nothing about block size.
No, what part of "Segwit increases the blocksize limit [...] it, in fact, eliminates the block size limit entirely, and replaces it with a block weight limit" could you possibly confuse with "does nothing about block size"??
It only does this to segwit transactions.
Yes, people will have to use updated software and to make use of the new space; just like they had to choose to make use of multisig. Do you think people are out there claiming that Bitcoin does not have support for multsig, because they have to choose to use it?
Meanwhile, these blocksize hardfork proposals also require updated software (in a much stronger sense, too, because they're aren't backwards compatible)-- so are you just going to argue that blocksize increases are simply impossible, since you reject as an increase anything that requires new software to exploit it?
you are going to have to have 2 bags instead of 1
That isn't how segwit works at all, that is disinformation thats been spread wide and far-- but a bunch of ignorant folks repeating it doesn't make it true. In segwit there is one limit, the block weight limit. The size limit is gone. If you have to draw an absurd analogy, you could think of it like a postal service that used to to bill based on length and later changes to billing based on volume (LxWxH).
that in overal will use more storage
Nope, segwit uses the same amount of storage (well whatever, a byte to signal segwit is in use, but it's irrelevant, and your node could choose to optimize that out, though Bitcoin Core doesn't bother); plus it reduces the bandwidth usage for lite nodes and allows a few more options in how many resources they use.
15 more replies
You are WRONG. A 4 mega-byte block, which is what would be allowed under Segwit, is bigger in every conceivable way than a 1 mega-byte block.
Using your retarded analogy, Segwit is going from a 1 kg bag of unpeeled nuts, to a bag that contains max. 1 kg of peeled nuts and max 3 kg of nut peels. This means that yes, there is a "discount" on nuts with bigger peels, but also IT ALLOWS FOR MORE NUTS AND IS A BIGGER BAG IN EVERY WAY.
15 more replies
. The difference is same as buying peeled nuts and unpeeled nuts. Both bags are same sized but 1 bag hold more peanuts. Peeling the nuts doesn't make the bag bigger. So no, segwit doesn't raise the block size. it only adds some peeled nuts to the mix of unpeeled nuts. It also doesn't replace all the unpeeled nuts with peeled nuts. I like nuts :D
Terrible analogy.
If your trash can is full, you might request a bigger trashcan.
If instead of a bigger trashcan you get a second trashcan that can take half the waste, you still get the same result - higher capacity.
Yes, technically you didn't get a bigger trashcan, you get a second one - but the end result is the same your capacity increased, and it's disingenuous semantics to argue otherwise.
4 more replies
Yyou are being lied to.
That typo fits perfectly with the baffled stutter I imagined while reading your response.
Let me explain my answer, when people say "To reiterate, the "big blockers" have never been against Segwit, but only against Segwit without a block size increase."
they fucking know what segwit is, they are lying to you.
Oh, sorry. I read it as "It's not really a blocksize increase, Blockstream is lying to you. Dragons Den. Lizard people. Chemtrails."
If you don't understand, "big blocks" means a blocksize cap larger than what the transaction market demands, so all or most blocks mined would be a lot smaller than the maximum cap, which is obviously more than what segwit would increase the blocksize to.
And "blocksize increase" generally means to increase the size of the base 1mb canonical blockspace by hardfork, so transactions in the current format is compatible with the additional space.
Segwit only enables additional space to a new transaction format, and the block-weight causes the 1mb canonical blockspace to shrink.
2 more replies
So he is holding segwit hostage for political reasons.
Because Charlie talked about uasf and someone ddosed some Chinese pools He holds litecoin back? Very resonable person...
Not some pools, but the ones not supporting Core vision. If "proof of DDoS" works then it will come the new norm.
I sometimes wonder if the DDoSers actually care about supporting any vision at all or if they just want to fan the flames of discord.
voting for segwit
Shockingly ignorant miner does not understand how Bitcoin (or Litecoin) works.
All SF are UASF in a way. Readiness signaling is just a safety mechanism to ensure that as little as possible mining gets wasted by mistake. It has absolutely nothing to do with voting.
Voting is also used in the whitepaper in a very restricted sense to describe the consensus mechanism (1-cpu 1-vote) when deciding which transaction is genuine and which is double spending, i.e., with little to do with actual decision taking.
Other than that, when we say that Bitcoin is a more democratic form of money, it is often in reference to its policy-free and censorhip-resistant properties.
Bingo. You could say all SF are "User Enforced Soft Forks" things like SW are intended to be "User Enforced, Miner activated"-- the reason that miners are involved at all is as you note, because it's possible to minimize disruption with their involvement.
Taking a guess I would say that almost nobody believes what he is saying. It's become pretty clear that delaying SegWit for as long as possible will increase the profits of miners who are using ASICBOOST. Once that news came out then it became very hard to believe anything coming from bitmain and associated mining pools.
1 more reply
1 more reply
segwit increases the blocksize to more than 2MB. segwit disables covert asicboost segwit has other important improvements
miners just don't want to enable LN, they don't want blocksize protection, they don't care about network centralization.
nation state bribes are of greater incentive than mining rewards.
Mining and proof-of-work are the established ways of coming to consensus in a decentralized currency
Instead it [UASF] is a way for developers to act as dictators and decide on the activation of features based on their own personal preferences
It's funny after so many years miners still don't understand Bitcoin.
If you honestly believe that you understand Bitcoin better than a miner who has managed to survive in the mining scene then you are either a narcasist or just an useful idiot. If people like you are the ones that are pushing the current level of discussion on this sub then it's quite clear why the quality posts are non-existen.
If miners try to enforce new rules like increasing the block reward, which they tried (!!), their blocks are rejected by the user nodes so t's obvious who enforces consensus: the users.
Their block is also rejected by other miners. The idea that the mining majority would create and accept invalid blocks and the full nodes would happily ignore them and continue on the smaller valid chain seems rather naive.
