The abstract idea of nodes voicing their preference is a good one with merit but BIP148 is not and it is instead a dangerous proposal because of a simple fact that it disregards majority. It simply has no way of checking or caring what the majority says, whether it is 1% or 99% it will enforce the change!

In any change, regardless of what it is, we must reach consensus amongst network participants otherwise it goes against the idea of being decentralized.

Most countries are bordering on these technical recessions right now, with different quarters dipping in and out. It's maybe more surprising that it has taken so long to reach this point with runaway inflation happening throughout Europe and even the world. The Ukraine war has had a very damaging impact on fuel and food supplies in Europe, but as a richer continent they are probably still fairing great than many other countries. It's nothing to be alarmed about and is fairly mild in the grand scheme of things, as every country goes through this same economic cycle of boom and bust. It's better to accept it than try to constantly fight against it, because recession hits every country on a regular basis.

Ideas are best judged on merit and not by which individuals support them.  It's not a popularity contest and we don't need to introduce a cult-of-personality element.  Appeals to authority aren't the correct method for network governance.

As for what's considered an "attack", that's always going to be subjective.  Some ideas are more reckless or dangerous than others, but ultimately it's all just people doing what they want to do. 

hehe yeah, he is funny though as he is just regretting for $8 while he could earn billions. But one gets as much as he has in his fortune (idk either you believe in fortune or not but i have this belief). Well, what can one do to change fortune is to make pray (yeah i am religious too).

I did not realize before how difficult it was to trust on BTC due to less adoption and bad uses as you mentioned Silk Road and according to my knowledge it's been shut down due to illegal buying and selling.

Yes, In the long run BTC is here to stay and these are my thoughts about BTC but on the way i am also learning BTC also make people poor but only those become poor who enter without some aim and knowledge because at least a person with determined purpose of getting profits or saving money for longer period of time against inflation cannot ever become poor. The meme is just for fun here and i have some more in my phone here is another one to explain the situation: (i know its not meme)



This post enough for me to understand the potential BTC had but i did not had the opportunity to get that much BTC because i just entered market few months ago. But the person in the tweet made some next level mistake and i also watched another video which was uploaded on YT back in time where the representative of the video was begging people to buy BTC at least of $1 only.

That's never a valid argument if you ask me. For one, we have had Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn were also core developers once and they both went nutz and made questionable moves and statements. One supporting faketoshi and the other spreading FUD about bitcoin...

They actually created the shitcoin called bcash using the same principles of BIP148, it was even called MASF (mocking the UASF thing). That is a minority group creating a fork disregarding the rest of the network (including miners' votes).


I never said they do anywhere! But you can't deny that miners are an important part of the network and attacks like BIP148 are completely ignoring/eliminating miners.

I think you might be worried that BlackRock would do some kind of hostile takeover, because they are backed by so much money, but they still have investors to satisfy with their decisions. They cannot just dump Billions of Dollars of investors money into Bitcoin and hope that it will yield Billions in profits, once they have achieved it.

I predict that a global "dump" will take place, if a hostile takeover should ever be launched against Bitcoin and it will hurt the price. They might get enough hashing power to launch a 51% attack, but we all know how expensive that will be and how that will influence the market.

Let's say they are successful... this will happen ===> People will switch forks and dump the original Bitcoin (BTC) and then they will have to do it over again with the new fork.  

That's because newbies or even the one having some knolwedge of crypto sphere like what is halving and how it will make the future of BTC a good one. But still they do not try to enter market. I think they just doubt the theory of Halving and that it will increase the BTC price. but still, i think the best practise for them or for us is to at least invest some of our money that we do not afraid to lose because if we have a money that we do not afraid to lose and still keeping that money in fiat or local currency and decided to speculate the market only for taking the idea like wheater the market will go up after halving or not. Because they mostly think that if the price go up then they will take entry which is the 2nd big mistake first one is not taking small entries now.

I am not saying that anyone should take entry right now after reading my reply all i am saying if someone have some free money although there is not a single country whose citizens will have free money because money do have value all i am saying is use only that money that could not affect your life if you ever lost it.

my apologies to everyone if I didn't make this point sufficiently clear upthread...


