Bitcoin Forum

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

How is BTC declining? it's the solid number one coin and we are coming from an awesome uptrend hitting all time highs pretty much daily... so I don't get it.

You mean the marketcap dominance? Well, a lot of people is speculating into other coins because they want to get rich quick, and some altcoins can give %500 gains.

LTC has had %700 gains since it started going up thanks to segwit. Who doesn't hate themselves for not buying in? I want to buy some too, because as long as segwit is not in BTC, LTC has uptrend potential.

So yeah, the scaling wars have made that BTC is not as high as it could be, but nontheless, BTC performance is still spectacular.

Bitcoin is at an all time high.   Enough said.  You must be in the parallel universe where it's at an all time low.

Bitcoin is doing just fine,  drama aside.   As mentioned above,  the altcoins are just being inflated to a ludicrous level.

Step 1) Blame the people who thinking that miners = law in crypto.
Step 2) Blame the trash code and dangerous hostile takeover attempt called BU (aka BTU altcoin).

Are you trying to tell me that the shitcoins Ripple and NEM are the next big crypto?

https://i.imgur.com/mXxZkOg.png

---

99% of the coins are scam. 99% of the ETH ICOs are vaporware or have no real use-cases. Those are undeniable facts. We are currently in a massive altcoin bubble. Once/when it bursts, there will be a lot of people crying and blaming Bitcoin. ::)

BTC could be way higher, and so more useful and stronger, as it near the 10K mark, and the alts lets as a % cap, but still higher.

Rather we have increase in use that is stuck in the mem pool and the market looking on saying I want my coin to be able to have reasonable dev options.

The biggest issue on the table now is the implication that dev can be stuck for years.

BTC needs to scale and can scale, but it is stuck in internecine warfare, the participants of which are so locked in to thier own world view they are burning down their own houses

this makes the use case for alts much more persuasive, and tangible, so yes, XRP and NEM are possible contenders, especially NEM as it hardly get talked about unlike say dash, so it still seems to have quite a bit of room to grow. Also its in japan and has a commercial dev on minjin which helps.

LTC shows as clearly as we have just where BTC could go. There should be no argument that doing something is better than nothing.

I suspect $5k-10k is a reasonable target if Segwit were to get activated soon. Just observe the behavior with alts who have activated it or are currently locked it.

The Bitcoin development process and team is by far superior to any other altcoin.

The developer do not decide anything, thus this statement makes no sense. The developer can merely propose and develop changes.

BTC is and will scale: Segwit -> LN + Sidechains + Tumblebit + Mimblewimble.

Both XRP and NEM are complete shitcoins.

Then go complain to your pool/miners which are holding the network hostage. Segwit will activate, with or without the miners. :)

Yes agree, but that said I feel a blocksize increase would do near the same...I am pro doing something not just segwit. I think the miners must have some legitimate arguments or they would not be pushing so hard.

Even if this is the case you can have the best DEV in the world, but if you can't get it's product running its near worthless

Ok, I mean development in general, not 'dev's' per se.

maybe maybe not .... and it could be too late, post the Flippening


See this is what FIAT and everyone else said about BTC, you must be able to extend the same argument of BTC'rs to ALTs...


I am not arguing in specific pools or even segwit etc but towards the implication in general stagnation

In general this type of response misses the forest for the trees, my argument is stagnation is death not the form of either which are probably both ok. The fact that both sides (and a few other "sides) have devolved into fundamentalism and their minds seem to be shut off to the bigger picture.

That implication is the BIG issue on the table that is going take alot of time to heal as far as the market is concerned.

No. A block size increase without a fix for quadratic validation time would open an attack vector. Any malicious miner could take over Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Core is constantly being improved. Consensus changes are something else and not to be taken lightly.

There is no such thing as the "Flippening". That is complete bullshit made up by r/btc fanatics who are actually deeply invested in altcoins.

The difference being that BTC isn't a scam in reality, but both XRP and NEM are.

Bitcoin is digital cold, not mutable trash like ETH. As such, any consensus changes will take a considerable amount of time to happen. If this was not the case, it would mean that Bitcoin is also easily changed by an attacker. Therefore, Bitcoin would not have value.

Maybe but because its part of the business that sometimes you have to do some maintanance even if it cost some decline in time. BTC has the highest price in the marketcap and probably the most mined. Also segwit has done something to improve transactions but i think it is still not enough to stop any hardfork issues. But still we hope that blockchain could be fixed as long as it takes so that no more issues like this would arise again.

What decline?
You mean the increasing of it's price to $1500 in just a week or the increase of volume percentage trading ?
Honestly i dont see any decline there, with latest legalization in japan and institutional investors has started to invest in bitcoin,  so i suggest stop spreading lies.

So true, I dont understand why saying the decline. Bitcoin is going strong and increasing its price indeed. Many investors are still into bitcoin thats why its been soaring high its prices. So, I dont see any news btc decline in any form.

I am not pro either, and of course quadratic validation, and mutability and other such issues should be fixed.  Implicit is that rational and a non contentious code or even as compromise such code would be included.

No Consensus are to be well considered, there may come a point though where it become deleterious, which I posit it is, now.

See your sort of missing the point.

New terms arise as a way to encapsulate a lot of attributes and make them selves amenable to discussion. You seem to be arguing that a term should not be made up

Then you add, and this seem to be you main argument, it because the makers of the term benefit from it.

I think there is some *cough* currency to the idea.

The alt market cap, tech, desire, all point that way. The spill over from not being able to get your transaction in the blockchain at a reasonable price. I have experienced this and the frustration of it first hand.

You need actual substantive arguments, not just ad hominem attacks.

And ok, if you don't like the ETH roll back you can use ETC. I am not sure this is then a real concern for you, you have the choice of either.

Nor do i think this would mean BTC would be easily attacked, the argument does not really translate as cleanly as you imply. Thier have been arguably clear errors in BTC such a the one that allowed the generation of many etxtra coins and that was rolled back. Now ETH DAO was a different issue, it did what it was supposed to do, but some lazy devs did not plug a known hole.

I do admit there are a lot of vectors.

I do agree that one positive out of this stagnation is if you want to look at a blockchain that is really really hard to change, well bitcoins lives up to that.

When compared to where it could be and in terms of market share, and versus say ETH, LTC, and NEM.

I know it may look health but step back, see where we could be.