The mining majority could trivially obliterate the smaller chain, or could destroy bitcoin without invalid blocks by simple withholding/releasing.
Bitcoin transactions are worthless if the mining majority acts against bitcoin.
There is no PoW security without reliance on the financial incentives of the mining majority, no matter how centralized they are.
The primary variation in a miners' revenue is the price of bitcoin, which they can optimize by doing what users want.
If 80% of the miners would be pushing for something that users don't want, then their incentive is clearly no longer financial gain; they are compromised and out for destruction, which they could easily achieve without invalid blocks.
There is no way bitcoin can survive 80% of the miners acting against it, as the security of transactions relies on them not doing that.
I personally don't see that much difference between ASICBoost and ASICs. Both make lots of miners unprofitable and give some an advantage. Both use patents. Both further centralize mining.
There never was a "balance" in mining. It was destined to be ruled by major companies from the start, as Satoshi already explained in various posts..
No one minds competition between miners.
It's a problem when miners are not aligned with users. In this case, asicboost seems to give a miner the incentive to act against the bitcoin users and block something that is much needed and ready to be deployed by the vast majority of users.
If it didn't do that, no one would cry about them using asicboost. In fact, Greg's softfork proposal specifically does not kill asicboost, just a certain form of it which creates this misaligned incentive to block segwit.
With that I can only agree.
Though I doubt that killing or making overt ASICboost will change their stance with SegWit.
Their "stated" position and that of other miners has always been: We want a solution to the blocksize before we accept SegWit.
WTH are you on about? The asic boost drama is no more than an unprooven conspiracy. Since when has it become the default reality?
Miners are also users. Keep this in mind. In most cases they are way bigger users than a group of people. Not even talking about the investments that miners have made into different startups etc. Since when has it become the new norm to bash the people that have invested the most into Bitcoin and related businesses?
And please go sober up, cause this "they tried increasing the block reward" is as crazy as it gets. The lowering supply of new bitcoins is the main reason why the price keeps going up. Changing this would break Bitcoin.
Since they seem to be spreading BS ("miners enforce consensus" >is simply objectively wrong) and blocking advancements that >pretty much everyone else wants. Miners are there to order >transactions only, nothing more. If they step out of line, they >need to be reminded of that.
Wrong, miners are there to protect us from hostile changes to the code and from the looks if it I'd say it's working as intended. SegWit isn't a done deal. Just cause the most active people on this sub support it doesn't mean it has that support with other users aka the vast majority of users that never us reddit.
It did happen, no one noticed because the blocks were rejected of >course. Even then, my point stands: imagine a miner trying something >like that, or any other change you can think of which doesn't >have consensus among user nodes. What would happen? >Exactly, nothing, because users enforce consensus. Honestly I am not even sure what point you are arguing. This >thread started out with a miner saying that miners control >consensus rules and can change them, which is wrong. You are >defending the miners, which is fine (I also appreciate that they i >invested this much into securing Bitcoin), but I really hope you >don't believe them when they say that they are the guys in >control of the Bitcoin consensus rules.
You are going into lalaland. If a miner did that then they would create an altcoin and it would have a life if its own. This isn't an issue.
Wrong, users do that. Segwit wouldn't happen if all miners were in favor but only half the users. Miners' only job is to order transactions to prevent double spends.
That is way too simplistic. As miners are the participants whose income is directly aligned with the economy, hashrate is also the best and only quantification of economic support (assuming perfect information flow). Furthermore, hashrate threshold is the only sensible way to trigger changes.
Some seem to mistakenly interpret the idea of economy being in charge as the idea that it is the economic users that decide instead of miners.
It is much more accurate to say that the economic users decide via miners.
There is no Bitcoin without users that mine. If you exclude these users then you'd make Bitcoin useless.
Mining knowledge doesn't imply Bitcoin knowledge in general, and these clueless (mostly Chinese) miners prove it every day.
You can read through the consensus code and see for yourself that miners aren't part of it. This miner's statement is simply false.
A confirmed case of narcissism. Let's not even address the part of miners also being users and just stick with the same old grap.
They aren't users in the technical sense (mining nodes are different from validating nodes). They often don't even validate incoming blocks to get an advantage in mining.
They are hardly users even in a social/economic sense too. They only care about profit, that's how mining was designed. Users on the other hand care about long-term health of the network, decentralization, trustless-ness etc, because those are benefits they get rather than being directly financially compensated.
Miners and users are two distinct groups with different motives.
Miners have more to win from Bitcoin succeeding than an average user. It's a bit amusing to see you claim as if miners operate on purely profit and users don't. The magic of Bitcoin is that everyone should operate from the view of maximum profit. Maybe instead of avoiding centralisation we should focus on making centralisation a non-issue. I hope that's a possibility as it would make Bitcoin that much better.
They are hardly users even in a social/economic sense too. They only care about profit, that's how mining was designed. Users on the other hand care about long-term health of the network, decentralization, trustless-ness etc, because those are benefits they get rather than being directly financially compensated. Miners and users are two distinct groups with different motives.
Miners stand to gain the most from a rise in bitcoin and they are more heavily invested in success than average users
That doesn't mean miners are users. The same way as VCs and CEOs aren't ones.
Also, we don't know motives of communist miners in China. Their recent dictatorship attitude seems very similar to that of their politicians.
ITT: BU sock puppets, trolls and the same stupid people that have been told the facts a thousand times, yet are out of the woodworks concern trolling over the typical lies.
As for the article, the tl;dr can be summarized as just "we won't activate SW because of Chinese pride"
China has continued to be poison to Bitcoin for years now. I wish their gov would just firewall them off so we can be done with their BS.
1 more reply
Jihan is the boss of Jiang zhuoer. And Jiang is Jihan's right-arm man.
From this article you may feel that Jihan and his mates may support SegWit in the future. I want to clarify this won't happen.
Jihan and his mates attack SegWit very hard in China, but sometimes he also tells foreigners that he doesn't oppose SegWit. It's very interesting. But it does not seem to be for greater goodness of Bitcoin.