...but I'm gonna make it here again.

this whole phenomenon is based on the NEWNEWNEW scam, most "altcoin" stuff is, and we all know it already. in fact, most people trading newly issued stuff are actually engaging in a scammy blinking contest: probably most players in the market activity know they're playing the "hold my bag" game

and then it all starts again next week with the "new" NEWNEWNEW: same game, "!!new and exciting tech!!" **yawn**


and the major irony for me is the same as it was with most of these Bitcoin protocol/relay policy/ecosystem debates; it's possible to make the whole thing worse than it really is, simply by talking about it more than it deserves

Meet BlackRock, the company that owns the world and the “fourth branch of government” with $9 trillion in assets under management

BlackRock made headlines last month after the company spent $6 billion to buy single-family homes and turn them into rental properties, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. In most cases, BlackRock even paid more money above the sellers’ asking price, killing the dream of homeownership for the middle class.

In just 33 years, BlackRock has grown from nothing to becoming the world’s largest and most trusted asset manager and the company that owns the world. The firm has also become an increasingly influential Wall Street player in Washington, DC, and a revolving door between finance and politics. Today, at least three of BlackRock’s leaders now hold prominent roles in President Joe Biden’s cabinet.

Given the company’s habit of forming shadow cabinets ahead of presidential transitions and its involvement in the new Federal reserve programs, Bloomberg went as far as calling BlackRock our “fourth branch of government.”

https://techstartups.com/2021/08/10/meet-blackrock-company-owns-world-fourth-branch-government-9-trillion-assets-management/

In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its sole discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin network, is generally accepted as the Bitcoin network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes.

The Sponsor will base its determination on whatever factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of bitcoin, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Bitcoin network, or whatever other factors it deems relevant.

There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with Shareholders, the Bitcoin Custodian, other service providers, the Index Administrator, cryptocurrency exchanges, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as bitcoin and should therefore be considered “bitcoin” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1980994/000143774923017574/bit20230608_s1.htm

BRICS is already created 17 years ago and the members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa while Iran is more like an unofficial official member!
 

Directly it will have no impact on bitcoin. Indirectly it might. My argument is mainly regarding dollar value since we all know that dedollarisation is happening and that has decreased the value of dollar (mostly negated by heavily increasing the interest rate as a short term remedy) and the more dollar goes down the more other currencies such as bitcoin have to go up against it.

Now with BRICS being on the brink of introducing a new currency, if they do reveal it in this month's summit, this could be the start of a much faster dedollarisation and a bigger dump of the dollar which could lead to bitcoin price going higher.

This is why I'm eagerly looking forward to see what happens since also this can technically be a significant global economic event and another step in the direction of new world order.

Even if you might otherwise be making some valid points, it seems to be going out on a tangent to get too far into those kinds of outrageously BIG numbers, and I doubt that people with that level of capital are participating in threads like this.. or even that people who might be engaging in threads like this should be our attempted audience.. even though surely everyone might have to adjust the numbers to their own situation.

so yeah, maybe we might say poor would be those people who are struggling to figure out how much disposable income they have, but if we might be getting into BIGGER numbers, then we could still use $10 million as the top of our range rather than $100 million.. but more practically, we likely have people struggling to get up to $100k worth of value accumulation, yet we know that people who have been in bitcoin might have had invested less than $10k in the last 10 years.. maybe even as late as 2015 and pretty easily gotten to millionaire status... just to flesh that out, $10k / $250 = 40 BTC  and at today's prices 40 BTC would be worth right around $1.16 million.

Ok.. let me try to work with your $100million number and maybe round it down to $10 million or $1million.

I doubt that diversification allows you to make greater returns, even though it might make profits if some of the assets are invested into items that are growing well... It would likely not make any sense to invest equally into 50 assets, but maybe for the sake of the hypothetical, there could be $2million invested in each asset, but if all (except a handful) of the assets just performed at the normal market rate (6% to 12%), then the outperforming assets would have to really outshine the others in order to make up for the difference in order to get 30% overall return, and again, I doubt that diversification gives you greater returns but instead is an attempt to preserve principle.. and to be conservative and to not be too aggressive, so the more diversification that you have, the more likelihood that even if you have stellar performers, you are going to have low performers that offset them, even though we know sometimes that everything is going up at the same time, but some things are going up more and somethings are going up less.

Oh gawd.. the more you explain, the worse it gets... even though I do like that you are using something like $10k as a kind of example of how much value that a pleb might have to work with,

but I probably would like it even better if you describe income too.. because a normie/pleb might have $10k at one snap shot in time, and maybe your thinking about it as a snapshot value gets you to try to figure out whether to use all of it to buy bitcoin right now, or what are the various bitcoin price dipping points that you would want to deploy such cash (presuming that it is all available right now)..

so if we are assuming no other investments, and we are presuming that the money is completely available for bitcoin, we still might need to figure out some aspect of what is the anticipated cashflow in the next 6 months?  and even that it is important to know what is the annual income?  Is it $10k or is it $20k or is it $30k?  or some other amount?