We are what 200$~300 more than 2013?

Why is it that everytime there is a little decline it becomes a big issue to some people.
The hike is really higher than the decline so we should be thankful with that.
Our bitcoins now are getting more valuable thanks to new investors and the users.
We should not be creating something like this issues which could be the reasons in making it fall.

I have been hearing people claim this, yet, im I haven't seen a single argument with some evidence of things pointing on this direction to be honest.

I want to have segwit in BTC as soon as possible, I just don't see how. There's lots of money being made on LTC because it's the closest thing to BTC with segwit, and I suspect miners have big positions in LTC and have been accumulating for years planning something like this, so they may even benefit from a flippening, at the end of the day they continue being mining moguls in LTC to...

How do we get segwit in BTC again? I dont believe in UASF. I only believe in miner consensus, anything other than that, and LTC will continue benefiting as it got segwit without any turbulence. I wish I could see UASF as a viable way, just don't see how it couldn't potentially end up wrong.

Well then, increasing the block size before fixing quadratic validation time would be a grave mistake. Segwit is the first step towards fixing it.

No. You're the one who is missing the point. Alts:
1) No scaling issues because they don't have scale. They have almost no use-cases besides speculation and some niche.
2) They don't have governance problems that grew from the first point, meaning they are also insignificant.
3) Some of them do not compete with Bitcoin.
4) Others scale much worse than Bitcoin (see ETH, Monero, Zcash).

The flippening is a made up term for something that has no meaning. People will develop and work with whatever they want. Nobody in their right mind would switch to ETH (yet some have, I know).

There is no ad hominem as I'm not attacking any character. Please do not use logical fallacies when you don't understand them. NEM and XRP are trash. Use Google and then your brain based on the stuff that you find out.

This comparison is bullshit and does not work. The DAO exploit did not break the ETH specification. The Bitcoin bug completely broke the initial specification that Bitcoin had. The difference is major. Additionally, we are talking about fundamentally different stuff considering that DAO is a "dapp" (which are just buzzwords nowadays) built on ETH. ETH has consensus failures every now and then due to their incompetent development teams and unnecessary complexity of their system.

---

"I only believe in miner consensus" is nonsense. If miners form a cartel that changes the supply to 42 million coins, you agree to it? What when those miners agree to censor your transactions, do you also agree with them then? UASF can and will work. You should educate yourself on this matter (and this is not something that we should discuss in this thread but rather UASF threads):
1) http://uasf.co/
2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0149.mediawiki

Mark my words; all alt coins will be replaced by side chains.

Rootstock is a much better smart contract solution that ETH.

Monero will be replaced by Mimblewimble ore TubmleBit.

1) blame blockstream for giving pools the vote/veto power.
1) blame blockstreamists for thinking that twitter = law
1) blame blockstreamists for not realising that saying no/abstaining is a right bitcoiners have to object to something they dont want
1) blame blockstream for making cludgy code that was an altcoin (elements:sgwit)

2) blame blockstreamists for thinking blockstream should OWN and control bitcoin by thinking saying no to blockstream is then a 'takeover' when the reality is the opposite. its preventing a takeover.
2) blame blockstreamists for thinking that everyone should just allow in blockstreams trojan (letting rule changes in via the soft exploit)
2) blame blockstream for not even bothering to listen to the community to recode something btter that could unite the community
2) blame blockstream for causing more debate by backing out of MANY promises and showing no regard to the community

You are right of course. But as you've noticed, a lot of people are trying very hard not to get your point.

Your changeing the goal posts here and not including why.

First it was fixing quadratic, now you want segwit (the rest of it as well). You need to set out more precisely enumerate up front the list of non negotiable's in your mind and why to properly elucidiate and do justice to your position.

Many scale better, or have solutions now, LTC, NEM much better TPS, possibly Byteball, IOTA. 3~4 TPS just is not sufficient for the usage we see wanting to use the BlockChain.

The USE case can be divided in to the current use case and the inchoate use case, which envisage what may be dealt with by say LTC + segwit, ETH or NEM. Indeed the promise of BTC is the inchoate use case as against FIAT which is probally its largest current driver. So your argument seems a little too temporally bound to the here and now .






All terms are made up terms. You have no credible argument here. It has a meaning that many could attribute to it as to when BTC becomes less important in all aspects that an ALT and cannot recover.

You don't have to switch to eth, you can have both I am not sure why you think its a binary out come for the investor. Say you have 100 BTC, you take out 0.25 btc for the ETH ICO, and you have the same % of ETH and you have of BTC.

It does not effect you value in BTC much at all, but you have secured a roughly equivalent percentage stake in ETH. This mean those who do not diversify risk being left behind, those that do judiciously become agnostic and safe either way.

Why are you stuck/persist in this binary mindset?



You are attacking the character of the coins NEM and XRP, by name calling them. You are not setting out a bundle of reasons for your objections. Rather just use an expletive. Maybe that expletive is justified, but you gave no reasons as to why, excepting now we have extracted a few, as in use case,


Even if your right, ETC is available to anyone that does not like ETH/DOA, which you did not address, and is orthognal to any of your issues raised.

In the alternative, your not right because the code base allowed something to occur in eth that cannot occur now via the DOA or DOA like attacks. The is by class similar to what happened to BTC. In fact in the BTC case, new coins were created, in the ETH/DOA case it was a reallocation of existing coins.

I know I know it blows my mind....how is it they are not seeing this .... how are they so entrenched in their positions while their house burns down they say .... we both need the tap turned on more, I want to use the wrench I want to use the shifter and they fail to agree, worse still its almost as if they in habit the same body and one hand is against the other.

The tragedy is watching this all unfold, when everything is in hand to solve it.

I see the miners will have paper weights, and I would hate to be a miner that owes money, as you wll likely have some very interesting people visiting you and core, will be left without anything to core about and drift of to LTC et.al, while loosing most of their BTC value.

In the context of BTC is all about consensus, the cannot get achieve this.

Matthew 10:36

Like my thinking, I suppose most of the altcoins carry the nature of the scam. It seems that any altcoins also start with the ETH ICOs, and the information that they give is fake. And this is becoming popular, I used to hate atlcoin when I knew it, however, instead of throwing it away, I took advantage of it to earn more bitcoin.

lets say 99% or Alts are scams

We have over 1000 alts which mean at least 1~10 will not be scams, 1~10 are legit.