Jihan and his mates spammed many lies to attack Devs. It doesn't seem to be good will.
Jihan and his mates claimed "the market drives changes" to imply that the market supports them to fool newbies. By such lies Jihan hopes he could drive the market to change. When the market support SegWit so apparently and they oppose SegWit so firmly without any reasonable explanation, such lies are so ridiculous.
Clearly, Jihan and his mates' interest is not in the price of Bitcoin, but in the centralization of Mining rigs, which he admitted.
Personally speaking, I think UASF based on 51% hashrate is our only choice.
Ugh, just push a controversial fork so that we can have two competing bitcoins, confuse everyone, ruin hundreds of bitcoin businesses and radically decrease Bitcoin's value proposition!
Ok, so whats the alternative? Just keep waiting until one of the two parties gives in, gets bored, or dies off? IMO, the only way both parties could come together on a compromise is if the prices drops dramatically.
The alternative is to do nothing. Nothing catastrophic is going to happen if Bitcoin just stays as it is right now, no changes is definitely the safest option.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)
Following the rapid increase in price, mining pools have faced pressure from Litecoin users and miners alike: Why aren't you supporting Segwit? As far as most of these people are concerned, "Let's all come to an agreement and prevent conflict" is a distant second to the argument, "Hurry up and activate Segwit so the price will go up!" Two days later, F2Pool began signalling Segwit support.
If Segwit is successfully activated on Litecoin through the use of coercion and attacks, then Litecoin will forever be a pillar of disgrace, making protocol decisions through PoD.On April 14th, F2Pool's Wang Chun, who was already voting for Segwit, posted a message saying "Segwit will be a disaster. I am not going to support it on BTC because I am a bitcoin HODLER." Within hours, F2Pool was the target of more DDoS attacks.
Having explained the above points, I can tell you why I am still not voting for Segwit.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top keywords: Segwit#1 Litecoin#2 mine#3 Bitcoin#4 block#5
The big-block camp has never been opposed to Segwit, but rather they are opposed to Segwit without also increasing the block size.
Wow!!!... This guy, after all of these months, still doesn't understand SegWit IS a block size increase!
When SegWit is activated, we'll be able to fit 1.6 times the about of transactions into a single block. As more multi-sig transactions are used, this could go up to 2 times the transactions. Then add Lightening Network on top of that, and the system can handle 100,000 transactions per second. And lets not forget about RSK... RSK will add Ethereum "like" contracts, ~400 transactions per second (2,000 per second after Lumino Compression is added later), It will also give us 10 second confirmations!!! ...And this guy still thinks we need bigger blocks?!?!?!
We can't "simply" keep increasing the block size every time we need more room for transactions. To increase the block size to 2mb now, then 4mb later, then 8mb after that, and so on, would need to be a Hard Fork each time. Yes... Much smaller coins seem to do Hard Forks with no or little issues. But they aren't a 20 Billion dollar network. At this point, a contentious Hard Fork is extremely risky for Bitcoin. Why take that risk when there is another way? SegWit adds capacity, is a malleability fix, and allows for layering networks like Lightening.
My best guess is that after SegWit, Lightening Network, and RSK, the Bitcoin network will be able to grow so much, we won't need bigger blocks for 5 to 10 years. Maybe longer. Who know what other improvements will come down the line during that time.
How about this Mr. Jiang Zhuo.... We activate SegWit now. We give it a few months to see how things go and time for Lightening Network to added. RSK (not needing SegWit) can go live next month, regardless. Then, 5 or 6 months after SegWit is activated, and we still need bigger blocks, I WILL BE BEHIND YOU 100%, banging the drum for bigger blocks.
Getting support for bigger blocks will be EASY, if SegWit, Lightening, and RSK all fail to relieve the pressure from the mempool and the blocks size.
Wow!!!... This guy, after all of these months, still doesn't understand SegWit IS a block size increase!
Why do people keep saying this? Do you really think that he isn't fully aware of what SegWit does and doesn't do?
Do you see my quote of him at the top???? He's saying he wants SegWit AND a block size increase, and saying that Core Devs are against a block size increase.
SegWit is a block size increase. Originally, SegWit wasn't called SegWit. It was a malleability fix and added layering. The Core Devs ADDED the SegWit code just for all the people and miners who wanted a block size increase. They worked hard and found a way to cram 1.6 times the amount of transactions into what the old nodes will see as a 1meg block, and it's still only a Soft Fork. SegWit IS the compromise.
The ONLY reason why some of the miners don't want Segwit, is that it breaks their covert ASICboost. They do NOT want BU. They are USING the BU people as a diversion to keep the attention off the real issue..... SegWit breaks their covert ASICboost.
What can you do except feel sorry for the BU supporters. They are be PLAYED LIKE A FIDDLE by the big miners.
SegWit IS the best way forward, and the miners know it. They're just trying to delay it for as long as they can so they can use their ASICboost as long as they can.
So many no-nothing NTACs still talking about the so-called "Hong Kong ;agreement;"
"even stated clearly in their roadmap a plan to achieve bigger blocks"
I could be wrong, but isn't this part of the Core plan?
Yes. SW gives us an ability to observe and learn from the effect of a substantial size increase.
I agree with this, why are core not keeping their agreement after this length of time?
(See nullc's response below)
Welcome to Reddit!
(1) The Core project did not agree to squat.
(2) A few individual developers did agree-- on their own and against strong suggestions to not even attend the meeting-- to make proposals for hardforks agreed to do so AFTER segwit (which hasn't activated yet), conditional on miners not signaling classic (which they did anyways), and yet they still did the proposal work they said they would.
Please do not lump all the miners who signed the agreement together by stating "they". According to your understanding 1 miner who was a signatory did not meet the commitments of the agreement.
More than one did, one did the immediately following week. I look forward to you similarly chiding these miners for talking about Core when core wasn't a party to their agreement, or myself, when I wasn't a party to it.