At some point, the amount invested may well justify some needs to start to diversify into other investments, even though the greedy lil bastard pleb is focusing on "getting rich quick" right?

Anyhow, is any more money coming in that might be available for bitcoin, or maybe you are presuming that the income stream for this particular pleb/normie is irrelevant because that income stream merely goes towards living expenses and the normie/pleb is just going to otherwise be living his life in the normie/pleb ways because he has already decided that he was ONLY going to be allocating $10k to bitcoin... and yeah a bit vague, but still I can somewhat work with you on it, including our agreement that it is just a matter of starting out with bitcoin, and then figuring out at what point the investment into bitcoin might start to reach a value in which some diversification might start to be justified, and if the $10k invested into bitcoin starts to grow, and maybe does a 3x (which would be $90k per BTC) or maybe a 10x (which would be $300k per BTC), then there might be some point that the person might want to start to diversify, which may or may not mean that selling coins would be the best option, but it might just mean that new cash is used to invest into other things other than bitcoin, since the bitcoin stash seems to be doing sufficiently well, even if maybe overall it is continuing to ongoingly fluctuate in value quite a bit.

I mostly agree with you Wind_FURY - even though I have my doubts about whether you got this right since you are continuing to make this argument about "different rules applying to poor people".. which is not completely wrong, even though you tend to emphasize it so much that contributes to flaws in your emphasis of such.

In other words, there likely tends to be more value in diversification as your investment/savings portfolio grows, and at what point some diversification is good is going to have quite a few discretionary aspects that lead us back to figuring out which goals the investor is trying to achieve in terms of growth of wealth versus preservation of wealth balances.  

Even if you might presume that everyone wants to get rich, there are some trade-offs that some people might be willing to make and others prefer not to make those kinds of trade-offs.

And surely there tends to be a decent amount of truth that concentration of investments are likely to contribute to greater potential for growth, yet again, some people are not willing to take those kinds of concentration of investment risks that likely end up in too much volatility, including that they might already know that they are going to need access to some of their wealth in various short term periods, and they cannot be taking the risk that their one or two investments happen to be down 60% to 85% at the time that they are considering tapping into it, so in that sense it may well be better to be able to draw from some assets that are more stable, even if they might not grow very well, but if you don't have any of those kinds of assets, then you are forced to have to spend from the asset that is 60% to 85% down.

So, there is some value in terms of when to start to diversify your savings/investment in bitcoin beyond bitcoin and cash and maybe into some other assets, and if you stick only with bitcoin and cash, then you can sometimes play around with those two and find enough comfort .. but I have my doubts.. .. even though there are people who maintain very concentrated approaches towards what they are investing/saving in... and for sure, they have the right to do that to themselves... even if such concentration of wealth may well not be good practices for the  vast majority of normies.. even supposedly poor plebs like uie-pooie.

World famous investor Warren Buffett isn't one to diversify when investing in stocks. In fact, the billionaire has even criticized the idea. As head of Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett's portfolio is focused on a narrow selection of industries -- and the biggest positions are in a handful of stocks.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/16/buffett-doesnt-diversify-investments-should-you/

I see what you mean, we need to take risks, and trade-offs if we want to be successful, over-allocation of capital only dilutes assets and slows asset growth. This can also be considered if we do not have too much capital and are willing to accept losing everything. But it's not too bad if we diversify with 2 different assets if we have a significant amount of capital. I mean with that capital, you can both invest in bitcoin and buy real estate or open a small business for an extra source of income. In my opinion, having 2 sources of income is still better than relying on only 1. But as you said, it depends on your initial capital and should only add 1 asset other than bitcoin to avoid dilution.

It will only get more interesting in the years 2052 or later. When core developers propose reclamation of stale/lost coins.

make the proposal on Jan of 2052 and if an address has not had a withdrawal it 50 years the coins go back to mining rewards.

if franky1 is correct that under 20 'core' developers are in charge they will do the reclamation of stale/lost coins and nothing will be done about it.

So in 2059 all 2009 'dead' address roll back to rewards.
so on and so forth. Year after year.

I only wish I could live long enough to see it happen.

Bip300 is inevitable, btw

It is the only L2 that:

* pays miners +
* that you can directly onboard to.

So it will activate via MASF, eventually.

https://twitter.com/truthcoin/status/1689038284091998208

Do you want to bet? Such bets are for fun and not a realistic prediction of the Bitcoin price,

as there is no historical or economic data to support that.