Same again for ETH ICO's. it take a 1000 failures or more to get a good one.

I think we are forced to hedge into some of the more *legitimate* alts just as insurance against BTC problems

Bullshit and you know it. Segwit is the stepping stone to fixing quadratic. Use your brain.

"Scale better" without even having "scale"? Nonsense. Go back to school.

ETH is cancer. It is on the opposite specter of the whole vision that was set forth by Satoshi, i.e. the reason for which we are here in the first place.


No, that's not how this works. There is no ad hominem fallacy in this case and I do not plan on serving you information on a plate.

Completely irrelevant to anything that I've written.

Stop leaching from Vitalik kool-aid and use your head. The bug in Bitcoin can not be compared to the attack on the DAO. The closest thing that it can be compared to is the alleged hacking of Mt.Gox, which we did not bail out.

Your thinking is very much correct. It's completely absurd that scams or things with no use-cases can have any kind of value yet alone have market caps worth millions. This is all orchestrated by Poloniex and the group pumping with it.

My question becomes why anyone cares about the market cap dominance of literally all other alts versus Bitcoin right now.

If it truly mattered, then we would have more people talking about it. But when you have every shitcoin on the market being pumped (the top 5 now all have market caps above $1B what the fuck) and the market cap for everything has been pushed to $50B it is completely irrelevant because EVERYTHING is so overvalued it doesn't matter anymore.

If anything, the volume matters more. And Bitcoin is the only coin breaking $300m volume per 24h right now.

The entire altcoin market is pumped and stupidly overvalued with nothing to back it up. I'm almost tempted to have shorts ready for a majority of them.

Market cap story time:

once upon a time bitcoin had 16,000,000 (16 million) coin and was worth $1600 so its marketcap was nearly 26,000,000,000 (26 billion).

so the scientist went hard at work, working day and night in their mathematics lab to come up with a solution to defeat bitcoin at market cap.
"Eureka!" an excited little kid was shouting, standing in the dark corner of the lab.
other scientists rushed to see what he has found.
"We make more coins" he said slyly.
"we make 70,000,000 (70 million) coins, and never put a cap on that number so in a short while we reach 91,000,000 and after a couple of months we will be at 300,000,000 (300 mil) coin" he continued.
"but what about the price?" a scientist murmured.
"Don't you worry about that, we keep the first 70 million coins to ourselves and buy more in the pump and dumps. we have banks to support us. soon with 300 million we don't need price, we can easily take over bitcoin's market cap with a small price of $86".

"what about bitcoin price?" an old timer said.
"don't you worry, we have a lot of shills spreading FUD about bitcoin 24/7. and then we also start a spam attack on the network to heat everything up" the kid said with his eyes sparkling.

the scientists went out to celebrate their new find with bubbly Cider. ;D

The End

Ad hominem, also why do you need he segregate witness part, you originally only insisted on quadratic.



No substantive argument:: ignores the differing algo's another would be nimblewimble;

[/quote]
Orthogonal argument, talking about hedging by value with very little cost to BTC position is not EQ to X algo is cancer.

Apparently has a rebuttal but refuses to enlighten us.

Also note for clarity while could, I chose not to use "ad hominem" in my next exposition of the point just to close the gate on any possibility of that argument sounding again.



Your right it is irrelevant to what you have written because what you wrote is orthogonal to my points  being ETC is available to you and satisfies your criteria, You have agreed your own written words are irrelevant to my point made. I agree to that as well.


No substantive attack, Mt. Gox occurred off chain....again orthogonal argument.

I must say, your the most entertaining witness to have on cross Lauda

There is no ad hominem. You're starting to become delusional. Segwit's sighash is the first step to fixing the quadratic validation time. Looks like you don't know anything about any of this.

The argument is there. You don't either understand it or you can't refute it.

Orthogonal argument. Conclusion: ETH is cancer.

Learn to use Google.

False comparison fallacy and irrelevant point. Whether it exists or not is entirely irrelevant.

Mt.Gox was on-chain, due to TX malleability (or the claim of). That's the closest you get in Bitcoin to the DAO disaster.

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, is close to the BU shills. Keep it up and you may get offered a job by Ver. Degree not as useful nowadays?

looks like the whale responsible for putting up the fake buy walls on kraken was getting high and forgot to do it. i wonder if he is going to get fired from the shill army or not. you know, from the payroll.

https://i.imgur.com/mTNmcrx.png

got it from the wall ;D

I think that this is:
1) very good
2) a logical consequence of crypto's dynamics

The reason why I think that it is very good, is manifold, but mainly, we know that a market with a monopolist is not very competitive.  Bitcoin was the de facto monopolist of the crypto landscape, because it has its first-mover effect still going, and it has a larger network effect.  This is what was holding crypto back, because bitcoin is the oldest technology, and many newer crypto ('alt coins') have vastly improved technology over all the problems that bitcoin has.  This is normal: the Ford-T was a successful invention, but in a competitive market, one moves on ; while in crypto, Ford-T was still the monopolist.

A market in which there is a market leader with more than 80% of market share, is a de facto monopolist, and kills essentially the competition ; a market where the market leader has a small share, is a fully competitive and efficient market.  This is why I think it is very good that bitcoin is losing its monopoly and stops killing crypto competition.  BTW, the very fact that we have "bitcoin" and "alt coins", and that "alt coins" are (stupidly) expressed in "bitcoin" demonstrates the asymmetry of the market.   If this can finally be corrected and become a fully competitive market, I can only think of that as positive.


The reason why I think that this evolution is a logical consequence of what crypto is, goes as follows.   A currency (tokens with which one buys mainly stuff with merchants and gets paid in) has a strong "monopolizing" effect, because the utility of a currency increases with its network size.  As such, currencies in competition usually form a natural market monopoly: the currency with the biggest effect "eats" all the others.  This was a reason why people said that only bitcoin could thrive.

However, crypto is not a currency.  Crypto is a speculative "greater fool" asset, where, due to the very deflationary emission curves of most of them, one can win a lot of money by being "early adopter", profiting from monumental amounts of seigniorage.  This has been massively the case with bitcoin, who has made a few very big fortunes.  The point, however, with such systems is that the more they "mature", the less speculative gain there is to be expected.
And, contrary to a set of currencies in competition, where the biggest network effect amplifies the monopoly of one, a set of competing speculative assets will rather "distribute" market share, because the most interesting speculative assets are not the biggest ones, where less profit is to be made.  

