The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.
Explain why you think that statement is true, and I will explain why you are wrong. |
|
|
|
When BTW lists Bitstamp, Gemini & Kraken as the supporting exchanges, you know something is not right. |
|
|
|
Which is why Bitcoin should be considered a decentralized, deflationary crypto asset like digital gold, that also happens to be exchangeable for goods and services like a currency. Notice I said "like a currency" because it is clear that that attribute is not its primary function nor its strength.
The word "crytocurrency" is a complete misnomer. It should have been called a "cryptoasset" from the beginning.
And once again ... Satoshi was wrong. Good to have geniuses like your Torque. Thank you for enlightening us with your wisdom. Now ... if Satoshi was so wrong, why do not we just rewrite the white paper? Announcing version 0.3 of Bitcoin, the P2P cryptocurrency! Bitcoin is a digital currency using cryptography and a distributed network to replace the need for a trusted central server. Escape the arbitrary inflation risk of centrally managed currencies! Bitcoin's total circulation is limited to 21 million coins. The coins are gradually released to the network's nodes based on the CPU power they contribute, so you can get a share of them by contributing your idle CPU time.
[...]
Oh! Stupid Satoshi, you were so wrong.  If you want dogma, go worship at Ver's church, if you want to be part of a journey to find the solution stay with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
everyone is free to fork off with their new and improved bitcoin instead of whining and bitching here to no end.
I don't think anyone doesn't understand that. The point is, how do we reach agreement, not what to do if we can't agree. we who? agree on what? bitcoin is the bitcoin currently bought and sold at $16K by those who vote by putting their coins/money where their mouth is. Those who disagree/don't like the product have infinite alternatives, including doing their own thing. I'm not disputing anything you've just said. To change the system (ie. fork it) we, thats all the stake holders, need to reach some sort of consensus. If there are enough people not in the consensus, they will probably refuse to fork and continue the existing chain, and thats where the problem will be. The more the significant players in Bitcoin fork from each other the weaker it becomes, until we are left with a million different Bitcoins, one for every little group. |
|
|
|
Probably almost no one does't understand that Satoshi put în place those limits and the voting system just for everyone to fight everyone, keeping them busy in time for the next diamond in the dust coin or token, all this while we are fighting each other.  everyone is free to fork off with their new and improved bitcoin instead of whining and bitching here to no end. I don't think anyone doesn't understand that. The point is, how do we reach agreement, not what to do if we can't agree. |
|
|
|
Make non Segwit opt out and there's most of it cleared up. Same as organ donation. They flipped that from opt in to opt out recently in the UK. I expect many more people will be sliced up and glued into other people in future and rightfully so.
im an organ donor. with my early days hard partying lifestyle, my wife told me no one would want them.  A major thing people forget when simply saying we need a small block size increase, is that it requires a HARD FORK. This means that a whole bunch of people with 100,000's of Bitcoins are going to be pissed. MP & his group for one. Probably a number of others. These people, along with many others will probably continue the existing chain, claiming it is the real Bitcoin. (Just like BClashic but much worse). Imagine the damage that is going to do to Bitcoin, we must have an overwhelming consensus otherwise it's going to be a clusterfuck! |
|
|
|
Total ban on mining in China.. A slow orderly exit is planned - apparently confirmed by Jihan (by Cryptovenus) https://twitter.com/cryptovenus/status/949405526315716608The BTC market should see this in a positive way, but there is no accounting for stupidity. The will force chinese miners to relocate and spread out geographically, and also cause them higher electricity costs, which will allow more competition. |
|
|
|
How did you manage to get bcd FluidJax? I couldn’t find a working wallet for it to import my keys? I am on Windows.
Did you have to compile the wallet from the source code on github?
Yes, I compiled the client from source, instructions in the repo. https://github.com/eveybcd/BitcoinDiamondIt requires a bit of messing about: I did it on an ubuntu VM on virtualbox, If you can compile from source or (if available) download the github client, you can get your coins before others who need to wait for 3rd party wallets, and so the price is going to be better. |
|
|
|
Looks like Yobit has these so far:
SBTC
B2X
GOD
ATOM
Could be worth a few Satoshis. If you have the energy.
Whats important is when you can deposit, not just trade. Yobit doesn't allow deposits in any of these coins. Currently: Bitcoin Diamond, sell on gate.io SuperBitcoin sell on okex.com You can download clients from github and import you priv. keys. Prices are slowly declining.. How do you claim them? You don't need to claim most of them, you already have them on the forked chain, just like BCH. You just need to access them. Is it worth it? - I've made about 1.5% (of my total BTC) profit for both Bitcoin Diamond & SuperBitcoin. I was quick off the mark, and that returned has probably slipped to <1% now. |
|
|
|
Segwit is running properly, its just a number of the big generators of TX's refuse to upgrade. - why?
LN has monetization built in, you can collect a small fee for relaying, it effectively allows you to put your BTC to work.
Interesting. I can see pool operators not wanting to upgrade, they get fees. However exchanges should have updated now to provide lowest cost transactions. Hm. 154000 transactions unconfirmed, this is still a problem.... Coinbase, Bitpay are the biggest generators of transactions and both have given weak reasons why they haven't upgraded. Perhaps the failure 2X has weighed on that decision - sour grapes. The numbers of unconfirmed transactions is only a problem if you want to do small transactions. A task that will be performed by the LN network in the future, patience is needed, really what is the pressing rush to buy your coffee with Bitcoin, it can wait a few more years/months to ensure we get it right. |
|
|
|
By then Bitcoin had better have segwit running properly.