4 more replies
Why shouldn't developers join the meeting? Sounds like there should have been a lot more developers there, so a real agreement could have been reached, with enough developers on-board so the code resulting from such an agreement could actually end up being implemented in the Bitcoin Core client.
Perhaps a new meeting could be arranged?
The developers do not control Bitcoin and do not get to rewrite its rules out from under the users. Even if all the developers were there they couldn't promise something like that.
2 more replies
Core can't make agreements because there's no leader. Yes, there are people with significant influence over the group of people who comprise Bitcoin Core, but there is no leader.
The difference between a leader and the most influential group member is that a leader has the power to coerce the group into doing things. An influential member can only try to persuade the others into doing things.
This is a crucial difference. You can't make promises for the group if you lack the power to coerce the group into keeping them.
The better way to ask this question is, "Why are the core developers who did sign the HK agreement not following through?"
And the answer usually falls back to "Luke made a max block size increase proposal". (Even though it's a max block size decrease until 2024.)
Then the follow up is, "Then why wasn't it implemented in core?" And the answer is, "because it was controversial."
Then the follow up is, "But segwit was also controversial, and that was implemented in core."
I've never seen the conversation go beyond this point.
I guess the answer is because more core participants didnt want it than those who did?
According to the Hong Kong agreement, as long as Core had included the code for a block size increase to 2MB,
So, if this were true, what has this to do with blocking Segwit on Litecoin which has a 4MB effective block size already?
Either you didn't read the article or missed the "proof-of-DDoS" part.
MORE CAPS, MORE EMOTIONS, LESS FACTS. Just they way you like it?
Read my first comment, that was an undeniable FACT. Checkmate.
On April 11th, another terrible thing happened. The pools not yet supporting Segwit (Antpool, LTC1BTC, and BW) all suffered DDoS attacks. After sustaining an entire night's DDoS attack, the next day BW began voting for Segwit. This left me astonished. If Segwit is successfully activated on Litecoin through the use of coercion and attacks, then Litecoin will forever be a pillar of disgrace, making protocol decisions through PoD (proof of DDoS).
So now it's funny that miners who don't agree with Core are being ddosed? Are you serious?
Dude, everything in cryptocurrency mining is constantly being DDOSed by extortionists. Whining about it in public just causes more DDOS because it signals that you're vulnerable. The only solution is to be robust, not to waste time defaming your most recent political enemy-- who likely has nothing to do with it anyways.
In fact lack of DDoS would indicate that miners are too centralized to be affected by it.
3 more replies
1 more reply
I've been putting it off a while, can anyone point me towards the Eli:5 on Segwit? Thanks in advance. I'm not too great with all the technical terms but get the idea of most things.
Reading this should help: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ If you have any questions, feel free to ask
Let's create a SegWit 2MB hard fork and see what the miner support will be then.
Those chinese miners are retards Segwit is a block size increase, obviously they don´t want Segwit for a blocksize increase, they want monopolize the mining with Asicboost and make hostage the whole Bitcoin network unless their demands are fullfiled, UASF now.
u/nullc So, SW is basically optimizing technology? Making the data format efficient so more transactions, two to four times, can fit in a same block. So over all bandwidth will theoretically reduce two time to four time when the number of transactions is same comparing to the current system? Do I understand right?
11 more replies
A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all political philosophies are welcome.
Bitcoin Core is the backbone of the Bitcoin network. Almost all Bitcoin wallets rely on Bitcoin Core in one way or another. If you have a fairly powerful computer that is almost always online, you can help the network by running Bitcoin Core. You can also use Bitcoin Core as a very secure Bitcoin wallet.


text:
- HD Server
Tiger Zinda Hai
RAW agent Tiger/Avinash Singh Rathore returns from the dead to take on an international terrorist organisation but this time he has his wife Zoya by his side.
Director: Ali Abbas Zafar
Actors: Girish Karnad, Katrina Kaif, Prem Khan, Ranvir Shorey, Salman Khan, Samir Kochhar
Duration: 0
Release: 2017
Tik Tok
When a bombing occurs during a soccer match between China and South Korea, the two countries are embroiled in a fierce cat-and-mouse chase.
Point Break
A young undercover FBI agent infiltrates a gang of thieves who share a common interest in extreme sports. A remake of the 1991 film, "Point Break".
Odd Job
An unemployed factory worker takes a job as a hit man to make ends meet.
Girls in Trouble: Space Squad Episode Zero
Girls in Trouble: Space Squad Episode Zero is an installment in the Toei Company V-Cinema series. Space Squad serves as a crossover between the revival of the Metal Heroes' Space…
Call of Heroes
During the warlords era in China, a village located in rural area called Pucheng fell into dangerous situation when its government allocated all its military force to the front line,…
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Fearing the actions of a god-like Super Hero left unchecked, Gotham City's own formidable, forceful vigilante takes on Metropolis's most revered, modern-day savior, while the world wrestles with what sort…
Karikalan is an action film with Vikram and Zarine Khan playing the lead role. Vikram will be seen in the historical role of Karikalan Chola, one of the popular Tamil…
Maximum Ride
Six children genetically cross-bred with avian DNA, complete with wings, take flight around the country to discover their origins.
Underworld: Blood Wars
Vampire death dealer Selene fends off brutal attacks from both the Lycan clan and the Vampire faction that betrayed her. With her only allies, David and his father Thomas, she…
Moontrap: Target Earth
A long forgotten ancient spacecraft discovered on Earth. Investigations carried out by Scout transport her to the moon whereupon she meets the impressive machines preserving the wisdom of that long…
Sword Art Online The Movie: Ordinal Scale
People everywhere were enjoying a new game called Ordinal Scale, an ARMMORPG developed exclusively for the Augma, a new wearable console designed for AR (augmented reality) gaming. But, the players…
Enter the Warriors Gate
Epic fantasy-adventure meets martial arts action in this thrilling film written by Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen. After a mysterious chest opens a gateway through time, teen gamer Jack…


text:
Room And Board Parsons Bed Parsons Bed With Mason Collection By Modern Bedroom
August 5, 2018
room and board parsons bed parsons bed with mason collection by modern bedroom.
room and board parsons bed , room and board bookcase parsons bed with gallery desk, room and board bed frame parsons unique bedroom furniture with, room and board jasper parsons bed daybed with, bed frames pottery barn bedroom crate and barrel room,room and board bed white parsons , room and board bed parsons reviews, room decoration pictures bedroom furniture ideas bed modern designs, get the look for less room and board bedroom dwell beautiful, beds for toddlers land of nod bedroom crate and barrel.