Thus the nature of being "speculative assets" makes that there's a natural tendency for the smaller market caps to grow quicker than the large market caps, bringing more uniformity in the market.

You can't hope to quickly do a x5 on bitcoin ; but it has recently been done with several big alt coins.  As such, for speculators, medium alt coins are more attractive than bitcoin, until these grow to the order of bitcoin's market cap.  Best speculation is probably a spread over many alt coins, as is usually the case in highly speculative markets.

This is why bitcoin's market domination is falling.  Bitcoin can still be a market leader, with, say, 10% market share.  That would be a healthy market.

There are other solutions, I am using quadratic as a place holder for that issue, if you want another why not FLEXTRANS solution to meet your initial objection / comment.

I did, by giving and example of an algo that is massively more efficient than BTC, niblewimble

ETH is cancer, Q.E.D.

You and others may appreciate how that does not quite constitute a proof, though it may make for the shortest white paper ever.

No substantive argument, not even a search term, they even have a let me google that for you if you want:: please let me
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=seach+terms+how+to+use+google
 (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=seach+terms+how+to+use+google)

Yes you did make a false comparison to the point I initially raised, we both agree on this.


Mt.Gox was on-chain, due to TX malleability (or the claim of). That's the closest you get in Bitcoin to the DAO disaster.
Well Karples may have us believe that...if so I accept I am wrong on that point. I hope you will forgive me If I don't quite believe Karples version of events.


People don't make concerted  argument without reason, and self interest does not always make the reason bad, in fact it make be a manifestation of the importance of that reason. It's all part of the the conversation in the search for truth, I aim to be untouched by the deleterious emotive feelings that can hinder moving on or not accepting evolution to an improved idea. I take no position on BU or Segwit beyond something has to be done, and what is happening now is at best tragic. I want BTC to succeed and see every reason why it should.

what are you talking about have nothing to do with the success of bitcoin, it's just mean that more money are in altcoin in comparison to the past, but still bitcoin managed to increase to a very high level

remember that investors jump on altcoin to have more bitcoin, but soem of them like ETH are too big too die already, ETH is the only one that can pose a threat to bitcoin, the other coins have an insignificant maretcap

I see this as a huge FOMO campaign, where a bunch of people in Japan were exposed to Crypto currency for the first time. The government legalized it and more people started to use it. They bought Bitcoin and soon realized that there are other coins too, and they started to buy some of that too.

They told the neighbor about their new Crypto currency investment and the neighbor not wanting to miss out on something has started to buy some too, and this is what is driving the Alt coin boom.

They will soon realize most of these other Alt coins are Shitcoins and they will start buying bitcoin again. ^smile^

market caps are bubble numbers of meaningless stats.

anyone can create an altcoin with a trillion coins. sell just 1 coin for 1 dollar and it instantly calculates to a trillion dollar market cap.
thats how manipulatable and empty of meaning the "market cap" is

as for drama of "bitcoins falling cap" lol im laughing
the cap is higher than its ever been

this time last year it was not even $16bill. now its over $25bill. (even if the numbers are bubble numbers, i still laugh at people shouting doomsdays)

---

screw it
XRP has over 37b coins in circulation.
even if XRP only traded 1 coin on an exchange. and some person made it trade for $1
then the "cap" would exceed bitcoin.

this does not mean XRP is suddenly better than bitcoin.

the market cap is a meaningless bubble number.
there is NOT $26billion fiat sitting in bank accounts backing bitcoin
there is NOT $8billion fiat sitting in bank accounts baking ether
there is NOT $6billion fiat sitting in bank accounts backing xrp

i dont know why people are obsessed with the market cap, when its a meaningless number

There are no other solutions. The only one that attempts to fix the same problem is Flextrans which is basically a Segwit second class ripoff. It isn't even nearly as tested as Segwit, does not have supermajority of developers in favor of it and it requires a hard fork. Therefore, Segwit is the desirable fix.

First learn the real name, which is mimblewimble. Secondly, learn why it has a high TPS and the cons which that brings.

Incorrect. You made a false comparison.

There is no way to prove it from this distance, which is why I mentioned that he claimed this happened.

If you're a passive bystander or in support of a hostile takeover, you don't really want BTC to succeed (hint: It already succeeded).

Someone understands it.

I am sure that OP has a little misunderstanding here. Just because there seems to a decrease in the Bitcoin dominance does not mean that Bitcoin is actually decreasing in terms of value. The whole cryptomarket is right now expanding and many "investors" are also looking into the altcoin market that is why in terms of percentage of market dominance Bitcoin is affected. Those numbers are actually nothing and just there for us to behold.

This is of course true.  But it applies as well to bitcoin as to others.   So, essentially, you can measure the kind of validity of a market cap as a function of the trading volume.  I agree that even that is not a full proof: you can trade the same single coin back and forth and pump a market cap very high.

Another indication of relative market share might be the shares in trading volumes of coins.  Well, there, bitcoin is only around 30% or so right at this moment (bitcoin volume: 1.3 billion, total volume 2.9 billion).

Given these values, it seems that bitcoin is actually having an over-estimated market cap with a bigger over-estimation than its peers, and that bitcoin's "crypto market share" is somewhere between 30% and 50% or so at this moment.

Your objection was must solve the quadratic problem for blocksize increase. Fair enough, I agree. I point out that segwit is not a condition precedent to that part of the code, you counter it is a condition desirable or precedent, I say it could be a road block to BU or other, so why not compromise, and point to flex trans, which offers code that also solves the Quad problem. My point being, using a solution to a issue, you initially pointed, but have not really given a reason why this means all of segwit has to come with it.

My point being I am trying to reaches a compromise that lets us go forward.

we both misstype, as you did earlier "digital cold" you meant "digital gold" I think, I was gracious enough at the time not to harp on it. You would be better served by doing the same.

Yes there are often trade offs, but TPS solutions have market appeal and there are superior ones to the current state of BTC was the contention. You admit mimblewimble has a higher TPS and lower ovehead. My point was there are other algos that provide solutions to scaleing, more efficiently than BTC. I feel BTC is trying to be an everyman, and being squashed between ETH, High TPS, and Backbone solutions, better anonymity. BTC with segwit, LTN, nimblewimble, tubmlebit may solve this.
  
