The code was released in April, it can be found on Github. Segwit was also recently merged, thus it should be available in the next version of Bitcoin Core. The developers are working hard on preparing the next release, just be a bit more patient.

"How come"? The halving does not have anything to do with the development. The developers are doing the right thing by not rushing anything. RC1 will be released very soon.

No, users having to run nodes is definitely out of question. There's no reason for the customer to agree to this, additionally the banks would lose a bit of their centralized 'grip'. Honestly, I don't see a way (at the moment) in which the banks could harvest the full benefits of blockchain technology and remain centralized as they are now. We've yet to see the full impact of the technology on the current system.

People have definitely over-hyped this event on the forums. There were too many threads about this, too soon. However, the event is certainly worth celebrating and nobody will be disappointed if they don't have (greedy) expectations (e.g. some are just interested in a potential price increase). I'll definitely (try to) celebrate somewhere. It is almost time to look forward to 2020.

It doesn't really matter that much IMO. Those people are just somewhat annoying and wasting the time of the readers. Random speculation is pointless.

Very incorrect. Bitcoin is a pseudo-anonymous,transparent ledger. The government, nor someone else, can't tell whether a TX was used e.g. to buy groceries, or to buy drugs.

A rare, yet fine argument from your side. Whenever the media talks about "Bitcoin used in X, bitcoin used in Y" it is just paid propaganda. Of course it is going to be used for everything because it is money and that is what money is used for. Why doesn't nobody talk about the dollar, which I assume to be the currency being used in most illegal stuff? Oh yeah, because it doesn't threaten the banks.

Here we go again, another person who participates in signature campaigns creates a thread in the wrong section. How about reading the rules for a change? Price-related threads should be in the Speculation section.

---

As far as the price is concerned, you are just speculating and haven't even done an adequate analysis. Randomly stating what you think is happening/is going to happen is a waste of time for pretty much everyone. Unless you are a day trader, or you need/will need money in the short term, then it is a waste of time. People are divided when it comes to the opinions here, some think that it is priced in, some think that it isn't and some think that it will be priced a few months after. How about we wait and see?

I'm very much certain that setting a subdomain exclusively for 1 altcoin is a big contribution, else nobody would be asking for it. 10 BTC is nothing IMO, the forum is generating more than enough for itself with ads.

I don't see this version of the forum investing in 2FA, especially not since the beta is being worked on and thus those 'payments' would not help with those efforts.

I have read everything, it was not my intention 'to pretend'.

Understood.

Okay, that is definitely a bit hyperbolic to say the least. If the quadratic validation time get fixed (which should happen with Segwit) I can see a future in which a block size increase is definitely possible. Just today we've 'received' two amazing news: Fibre (upgrade to the relay network that builds on compact blocks) and Flare (Bitfury's LN implementation). With the proper infrastructure in place, I do not see a reason for which a HF on which consensus has been reached (with a proper set of rules) should not happen sometime in the future.

It is really unfortunate that, with so many people running around on Reddit and BTCT that we are unable to keep a higher node count. If half of us were to run a single node, the situation would definitely improve.

10 BTC only, really? That's peanuts for such a big contribution from BTCT. AFAIK the forum doesn't need the money, so I don't see why the administration would want to do this.

If the coin has a significant community then they can surely move to a dedicated forum for that coin. I disagree with the expansion towards this direction in general.

It is not established, there are not altcoin subdomains.

No.

Neither one of you know what you're talking about.

Stop posting bullshit and learn how to use Bitcoin properly. You don't even know the difference between transaction and confirmation times. In addition to that, your reasoning is horribly wrong. The primary reason for which your transactions (which are near-instant) do not get confirmed within the next block is because you're being cheap with the fees.

Transaction times are near-instant, confirmation times are 10 minutes on average (your 15-20 minutes is normal). Anyone who posts here without knowing the difference is either very ignorant or a signature spammer (false complaints just to boost post count up).

No. You clearly do not know what you're talking about and such a event is highly unlikely. It would be a very irrational step backwards to back-out now.

Bullshit as always. This clearly displays that you don't know how Bitcoin works. If it did worked like in the model that you displayed, we could no longer claim that it was resistant nor decentralized. A handful of businesses can not and do not control the network.

Destructive behavior should be cherished, right?

There are plenty of reasons and there isn't a reason to open a thread for every time that the price goes down. What we've been witnessing is classic market manipulation by whales (e.g. constant hovering around $666). From what I could quickly asses someone dumped a nice amount of coins on low volume last night which made the price drop. Some speculate that the halving is already priced in, some speculate that it won't be priced in for another few months, etc. Nobody really has the answer to this.
Threads like this should be in the Speculation section (more information can usually be found there).

There was no need to start another thread about this. All you had to do was either look around a bit or ask someone else and you would have found out. This was suggested by Cyrus and previously discussed in this thread. In summary, those are new sections that should help keep the content a bit more streamlines (easier to find).

If you had read the rules yourself (not to mention that person), you would have known the answer to this question:

~Lauda

No, not really. I've encounter this error occasionally every now and then.

This is nothing special/unusual. This error happens from time to time and there's no need for concern unless the forum becomes unavailable for quite some time.

That would not make much sense. Please provide a source using the terminology "pure segwit txs" equal "an altcoin".

Exactly who was talking about SPV? Nobody. So you're not denying that the resource usage has increased and thus the number of nodes keep going down.

Sorry, failed attempts at spamming can be easily identified.

Not necessarily, I favor the best proposals, and BU is certainly anything but the best proposal.

In that case, I may have spent a bit too much time in an attempt to help out. That's unfortunate, thanks for pointing that out.

There was no indication of anything 'invalid' about that transactions that needed confirmation, thus it has finally confirmed. From what I had seen, the fees we just generally a bit lower than expected and it took a bit longer to confirm.

You don't understand the values of this technologies, however that is a subject for another thread.

Was something better expected from Ver, the person who has been spreading bullshit ever since the time of Mt.Gox? These articles are just an attempt to gather more support for their HF. It's unfortunate that they go social media instead of actually trying to improve the existing infrastructure.

No, they can't consider Segwit "an altcoin".

People keep saying that, yet the number of nodes is on a steady decline. Do I have to note that the resource usage kept growing tremendously over the 7 years?

They certainly would not be the first 'group' to spam the network in an attempt to support their vision.

So in a scenario in which miners get paid to set them to abrupt levels, all is fine right?

Really? Then I assume that you use blockchain.info to push your transactions? That might be the reason for which I don't see them on other explorers yet.

This is off-topic to this thread and should not be discussed here. These ratings depend on the trust settings of each user.

20000 satoshis for 458 equates to ~43 satoshis/byte which is under the recommended 70 satoshis/byte now. However, there aren't that many unconfirmed transactions in these ranges at the moment so it should be fine. However, increasing the fee is recommended in case that you want very quick confirmations.

Okay, so next time increase the fees a bit and it should be fine. May I ask what wallet you are using? I've checked 3 other blockchain explorers and they didn't show the unconfirmed transactions from "14iDe9xhqYh76TRHRHiaWWPdniyaEHhYjj ".