Related Post
Make Chain Link Fence Taller 30 Amp Plugs Frameless Frame Plumbing Supply Des Moines Queen Size Bed And Box Spring Bed In A Bag King Down Bedding Mother Child Pendant Seagate Roofing Modern Platform Bed With Lights Sherwin Williams Universal Khaki Lead Based Paint Removal Cost The Modern Miami Decorative Porch Columns One Sink Bathroom Vanity


text:
1902 Pamplemousse Perfume by Berdoues, This fragrance is part of the 1902 eau de cologne premium collection from berdoues. A vibrant citrus scent for both men and women to share. This unisex blend offers a refreshing scent for revitalizing your day or evening.
Ships to Worldwide
Estimated shipping time
Europe: 9-12 days
Asia: 9-12 days
Americas: 3-6 days
Africa: 9-12 days
Australia: 9-12 days


text:
AAA: Amazing Apartment in Amsterdam
AAA: Amazing Apartment in Amsterdam
As the title says: it's a triple A apartment! A great place, full of light, spacious and with a nice view! At a good location in Amsterdam. From the airport Schiphol you just take a train for 10 minutes and then a tram for 7 minutes or a quick taxi ride and then you're here already! So perfectly close to the airport and the (touristic) centre of the city.
The apartment is west of the centre and a bit west of the beautiful Jordaan area. The Jordaan area is the first area build outside of the canal belt and it's famous for its little streets, many canals, shops, boutiques, typical Dutch pubs & restaurants and of course the famous Anne Frank museum next to the Westerkerk (western church). It takes 15 minutes to walk to the Jordaan and walking to the Dam Square from the apartment would take about 30 minutes, which is a nice walk through the Jordaan and the canal belt, but we don't really talk about "walking distance" here, we talk about cycling distance! Do as the Dutch do and go ride your bicycle! Cycling to the dam square would only take between 10 to 15 minutes. Also a tram passes nearby the apartment, taking a tram to the dam square would also only take 10 minutes.


text:
Report Ad
Expired! This item has been expired. Qc6Ysmdm
$950 Three bedroom Apartment for rent
- Price$0.00
Saint Louis, Saint Louis
Missouri, USA
Sublet.com Listing ID 3747846 Rent shown is for an unfurnished unit. Units can be rented as furnished for an additional cost. The lease term for unfurnished rentals is Minimum 1 year. Lease term for furnished rentals are Minimum 1 month.Professionally managed by US Revi Rentals, call us today at 844-708-4663 to schedule your private showing and visit our website at www.USReviRentnals.com. See your leasing agent for more details.
- Posted on: 2018-05-24 07:03:44
- Classified ad views:


text:
Buy It Now
1-48 of 783 Results
Sixty Four Qinna Attack Methods Yin Style Bagua DVD RARE Martial Arts OOP$34.95Free shipping
Visions of France DVD in Original Case PBS Travel Provence French Riviera$6.95Free shipping
Yin Style Bagua Lion System Volumes 1 - 10 I - X DVDs Set RARE OOP Complete$89.95Free shipping
Kentucky Heirloom Seeds: Growing, Eating, Saving, Best, Bill, Very Good Book$21.95Free shipping
Heaven and Hell, Swedenborg, Emanuel, Very Good Book$191.95Free shipping
Tomahawks, Pipe Axes: Of the American Frontier, Baldwin, John, Very Good Book$213.88Free shipping
Weston County, Wyoming, , Good Book$156.10Free shipping
Silenced, Swain, Beth, Very Good Book$307.41Free shipping
Malicious Deviance, Dr. Pus, Very Good Book$152.00Free shipping
History of Logan County, Kansas: From prairie pioneers to pioneers of progress,$150.87Free shipping
Dynamics Exam File (Exam File Series), , Good Book$405.50Free shipping
The New Testament: A New Translation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts, Greber, Jo$154.72Free shipping
The Advancing Guitarist, Goodrick, Mick, Very Good Book$11.98Free shipping
A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, Chao, Yuen Ren, Good Book$156.98Free shipping
Rock Art Papers, Vol. 14, , Very Good Book$151.44Free shipping
Psychology and Sociology in Nursing (Transforming Nursing Practice Series), Good$176.73Free shipping
Thesaurus of Traditional English Metaphors, Wilkinson, P.R., Very Good Book$271.75Free shipping
Disrupting Africa: The Rise and Rise of African Innovation, Oranye, Nnamdi, Very$534.76Free shipping
Tasmania's Convicts: How Felons Built a Free Society, Alexander, Alison, Very Go$216.95Free shipping
Holography Market Place, Ross, Franz, Very Good Book$210.81Free shipping
Retracing Footsteps: Lakeside Cemetery, Bay Village, Cuyahoga County, Ohio ; a g$225.83Free shipping
KJV New Defenders Study Bible, Morris Ph.D, Dr. Henry, Very Good Book$39.91Free shipping
Bagua Linked Palms Martial Arts DVD Companion Forms Application RARE OOP$34.95Free shipping
WHO Won?!?: An Irreverent Look at the Oscars: 1944-1952 (Volume 2), Robert James$571.04Free shipping
Sprints & Relays: Contemporary Theory, Technique & Training, Jarver, Jess, Very$702.94Free shipping
Thai Bible, American Bible Society, Good Book$51.95Free shipping
Pansy Perfection Cross Stitch Blocks for Quilts (Leisure Arts #3441), Kooler De$435.75Free shipping
Compressed Russian: Russian-English Dictionary of Acronyms, Semiacronyms and Oth$732.27Free shipping
The Dance of death and the macabre spirit in European literature, Kurtz, Leonard$7,094.45Free shipping
Fenton Basket Patterns: Acanthus to Hummingbird (Schiffer Book for Collectors),$25.88Free shipping
Get Started in Turkish with Two Audio CDs: A Teach Yourself Guide (TY: Language$26.93Free shipping


text:
Cheap Queen Size Bed Base
Cheap Queen Size Bed Base is free HD wallpaper. This wallpaper was upload at August 14, 2018 upload by admin in .You can download it in your computer by clicking resolution image in Download by size:. Don't forget to rate and comment if you interest with this wallpaper.