I made the initial proposition that ETC ($300M) was available to your complaint of "not mutable trash like ETH." You did not address this any of your responses.

So this example can not be raised [by you] with any confidence so end of that argument for you

This is exactly the mindset I am talking about one that has hedged any alternative into it must be them and not me at all costs

Anyway at least your narrowing the issues now arguments you have abandoned or I have clarified

[1] The Bitcoin development process and team is by far superior to any other altcoin. <-Pointed out the does not matter if salient changes not included

[2] The developer do not decide anything, thus this statement makes no sense. The developer can merely propose and develop changes.<- clarified by dev I meant development not Devs.

[3] Both XRP and NEM are complete shitcoins. No reasons elaborated.

[4]Then go complain to your pool/miners which are holding the network hostage. Segwit will activate, with or without the miners <- pointed out I am not arguing in specific pools or even segwit etc but towards the implication in general stagnation

[5] There is no such thing as the "Flippening". That is complete bullshit made up by r/btc fanatics who are actually deeply invested in altcoins <--All terms are made up terms. You have no credible argument here. It has a meaning that many could attribute to it as to when BTC becomes less important in all aspects that an ALT and cannot recover.

[6] Using gox as malleability as an argument for anything on chain because we don't know what happened.

[7] ETH is cancer <--does not provide substantive arguments, excepting mutability does not address ETC on point

I accept that BTC is by far the reserve currency status even if it goes to 30% or something just due to volume, trading pairs and fiat in and out.

the market cap and volume, as well as tech progress even though a lot of it is hype and scamcoins, still paints a largely one way graph, and that is a decline as to trade volume and percentage market cap.

Segwit is the initial solution for quadratic validation time, ready, tested, deployed on several networks. Do you have brain damage? Don't whine about any ad hominem again.

There is no indicator of market appeal for mimblewimble besides it being a Bitcoin sidechain.
  
It is a valid argument and destroys yours in a jiffy. The rest of your mambo jumbo is not worth responding to. You've lost on every single point raised by "clarifying, complaining, whining or misusing fallacies".

---

Enjoy your shitcoins:

https://i.imgur.com/X3yNSYK.jpg

how dare you lie to us. marketcap is so meaningful without a doubt.
don't believe me, take a look at this screenshot.
https://i.imgur.com/0X8x7FR.jpg

this very good, very useful altcoin which is marked here it is being used all around the world. people left USD for it, it had the 3rd place on market cap list which shows how it is very 100% meaningful. soon CUBE will replace bitcoin and then USD. now you wait. I just don't know why it is worth 0.1 satoshi (1e-9BTC) right now and keeps going down ;D

Well, combined with low volume, market caps don't mean much.  However, when taking into account both market cap and volume, there is a non-deniable decline in bitcoin's relative importance in the crypto scene - which, as I said elsewhere, is a good thing.  After all, we're about decentralization, so monopolies and locked-in one-for-all rules are not a good thing.

Good we are narrowing your arguments even more::

Your stuck on a solution, and not addressing why you need to bring the rest of segwit with it. You best tested. Ok. but why do you need to bring all of it? You can just excise the quad scaling soln.

You then go onto name calling, which appears to be a stereotypical response for you.

This was not the reason for introducing mimblewimble to the argument. Rather it was you proposition that other coins face worse scaleing than BTC at BTC usage levels. I agree many do. But some don't, NEM and mimblewimble seem to offer better options. Maybe even Dash due to the structure of their insensitive scheme to run nodes

 
[/quote]
its "Mumbo jumbo".

Also comparing tulips a perishable plant, that can't really be deved or forked on github, is at best anachronistic.

Your appear to occupying almost the exact position of anti bit coiners on speculation or FIAT holders on BTC.

You can't just take Segwit and pluck out parts of it at your whim. Not only does that not work, it won't be Segwit anymore either. It truly does look like you have brain damage. I suggest consulting with a nearby doctor as soon as possible.

Mimblewimble has downsides. NEM has a huge premine, and don't even get me started on the DASH MLM scam. You haven't provided a single valid example yet (hint: I'm still waiting).

You can both engineer tulips and *fork* them. Looks like you're still living in the past.

You appear to be a covert enemy of Bitcoin. It won't work.

State sponsored shill is here for decentralization by promoting centralized coins? How cute.

of course.
put a good advertising team behind that altcoin, it gets enough volume!
put some good pumpers on the project, it gets higher volume!
list it on exchanges such as poloniex that pump the coins and have crazy volume, the volume grows!

in the end that is just trading volume of speculators pump and dumping the coins to make more money.

Why is this only happening to alt coins then, and why would bitcoin's numbers be "true" ?  What indication is there that bitcoin is "the market champion" if we can't count on volume, market cap, or what else ?  Because every indicator that has indicated that bitcoin was the "leader" (since about 8 years, that was "market cap" and "volume") is now NOT valid when it is applied in the same way to other crypto currencies ?
Yes, there is ONE indicator, which is merchant adoption and usage.  But the indicators on that place this at a few percent levels of actual volume.  (bitpay covered about 3% of the bitcoin volume end 2016: its monthly volume was about the daily traded bitcoin volume).  So this is not bitcoin's main usage, by far - unless we have to understand that bitcoin volumes on Poloniex and others have been fake since ages too, at which point, we have strictly NO IDEA whether bitcoin was actually a leading crypto currency the last few years at all.

No, if you are serious, you see that bitcoin is losing market share (in cap and volume) at a staggering pace, and that it doesn't have a "single competitor" but the entire alt coin space.  And it's about time that this monopoly is finally broken, and that we get competition in the crypto scene, competition which was held back by bitcoin's absolute monopoly.   

Now, it is very well possible that all of this is a huge pump and dump in the alt space - but the chances of this diminish as time goes by.  It would much more be the case if a single crypto did so.  But you cannot consider ALL OF THEM simultaneously to get pumped by the same entities, unless we have a very powerful Polo bot running and nobody is seeing it.

I think the market finally realized that crypto is not a currency, but a speculative asset, and that speculative money is diversifying over many similar assets with more growth potential than the somewhat clunky market monopoly as of now.

That said, there's no reason to assume that bitcoin will lose its market leader position soon.  You can have a market leader with 10% market share.  Then, as I said elsewhere, you have a healthy, competitive market.  Not when there's a monopolist with 80% of the market share.