My question, how will people monetize the LN?
Segwit is running properly, its just a number of the big generators of TX's refuse to upgrade. - why? LN has monetization built in, you can collect a small fee for relaying, it effectively allows you to put your BTC to work. |
|
|
|
Thanx fluidjx. At least someone shows up with some useful information in this forum  My information was bad. I should feel bad. I do. I hope you didn't take my remark personnaly. I was stucked at the same point than you, and too lazy to scan all the existing exchanges to find the one that works. We should somehow gather the good information somewhere to save time doing that shit, it takes forever to handle these damn alts properly. The way I'm assessing the legitamicy of these forks is if they have a Github repo (with commits after the fork). No exchange can accept deposits without this, and once I have this running, the blockchain downloaded, and my keys imported, I can wait for an exchange to allow deposits, and pounce quickly. In anticipation, I have nodes running for United Bitcoin Bitcoin Hot (which doesn't find peers) Bitcoin2x (which stops syncing at 28/12/17) To ensure safety you need to move Bitcoin lots of times, and as I haven't bothered to look at the code, there is a risk that one fork can steal coins from another fork, especially if the forking block is similar. |
|
|
|
Looks like Yobit has these so far:
SBTC
B2X
GOD
ATOM
Could be worth a few Satoshis. If you have the energy.
Whats important is when you can deposit, not just trade. Yobit doesn't allow deposits in any of these coins. Currently: Bitcoin Diamond, sell on gate.io SuperBitcoin sell on okex.com You can download clients from github and import you priv. keys. Prices are slowly declining.. |
|
|
|
who do you think will own the master-nodes for LN?  There are no master nodes for LN, go away and do your reasearch before making blatantly incorrect statements. |
|
|
|
I don’t need to trust anyone. It’s a pain if miners collude and 51% attack me, but with a full node I just fail to get new blocks and together with others (probably everyone else) we are forced to change to a new set of miners who behave and use the real Bitcoin rules.
But this is another discussion, and is irelevant to my point, which I will restate.... if I can’t run a full node I need to trust miners.
Don’t shift the argument, address the real issue!
I don't know why this belief is pervasive with small blockers, especially since the white paper says the opposite. If the hash power majority is dishonest, they can re-org the blockchain at will such that the transactions that created your coins never occurred in the re-orged blockchain. This is Bitcoin 101. You have to trust that the hash power majority remains honest. So what you are saying is because the miners can re-org the chain back to when my coins were a reward, probably 1000s of blocks ago, this risk means I should now accept all other more immediate and subtle risks they can throw at me. Disappearing coins I can detect without a full node, but changes to inflation rules I can’t. You are asking everyone to accept more risk, but you aren’t being honest about it. Why don’t you come out and say it straight, big blocks will increase the trust required in miners, and it represents an increased risk to your financial sovereignty, it’s indisputable, the only thing to argue over is the magnitude. |
|
|
|
This myth that non-mining nodes don't matter is the most dangerous the big blockers are forced to peddle, simply because it drops out of the big block argument as a necessity.
Not at all. If we make ability to run a node by every pissant participant on their lowest common denominator hardware a requirement, Bitcoin Segwit disqualifies itself as well. You fail to address the issue, I don’t want to trust miners, if I can’t run a full non-mining node, I have to trust them not to change the rules. |
|
|
|
Further, I believe it likely that massive adoption will lead to huge numbers of nodes - naturally. Every common consumer has little reason to run such a non-mining, fully-validating wallet.
But I want to run a full node, and with huge blocks I don't even have a choice. (SPV is a middle ground but not sufficient) You are forcing me to trust someone. In fact you are forcing me to trust the miners who are driven by incentives that do not align with my own. In the future they may change the rules and I wouldn't even know, and if I did know, there would be little I could do to about it. This myth that non-mining nodes don't matter is the most dangerous the big blockers are forced to peddle, simply because it drops out of the big block argument as a necessity. The ability to run a full validating node is not optional, it is a requirement, and any fork that prevents this functionality fails the community. We must not compromise the security of Bitcoin to help it scale. Bitcoin has never been trustless. If you're using Bitcoin, you already trust that no group of colluding attackers controls more hash power than honest nodes. If the hash power majority is colluding to defraud users, bitcoin is not secure. This is simply a fact. There is nothing an army of raspberry-pi nodes can do to change this fact. I don’t need to trust anyone. It’s a pain if miners collude and 51% attack me, but with a full node I just fail to get new blocks and together with others (probably everyone else) we are forced to change to a new set of miners who behave and use the real Bitcoin rules. But this is another discussion, and is irelevant to my point, which I will restate.... if I can’t run a full node I need to trust miners. Don’t shift the argument, address the real issue! |
|
|
|
Further, I believe it likely that massive adoption will lead to huge numbers of nodes - naturally. Every common consumer has little reason to run such a non-mining, fully-validating wallet.
But I want to run a full node, and with huge blocks I don't even have a choice. (SPV is a middle ground but not sufficient) You are forcing me to trust someone. In fact you are forcing me to trust the miners who are driven by incentives that do not align with my own. In the future they may change the rules and I wouldn't even know, and if I did know, there would be little I could do to about it. This myth that non-mining nodes don't matter is the most dangerous the big blockers are forced to peddle, simply because it drops out of the big block argument as a necessity. The ability to run a full validating node is not optional, it is a requirement, and any fork that prevents this functionality fails the community. We must not compromise the security of Bitcoin to help it scale. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