Description wallpaper for Cheap Queen Size Bed Base
- Title: Cheap Queen Size Bed Base
- Author:
- Upload:
- Link: https://i0.wp.com/catladyconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/cat-duvet-cover-10.jpg?fit=450%2C450
- Tag:
- Category: Uncategorized
- View: 0 View


text:
product description page
Quartet® Magnetic Wall Mount Letter Board, 36 x 24, Black, Gray Aluminum Frame
About this item
Sturdy, magnetic letter board boldly displays messages. Ridged surface keeps letters secure and perfectly aligned. With the included set of magnetic characters, messages can be updated quickly and easily. Included mounting system keeps wall-mounting hassle-free. Board Type: Magnetic Letterboard; Board Width: 36"; Board Height: 24"; Surface Material: Painted Steel.
Material: Porcelain-coated steel
Dimensions (Overall): 24.0 inches (L) x 36.0 inches (W)
Mount Type: Wall mount
Package Quantity: 3
Item Number (DPCI): 081-07-0980
Origin: Imported
If the item details above aren't accurate or complete, we want to know about it. Report incorrect product info.
- Wall-mount magnetic letter board comes complete with magnetic characters.
- Use in any indoor space.
Guest reviews
Prices, promotions, styles and availability may vary by store & online. See our price match guarantee. See how a store is chosen for you.


text:
Triangle Playsuit
Sale price $10.99 Regular price
Comfy, organic cotton short sleeve playsuit with snaps at the center front. Sizes 3-6m - 18-24m have snaps at the inseam. Light Grey color with all over "Triangle" print.
- Unisex
- 100% organic cotton
- Made in the USA
- Printed with non toxic water-based ink
Machine wash cold with like colors, tumble dry low
Playsuit size chart:


text:
Lawrence, MA E Juice
YP - The Real Yellow PagesSM - helps you find the right local businesses to meet your specific needs. Search results are sorted by a combination of factors to give you a set of choices in response to your search criteria. These factors are similar to those you might use to determine which business to select from a local Yellow Pages directory, including proximity to where you are searching, expertise in the specific services or products you need, and comprehensive business information to help evaluate a business's suitability for you. "Preferred" listings, or those with featured website buttons, indicate YP advertisers who directly provide information about their businesses to help consumers make more informed buying decisions. YP advertisers receive higher placement in the default ordering of search results and may appear in sponsored listings on the top, side, or bottom of the search results page.
Serving the Lawrence area.
- (888) 543-4224
Serving the Lawrence area.
- (888) 615-3164
Serving the Lawrence Area.
Visit Our StoreOrder Online
From Business: We offer the largest and most convenient selection of eLiquids, hardware and vape supplies on the market today. Most products ship same day for FREE on domestic o…
2. eLiquid.com
Serving the Lawrence Area.
Visit Our StoreOrder Online
3. Juul Monster
Serving the Lawrence Area.
From Business: Shop Smart. Save Now! Jul Pods, Juul Basic Kits, Juul Starter Kits, Juul Skins, Juul Wraps, Juul Chargers, Eon Smoke Pods, 4x Pods and much more! We have the best…
4. You Got E-Juice.com
Cheapest place I've found so far and it's free shipping. Haven't had any problems so far. I'll definitely order again.
5. Vaporlicious inc.
558 River StHaverhill, MA 01832
From Business: We carry all the products and supplies you need to enjoy your vaping time. We have liquids from the top name brands and high-quality accessories in stock. Our sto…
6. Savage Vapes
33 Library StGeorgetown, MA 01833
From Business: Georgetown's only vape shop! We are excited to be serving the local community. Located inside The Pool Guy, at 33 Library Street, we are here for all your needs, …
7. Aqua Dream Pool & Spa's/ E-CIG DEPOT
my pool had tons of algae and was rly bad and they cleaned it up rly quick!
8. vaporamas middleton
2-20 North Main StMiddleton, MA 01949
9. New England Vapors
718 Merrimack AveDracut, MA 01826
10. Hookahs & Vapahs
20 Pleasant StDracut, MA 01826
11. Ez Cig Vapors
Very knowledgeable about products,great deals and take time to show me how to build my mods. Always helpful and never pushing to upsell things i don…
12. Elevation Vape House
1527 Middlesex StLowell, MA 01851
13. Lineage Vapors LLC
60 Main StNashua, NH 03060
14. boston vapor
4 Orchard View DrLondonderry, NH 03053
15. Vapor Station
I bought my vape pen and all other accessories at Vapor Station and I am 100% satisfied with my purchase! I only buy my vape oils here because the c…
16. Vaporamas
449 broadwaylynnfield, MA 01940
17. Mass Vapors
338 Rantoul StBeverly, MA 01915
18. Vaporland Ma
279 Cabot StBeverly, MA 01915
19. Cumulus Vapors
31 W Wyoming AveMelrose, MA 02176
We found19results


text:
Info websites jobs
I need some graphic design.
So I have a small python script that visits links with different headers I need the following: If the response says a token is required, save the certain header as a .txt file if the response says a new version is there skip over it I can do the saving to a .txt file myself, I'm having issues reading the response then acting accordingly.