Having a largely diversified market in crypto has other advantages: no single whale on the "big" crypto can decide to pump the smaller ones, because there simply isn't a "big" crypto any more.  Pumping a smaller one in a very diversified market may turn out a very bad idea, because the money has many places to go, and your pump could easily blow in your face.  This is like trying to corner a market in a mature, competitive environment: chances are you gamble your fortune.

Moreover, having a diversified market of crypto makes it much more decentralized as a whole.  If there's one crypto, like bitcoin, especially if it has mainly been centralized in China, the danger of it being put under control are real.  Thinking that the WHOLE crypto market can be put under control is much, much harder.  If one chain fails or gets corrupted, that is not the end of crypto.  One would even hardly notice it.  If there's a market monopoly and the monopolist's chain fails, crypto is given a deadly blow.

Finally, concerning "security".  Only PoW chains have cryptographic weaknesses of being easily attacked if their PoW is weak - but if their market cap grows, their PoW will grow too of course.   So the bigger a PoW chain value grows, the more secure it gets.   

Also, different PoW algorithms mean that the PoW power on one chain is useless on another chain.  Bitcoin's huge PoW power is totally useless to attack, say, ETH.   Even though ETC is "vulnerable" wrt ETH miners, we see that miners are rational entities that don't waste their money on attacking, but rather use it to gain profits. 

And finally, PoS coins are absolutely not suffering from any cryptographic weakness PoW coins are exposed to.

Also, there's no reason to attack a SINGLE COIN when there's a whole market.  An "enemy coin" won't get any benefice at attacking a single adversary, because there are 20 others ready to take its place.

All this goes in the direction of a more and more diversified crypto market of speculative assets.

I don't know if you realize this but I have been around long enough to see all the same arguments be repeated by different people at the similar times in history about different or similar coins and they are always the same.
and the future of all these arguments always end up the same.

you see history loves repeating itself.

I did some quick and dirty screenshots of this "history" and drop percentages are calculated based on the top of each bubble and the bottom of the price when they burst each time. mostly taking a long time to reach the bottom as these coins have a "big market cap" ;)
https://i.imgur.com/glZ7M0k.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/yIGf3ZS.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/WsPVcWe.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/JPI38nd.jpg

and none of these are a one time thing. they have all been repeated multiple times. I just showed one of them that I could find quickly without wasting much of my time.
each year or at least every couple of months we see the same patterns. sometimes small bubbles, sometimes big and throughout all the altcoin market.

What you have been showing, is single, individual alt coins being pumped and dumped, very often by their own whale brigade, or by a bitcoin whale wanting to make some money with an altcoin where he could lure in many believers in the coin at hand.

The only time I remember having seen a simultaneous rise in many altcoins and bitcoin together, was the 2013 event, but bitcoin was the leading pump.  This time, the market is showing a totally different phenomenon, where MANY altcoins pump much harder than bitcoin, with volumes that outpace bitcoin's volume entirely.  We all know that the boom in 2013 was a bot on a single exchange.  It is true that Poloniex is about the most important alt coin exchange, and maybe they are doing MtGox's willy bot over on many alt coins at once.   Who knows.  That said, the volumes on other exchanges augment in commensurate ways too, so this speaks against a single exchange bot.

I could show a similar chart for bitcoin between december 2013 and february 2015 where you have a 78% drop in value too.

The fact that bitcoin as well as alt coins undergo pumps and dumps, doesn't invalidate what I'm saying: that bitcoin is not fundamentally different from any alt coin, and is not a currency, but is a highly speculative asset (which, by definition, undergoes pumps and dumps and never stabilizes).  Now, as a speculator, you're rarely interested in joining the "big ones".  They have less potential short term gain, even though they are somewhat more secure on the longer term.  In fact, the less they are interesting as a short term asset, the more they give a feeling of security on the longer term.  But speculators don't want security, they want gains.  Now, the gains are to be made on smaller crypto, and the whole family of crypto is a whole spectrum of potential gains vs risks: the dream for speculators.  The more you go down on the list of market cap/volume, the higher the risk, but the higher the potential gains.

All this means that speculative capital will "flow down" on the market cap/volume table, hence pushing coins upward the more they are down on the list (statistically !  That's the whole idea: this is not deterministic, some will fail miserably, others will grow).

But if many coins are pushed upward, the more they are down on the list, they will all get "compressed" against the highest coins on the list.  The higher they are on the list, the slower they will grow, because the bigger their market cap is, the more mature, and hence the less "greater fool early adopter" gains there are to be expected.

You can expect a coin on rank 50 to go x100.   You cannot expect that of bitcoin, and now, you cannot expect that any more of ethereum either.
As such, we will get an ever-growing list of big-market cap coins near the top, spreading out the total market share more and more.  Some of them will erode again.  Others can maybe stay there quite a while.  As I said, that doesn't mean bitcoin has to plunge.  It could.  But it could remain there still for a long time.

It seems that the crypto market is being taken over by some power, perhaps, here, you are the most knowledgeable person on the crypto market. We know that everything has been arranged, they are trying to push the market their way, it's bad when we are like the puppets are controlled. How to put an end to that? Or will it never end?

I believe that we are living one extraordinary moment in cryptocurrencies market. There are a lot of new ICO with exciting new features, and several already stabelished coins having ATH. Media coverage also is increasing and the name "Bitcoin" is reaching people that are not technological at all. All of this is setting the perfect enviroment for a sustained increasing in price.

Nobody would benefit from raising the coins to 42 million coins, this is a non issue. The problem we are facing is a more complex one. We are looking at a change that would require a PoW change, because otherwise you risk an attack, and with a PoW change, problems arise: What happens to all the miners that wanted segwit? You leave their millions worth of gear useless in the new chain. Are you sure that they will respond positively to that? They may keep mining the old chain just to keep using their mining gear.

The game theory is so complex, this can end up really bad if there is not 100% consensus with all big merchants and payment processors, exchanges etc. Ultimately those dictate who gets to keep the BTC token. So we need everyone on board before any attempts to UASF. We want to do this as conservatively as possible. And yes i've read all the documentation on UASF, the risks are still there unless we get a pretty broad consensus on all big players wanting to do this.

Meanwhile, LTC continues to enjoy his segwit agreement with no drama.

Coinmarketcap is now showing also other crypto as "market share":

https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/

Actually, killing bitcoin's deflationary spiral would be very beneficial to turn bitcoin into a true currency.  So "unlimited emission" of some kind would actually be good if it were to become one day a genuine currency - only, this is entirely against bitcoin's sacred sound money principle.

A very simple way to do so, which would also *automatically* solve the scaling problem, is by freezing the difficulty (or severely cranking the difficulty increase down) and freeze the block reward.  That would give rise to an ever increasing bitcoin emission, stabilizing its price around the difficulty cost, generate more and more blocks per 10 minutes, solve the fee pressure and solve so many other things.

But it is against bitcoins' religion.  Even though it would have been a great way to turn bitcoin into a currency one day.

Regardless of how mad you are that you didn't buy in when you should have you can't blame the coin for it! It's not in a decline whatsoever from my viewpoint, it's been on a steady increase for DAYS now(not hours). I don't see any large pools of people sitting at a sell off anytime soon. My speculation is that you're just mad you didn't buy when the time was ripe, I'm mad too

No, but it is quite ironic that an "anarchist currency" turns into a speculative fest full of seigniorage because it adheres to an erroneous idea of sound money.  Normally, one shouldn't "become rich" with a CURRENCY.  There's normally no money to be made with a currency.  Crypto had criticism on the finance world and becomes 100 times worse itself.

BTW, I think that the sky is still the limit, now that crypto is clearly just like the derivatives market.  But with such behaviour, of course soon regulation will set in, and every hope of having a true underground currency for subversion is totally blown up.  Big finance will soon entirely put its hand on this crypto world and you can say goodbye to any form of individual liberty in this domain.

For those who want to get rich with crypto, I think there's no better time than now !  But one shouldn't.  That wasn't the idea.

Everyone would dump their coins because we like the limited supply. It's better to leave BTC as gold, and use another coin for the currency part. We need some sort of limited supply standard in the crypto world and BTC is just as good as it gets for that, got the biggest network effect, it's very difficult to change (as we are seeing)

So BTC as gold, then another currency that (somehow) has a stable price pegged to BTC.
This could be LTC.

The "limited supply" thing is only good for speculative assets.  It has not much to do with gold ; it has to do with pure speculation, hence, instability.  It is a great way to gamble on, and to try to get money out of the pockets of peers.  The simplest version is a greater-fool game: a pyramid game, but it can be much more complex of course with booms and busts.  But it can never be used, nor as a currency, nor as a reserve currency, exactly because it is an unstable system.

My biggest open question is, whether such a thing needs to come down entirely or not at a certain point.  There's something totally "absurd" in crypto, which is the absolute non-uniqueness of it.  Anyone can start a crypto.  Bitcoin's uniqueness is of course that it was "the first", but apart from that, there are many others around - in fact, there's an unlimited supply of crypto.  I have a hard time imagining that this game can go on for ever, because it becomes then quite obvious how to make a huge amount of money: start a crypto !  Just ANY crypto.  If the hunger for deflation is unlimited (that is, if the amount of money willing to gamble on crypto is unlimited), then ANY coin will end up taking off, because "early adopters" make a lot of money.  But then this game becomes obvious, and the "sponge" of cryptos will absorb every new form of capital until no penny is made on an existing coin any more.

In other words, instead of having a single "greater fool" game with a single chain ; instead of having a multiple greater fool game (which I think we are now witnessing) ; we would have an "infinite number of greater fool games".  That cannot exist, because there aren't enough greater fools.  We'll burn through the stock of greater fools quite quickly if the number of greater fool tokens becomes unbounded.  Something will have to give in.




Well, first of all, there's no need for a "gold" if the idea was to have a freedom currency.  And if that "gold' isn't stable, it cannot be used to peg anything against it.  Moreover, LTC is just as "autonomous" as BTC, and doesn't need any "reserve" ; but LTC suffers exactly from the same problems of having an economic model that is purely a speculation tool.  Almost no existing crypto can function as a general currency, because none has a stabilizing mechanism and kills seigniorage.

False generalization. My statement pretty much destroyed your argument that "miner consensus" is above else.

You don't understand UASF apparently. You are also at risk of an attack every single day. Nothing changes and UASF has nothing to do with a PoW change either.

No. UASF works with even <50% of the miners. Both LTC and Vertcoin primarily ended up getting miner consensus due to their fear of UASF. In both cases miners caved in pretty quickly, as per the idea of the game theory behind it.

I advise ignoring this government/corporation sponsored shill. He's preaching that something which would ultimately *kill* Bitcoin is beneficial for it. ::)

I advise ignoring this government/corporation sponsored shill. He's preaching that something which would ultimately *kill* Bitcoin is beneficial for it. ::)

[/quote]

What the fuck is this garbage? A true currency? Much like every single fiat that has failed in the past? Why are there no old fiats you ask? Because they are all the same. Infinite supply controlled by a government. How would that ever work for bitcoins? There's no central king pooba to tell us that rates should be this or that and that and no one that joined bitcoins will agree with it.

Lets use bitcoin as digital gold,digital asset and commodity ,use as a currency or a transaction platform ,we can use according to out choice and so is the beauty of bitcoin. @OP, if you look at the price of bitcoin you would not feel any decline in anything and if you are not aware that people are using alt coin to convert back to bitcoin. :P

UASF is to trick morons into thinking they can control the destiny of BTC.

The Chinese Miners control it , no one else , not GMaxwell or his piss ant Core Troll army.

All the Chinese have to do is rent a few hundred VPS, and setup their own full nodes,
they control the new blocks and their full nodes keep their network running.

Running UASF is the Same as turning your PC off, because it won't do shit.

Tell the wussies to quit talking about UASF and do it so I can laugh at them for the fools they are.
Want to change PoW, do it , it will be even funnier when the chinese kick your asses up and down the blockchains.

yes yes,
- altcoins are not in a bubble,
- their marketcap is real
- they are good and will grow

i just don't know why in the past 2 days the total marketcap of altcoins has declined -3,860,900,000 USD and that is a big ass 14% decline.

i also don't know why this "pattern" repeats itself each year.

everything is very real in altcoin market. yes yes.