I get PDFs sent to me with information regarding an event, there are several events in one pdf. I am hoping someone can help me figure out how to take info on a pdf and automatically copy certain information in the pdf and past it in a corresponding cell in excel.
We're looking for contract help with various data entry projects. For example, scrapping websites for contact information and organizing the info in spreadsheets. Scope of projects are variable.
Wir benötigen Info grafiken mit ca 8 Punkten. Wir werden erstmal 1 brauchen, um zu sehen wie ihr arbeit ist. aber komplett wird das zwischen 20-30 sein. Achtung, werde nur den Auftrag geben, wenn Sie mir erstmal ein probe grafik geben.
...techniques. Only white hat methods and ethical work will be accepted. - Backlink pages must relate to our site topic - Links must be from EU, Canadian, USA and Japanese websites. - Link pages and our links must be visible, readable, indexable and do-follow. - Links must be permanent, static html links. - One way links only, no reciprocal links
Looking for a Logo Design for a brand of products. Name of Brand is "Eclipse Shade". Also need promotional graphics done very si...Logo Design for a brand of products. Name of Brand is "Eclipse Shade". Also need promotional graphics done very similar to (See Attachments). For now bid price for Logo and 4 info/promotional graphics. More work to follow.
...when visitors search and surf around the site. With the bot, I hope to make the experience on the site more like the conversation like interacting with a human. Today's websites it's like hunting a needle in a haystack to find what you are looking for, which is not fair to visitors. We have the technology to help them out with less effort from the
...help to gather the missing pieces from their websites. We need: - e-mail addresses (info@.. and of executives where possible). Average of 2 per client would be about 2 500 addresses. - Phone numbers and mobile numbers (that is: all numbers starting with 07 except 077). - Company website (where the info will likely be from) Already provided in the
Hello again Hardik. I left this info on our chat as well. Okay, let's see if I can explain what I need. I need some small changes (except ssl cert is not maybe as small a project?) to my website, [đăng nhập để xem URL] 1. I need that SSL cert. Unfortunately, not sure how to buy it? I looked around in CPanel, and it seems like I've already
Hi I am looking for a new logo for my information course I am launching. It is calling; Fan Page Profit Formula This course will cover how to create a income from Facebook Fan Page. Please see the attached for designs I like (please do not copy) but use them as inspiration for a unique design. Design a logo for : Fan Page Profit Formula
We wish to introduce a new product on e-commerce websites every month. We shoot photographs but need experts who can edit these photographs to make them more attractive and effective. Here is a link explaining a few critical elements of the e-commerce photography - [đăng nhập để xem URL] We are also attaching a few
I need a pro freelance who can extract info and photos fast and accurate.
Hi Mozora Info Solutions, I noticed your profile and would like to offer you my project. We can discuss any details over chat.
I have many forms that should be filled out with the same INFO with a different style or places. I want to create entry form and all information auto fill in all forms
...and its details as per your website document (Completed as content) - Careers: You can add/edit and update your company job vacancies - Contacts: Your location and contacts info and form (Completed as content) For Example the backend of ; Homepage 1- Arrange, delete, update and edit rotating banners with its text 2- Update homepage parts; Logos, History
...[đăng nhập để xem URL] · [đăng nhập để xem URL] · [đăng nhập để xem URL] What are the above websites using? How can we pull data from the above websites as well as other websites? Listings? IDX or other? How can we Pull info from Zilliow, Trulia and possibly [đăng nhập để xem URL] to ours? Website platform needs to be adaptable for cha...
I need data from 2 mining companies Anglo American and Harmony I need ALL production and safety data for ALL Industries and shafts for the last couple of years, and most recent stats
400+ Youtube vids need to be added to a new database. Video Name URL Description & a few Tags Easy work.
Hi Domaxy Info Soft Pvt. Lt, I noticed your profile and would like to offer you my project. We can discuss any details over chat.
Have 2 archives with 1m urls in each. Its company infomation i pass you the urls and want and excel with the complete information
...need you to design and build it. Do a website for retails and sale for aquarium products. example, we are selling items like the shrimp farm,website. - Sure!! Woocommerce websites design and developments signup,customer base, Facebook signup. -products are able to be shared and like thru Facebook , instragam -category and sub category (i can choose
I want to see what's on my home network remotely. I am setup with an apple airport extreme time capsule, and I can currently access it remotely. I want someone to help me set it up that I can monitor everything on my network, include ip camera's
i need a php script or cronjob to scrap some info. more details on chat.
Want to scrap data from TMDB api through php script
...the available products from local market related to Hardwares to our website. >products and related info along with images needed to be scrapped and loaded to our website. >Inventory update needs to be synchronized daily basis from the parent websites where the products are being scrapped >all smart collections needed to be configured > theme home page
...com More info about color's and that in chat. 2. Chat system Chat system means onsite chat as you can see on the below sites [đăng nhập để xem URL] [đăng nhập để xem URL] You have the option to right click on a user and mute or send coins to them 3. Affiliate System Affiliate system well this explains it here [đăng nhập để xem URL] 4. Withdraw
...number. This info can be found on their sites. All the search terms are listed in the attached excel under the tab <search terms>. The data extracted should be pasted in the right columns under the tab <Insert data here>. I added comments in the column headers where you can find extra description. The language of the search terms and websites will be
I need someone to copy information from some websites.
...into Excel list. 1. Websites with companies I need compiled into an Excel list: [đăng nhập để xem URL] [đăng nhập để xem URL] [đăng nhập để xem URL] [đăng nhập để xem URL]
...publicity about the Company) Library/Knowledge Centre (will include industry articles compiled by Salmon & other relevant industry info) Client List & References (who are our customers & what they say about us) Here are some websites that are in line with what we are looking for in terms of Design: [đăng nhập để xem URL] [đăng nhập để xem URL]
...has a good understanding of the local market + the products available for vegans. For someone that is already vegan this should already know most of the info. You will be asked to fill in the info into our pre-defined form, by our criteria/questions, about being a vegan in your country. Please don't hesitate to reach out, will be happy to send you
I am looking for someone to scrape a handful of websites of public data. Some of the sites are as simple as copy and paste to organize in excel, a few others are more complex with some steps involved. Let me know if you are interested for further info.