There do not need to be "old fiats", because very long time frames are not what a currency is for.  A currency serves to fluidize economic interaction, and those interactions are never century-long ; even decade-long economic interactions are rather rare.  As such, a currency needs to be as speculation-free as can be, because it needs to be a unit of account.  It is true that very often, state issued money has been corrupted by political interference.  But currencies have rarely be highly speculative assets, simply because you cannot use them reliably for commercial interaction.


There could have been more or less automatic systems.  For instance, a slow, steady increase in difficulty would provide an upper boundary for its value, guaranteeing the one writing out a contract in BTC that he will not have to pay a fortune when he intended to pay a normal sum ; simply because if you have a given difficulty, people will never accept coins that would cost more than the economic cost of computing to make new ones.  

You are, however, perfectly right that "no-one joined bitcoin for that", because no-one joined bitcoin to have a currency.  Everybody joined it to play a greater-fool game and to "earn money with it".  This is why I say that bitcoin is designed to be a highly speculative asset, and not a currency.  As a speculative asset, it functions very well.  Its price is highly unstable.  If you can earn (a lot of) money with it and if that is the main drive to acquire it and to sell it, it is not a currency.

There is no fundamental difference between bitcoin and "alt coins".  All these are highly speculative assets, and in as much as the market becomes efficient, their evolution will be entirely unpredictable and not understandable.   Don't make a mistake, bitcoin is in the same boat.  From the moment that big smart money enters the scene, it is not bound to emotional attachment, and optimizes the greater-fool game.  In the same way as in the complex derivatives market, towards which the crypto scene is evolving, ideally nothing is predictable.  When you are sure it will go up, it will come down, and vice versa.  Because otherwise, there was an opportunity that smart money would have missed, which is against the hypothesis of it being smart.

This is nothing else but the "efficient market hypothesis": all there is to know is already in the price (except for inside knowledge).

I think the market is not there yet.  There is still too much asymmetry between, for instance, bitcoin, and all the rest, which makes things still somewhat previsible.  When you are sure that bitcoin will "go to the moon", for sure, it will crash.  When you are sure that altcoins will take over, for sure they will retract.  Until all of this becomes perfectly chaotic (except maybe for some insiders).

It is very simple: if smart money were 100% convinced that bitcoin is going to, say, $500 000 in a few years, then it wouldn't miss the opportunity in flowing massively in bitcoin.   To the claim that "no, they are misleading you with going to alt coins", the answer is: this is impossible because of the tragedy of the commons.  The smart money that would pump alt coins "to mislead you" would be losing out to the smart money that would go early into bitcoin.  There is no "single boss" in smart money.  So if smart money is convinced that bitcoin goes to $500 000 in a few years, its current price would already tend quickly to $500 000 because they would out-race one another to get in early and rip off one another.
This doesn't mean that bitcoin won't go to $500 000.-, but if smart money cannot know, you can't, either.

BTW, on the 5th of mai, bitcoin's market cap lost about $2 billion too.  That's not a problem for highly speculative gamblers' tokens.

With the price of bitcoin going up at this point of time the topic UASF was no longer been a talk in this forum. Probably with adoption and support coming from countries such as Japan, Russia, Indonesia, Switzerland and other countries bitcoins value is at its highest. With the trend today we do not need segwit, BU and UASF but the current blocksize and code is ok.

yes yes, there is no difference.

Now more than 3-million things you can buy with BTC, from 100's of merchants (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/69ynzs/now_more_than_3million_things_you_can_buy_with/)

Over 100,000 Merchants Accept Bitcoin listed in this directory! (http://spendbitcoins.com/)

Microsoft is accepting bitcoin as a currency (https://commerce.microsoft.com/PaymentHub/Help/Right?helppagename=CSV_BitcoinHowTo.htm)

Dell is also accepting bitcoin payment.

as of 2016 BitPay is processing 200 million dollar worth of transaction monthly.

some small number of examples:
Overstock (https://www.overstock.com/) is a major retailer to accept bitcoin since January 2014. The firm offers everything from furniture to jewellery to electronics. Prices are in dollars but there is an option to pay in BTC on the checkout page. Initially a US-only offering, the firm opened up bitcoin purchases to over 100 countries in September.

Newegg, (http://www.newegg.com/) also a retail giant, with $2.8bn in annual revenue is accepting bitcoin.

AirBaltic, (http://airbaltic.com/en/index) the Latvian airline, has been accepting bitcoin payment with no additional fee.

CheapAir (http://www.cheapair.com/)  the California-based online travel booking website, started taking bitcoin in November 2013 and announced in July that it has completed more than $1.5m in bitcoin sales on flights, around 200,000 hotels and Amtrak railway bookings via its platform.

Purse.io and Gyft.com don't even need introduction, they are the biggest places for getting huge discounts using bitcoin for payment.

REEDS Jewelers (http://www.reeds.com/about/Bitcoin.html) a large jewelery chain in the US, is one of the most notable merchants to accept bitcoin as a form of payment.

at least 100 more of these on coindesk (http://www.coindesk.com/information/what-can-you-buy-with-bitcoins/)


List of all places to spend bitcoin on coinbase (https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/1834716-where-can-i-spend-bitcoins-)

Yes, that's on the level of the daily bitcoin (speculative) volume.  (well, WAS because now this volume is 5 times higher)

In other words, that's not why people use bitcoin mainly, and it is not what drives its price.

The popularity of bitcoin may be a factor in its value, however, which is not the reason for the rapid increase in bitcoin in recent times. In addition, some information shows that bitcoin no longer dominates the market, it is slowly being pushed back by the altcoins even though it still heads. If I talk about the reason that makes bitcoin rise, I think that's the bitcoin acceptance of the Japanese government. This also marks a new step for bitcoin.

It is funny that people say that, because I read that the Japanese government said something about *crypto currencies* and didn't single out bitcoin.

In fact, most jurisdictions will have to decide what asset class crypto currencies are in:
- illegal ones
- commodities
- currencies

or simply not say anything about it.

I would think that the statute of "currency" is not all rosy, because usually, handling a currency publicly requires stricter (banking-style) regulation than being a salesman of commodities.  On the other hand, usually currency acquisition is less taxed than commodity acquisition.

That topic has been ignored by many, but I'm sure it still happens, according to some of the information I've read recently, hardfork will surely happen with bitcoin, however, there are 3 directions to choose from. , And I still have not seen any information about their choice. I think that despite the high value of bitcoin, it still needs segwit, which is a necessity for the development of bitcoin.