I have a list of 30-40 websites from which I want to compare the prices for several items. I want to be able to see the current price for an item compared on all pages on request. And do a daily cronjob on all websites to see if changes were made to the prices. I prefer to recieve an email with the results from the cronjob. The prices for these
Estaria necesitando hacer un parser que extraiga de unos html cierta informacion y me la mande por mail. Esos html se obtienen despues de pasar un captcha, encontre una extensión que los pasa automaticamente, habria que ver la manera de que tome la orden desde un excel de los html que tiene que bajar. Gracias
...like to offer you my project. We can discuss any details over chat. I have a pretty simple task, several websites that I would like scraped for some public info. I use octoparse but had some issues, and dont have the time. Half the sites the info is already present on one page, can literally be copy and pasted- organized in excel. Since you know what
...what we needed to get for every keyword that we will provide." Example: We would like to gather info about celebrities diets plans. We give you the list of celebrities and you gather info from different sites. You are to gather info from different websites according to the following plan: 1) Star and his/her diet name 2) Major description of the diet
Hi! We a...reputation of a brand on Quora and we need your help. You are required to create a positive answer on a specific page using the supportive info provided by us. No research needed. Only your rewriting skills to transform the info we provide into an adequate answer. In order to monitor your activity, we will need a link to your Quora profile.
HELLO I AM IN NEED OF EMAIL ADDRESSES FROM ( loan payoffs Payoff Representative Payoff Department Payoff Clerk Payoff Supervisor)
...design in colour. Wallpaper widths and pattern repeats can vary depending on the design. Please refer to attached sheet for more info. Please view some of the following links of other wallpaper design websites for inspiration. I do not want exact copies of other peoples design. I will be happy with your own versions. The styles i am interested
Just simple android application to collect personal information (basic info)
Hi Mozora Info Solutions, I noticed your profile and would like to offer you my project. We can discuss any details over chat.
...scientific research I need an independent SEO expert to score 600 websites according to on-page SEO best practices. No need to visit 600 websites, data will be given in excel - for each website you receive it's URL, target keywords, page title, meta description, body text and other relevant info. You need to give the score to each website: Score 1: website
You have to write script,program to scrape instagram "user 's information" based on hashtag, So progr...waste time if you are not [đăng nhập để xem URL] you have anyway to find emails of instagram people you can [đăng nhập để xem URL] dont waste time everything is written here finally the resulted user info must contain in excel : username, bio, email(if have) ,follower
...quality of the conversation in the comments, so that the blog owner is very likely to see the comment as relevant and approve it. Don't just post "nice blog" or "thanks for the info" because those comments get deleted. You want to write a comment thanking them for the information and making a point about the tip they gave you, or a resource they blogged
Overview Info-Portal Website for Expats in Thailand. We provide information on what Expats need to know when living in abroad in Thailand and also have an integrated search engine that enables users to find & compare Services mostly needed by Expats in Thailand. The information is written in a form of Living Abroad Guide and the Search Engine enables
We're building a distribution list and need your help. We will provide you with the ownership entity name of each real estate target. Your task will be to input each name into a search (website provided) and records the owner's name/ address into an excel spreadsheet. In total we have 1000's of target properties so we are interested in building a long term relationship with a quali...
Hi Domaxy Info Soft Pvt. Lt, I noticed your profile and would like to offer you my project. We can discuss any details over chat.
Hi Domaxy Info Soft Pvt. Lt, I noticed your profile and would like to offer you my project. We can discuss any details over chat.
Hi Domaxy Info Soft Pvt. Lt, I noticed your profile and would like to offer you my project. We can discuss any details over chat.


text:
worrysexyI am a girl with. a beautiful sensual body ,and always ready to give you pleasure,sweet,fr iendly,HOT,funny with many surprises for you, always elegant to dress, with a big smile all the time,funny,intell igent, and very tender,leaves let out all the passion that burns within my...
streptease, I like to play with a dildo, with my fingers, my hands, my body oil, orgasm, sexy clothes, role plays come with memy show is very hot, I dance, I streptease, play with my fingers, my hands, play with my dildos, orgasms, I fulfill your fantasies and desires. I can also be a good company .... you`ll love ... come with meworrysexy angeldirty4uxx1 worrysexy a1sexycleo rar worrysexy arianna harvey hot worrysexy 007katrina nackt or "geile titten" worrysexy fellatioqueen ajnj worrysexy omegalbabes worrysexy hotjannet запись приватов
I get excited all about sex, hot men and sexy, the orgies, threesomes, pretty women, the innovative and different.


text:
$14.95 $24.95 You Save 40% ($10.00)
Everyone knows that beating eggs is a long and rather annoying process. These automatic whisks mean all you need to do to make the perfect omelette is simply press it up and down into into the bowl containing the eggs and watch as the tool will spin around and whisk them for you...great isn't it! Made using stainless steel so it doesn't stain or tarnish, these mixers are as easy to clean as they are to use. You should get one now and start enjoying every step of baking or cooking without worrying about how time consuming it is to whisk stuff.


text:
Manhattan West Hotel
Manhattan West Hotel is free HD wallpaper. This wallpaper was upload at August 18, 2018 upload by admin in .You can download it in your computer by clicking resolution image in Download by size:. Don't forget to rate and comment if you interest with this wallpaper.
Description wallpaper for Manhattan West Hotel
- Title: Manhattan West Hotel
- Author:
- Upload:
- Link: https://images.oyster.com/photos/standard-double-room--v8916440-1280.jpg
- Tag:
- Category: Uncategorized
- View: 0 View