"Segwit doesn't even exist yet"? AFAIK Segwit has existed already back in 2015 within Liquid, but it was only after Luke-jr found a way to implement it with a soft fork that the work started on it for the main implementation. Over the course of time, there was segnet and now it is also on the testnet. The people that have been testing there have mined several 'bigger blocks'. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Take a look at part 8 or my thread titled "How I would take down Bitcoin" and you should clearly see what's going on.

If you think that it is 'one line of code' then you really don't know what you're talking about. Take a look at how many lines of code Gavin's BIP has and then come here. A 2 MB block size limit is not safe on its own. If it were, then Classic would have not added those limitations.

Quick and short list:

• Network has practically no hard fork experience.
• 2 MB block size limit is unsafe due to quadratic validation time - Gavin's BIP for Classic adds additional limitations to prevent this.
• Does not improve scalability at all.
• Does not come with any benefits besides increased TPS either.

This has all been discussed over and over in various places. This is why Segwit is the next step, it will make validation time linear among other things. I can't say whether and when a potential block size increase is going to come after Segwit.

Apparently you don't know the difference between the words 'implementation' and 'activation'. If you want to try out Segwit you can do so on testnet.

That's not a problem at all. You will be aware of the activation date once everything is ready and the appropriate version has been released. These things need not be rushed.

Segwit is implemented and has been recently merged for the upcoming version. Check the Github page and the commits. However, the exact details of activation have not been set yet.

Totally typical, like those 1 GBPS download/upload connections. Did you not know that? I have no idea why we don't have 1 GB blocks right now, it is easy to download with those speeds  

So if you want to verify that the incoming information is indeed correct you are paranoid and should either spend more money or not use Bitcoin at all? This logic is horrible. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty and as such it should not be too difficult for one to use a 'full' wallet if they chose to. I have personally never use anything other (aside from testing SPV a few times).

dbcache=80000, a 16 Core CPU and everything will be swift. All you need to do is combine those typical things with the typical 1 GBPS download connection!

You can't consider Bitcoin in this case to be evil. With Paypal you have people deciding whether your funds will be recovered, frozen or whatever. With Bitcoin there is nobody that has the authority to make these decisions. You are the own safe keeper of your money. If you make mistakes, you will have to deal with them.

Exactly and nobody can make any decisions about your money (as long as you don't use third party wallets).

"No one really likes using"? This is a false generalization.

The transaction size is considered when we are talking about a fee in the satoshis/byte range. I'm pretty sure that in this case the fees are going to have the main role.

I have no idea why you would bring this up right now. There is no chance for that block to be bigger than the limit which is 1 MB. A decent factor is played by the size of the transactions that are going to included in that block (e.g. it could be <1000 TX's or it could be >2000), but there is no way of telling which one is going to happen.

You're stating that 'smaller fees are being processed because of larger volume'? This doesn't even make sense.

No, everything should be fine. He has send the coins to your address, and the other would be his own change address.

Again, there's not much that you can do besides wait for Coinbase. This is why I tell people constantly to avoid using online wallets and to download a desktop one. I've heard cases where contacting Coinbase took a very long time.

There already was a thread about it that I remember recently. People are 'too-hyped' about the halving and need to come back down to Earth. Whether or not your TX gets included within that block is no big deal. As far as fees are concerned, it is practically impossible to tell you what the exact 'satoshis/byte' range for that block. We might be able to provide a 'decent' estimate when we are only a few blocks away from 420 000.

How about you don't waste your money on something like this? That's the preferred strategy.

---

The sky is blue?

No. Sidechains are a good idea and you're spewing out false information. If there "is no functioning system", then what is Liquid? What is Rootstock supposed to be?

It seems that everything that comes from the people which are trying to improve Bitcoin is a failure, according to the people who have no skills and/or no contributions to the ecosystem.

No, it is not centralized. If it were centralized, the main person could push any changes that they've wanted. Additionally "blockstream/core" is an very ignorant statement. Are you not capable of comprehending the difference between those two?

I assume that one of these two is your address:

---

In that case the funds have arrived at their destination (and are allegedly already spent). This is not a double spend nor "fake sending".

This is why you should not use web wallets. Desktop wallets are recommended. If you are unable to use "heavy" wallets such as Bitcoin Core (due to resource requirements), then you can use a SPV wallet like Electrum. In your case, the best way to proceed is to contact the Coinbase support staff. They're the only ones who can help you.

What are you talking about here exactly? The block explorer clearly shows the transactions as confirmed:


Is this the transaction (i.e. loan) that you're supposed to receive? What wallet are you using?

So you're stating that this fork was be justified due to previous forks even though they aren't even remotely similar? By voting for this fork you are indirectly stating that you're only interested in greed, not in the principles of cryptocurrencies. ETH, the soon to be: centralized, non-censorship resistant, mutable and government friendly blockchain featuring bailouts.

I was just about to post practically the same thing. This is them abandoning all the principles of ETH, and blacklisting coins. ETH is the Fed of the cryptocurrency space?

The GBP to Bitcoin and vice versa volume has not really changed much. This indicates and confirms that nobody is rushing into Bitcoin (at least with that currency). Besides it does take some time to move your money as well.

The problem is earning Bitcoin then, not spending it. If you already have a sufficient amount of Bitcoin, there is no reason to use a CC or such as you'd have to 'jump through a hoop' to get the fiat equivalent. The stability of the price does not matter that much either since you're paying at a said time with the exchange rate of that time. The only downside is that if you keep Bitcoin for a longer amount of time, there are going to be times at which your fiat equivalent is worth less(due to the price dropping). However, there's also the chance that it will go up.

It might (should?) have an affect in the longer term, but let's wait and see how it plays out.

I would tend to say that this is a premature statement. Just because the price reacted positively that does not mean that a lot of new investors rushed into Bitcoin within a few hours (wouldn't 'rushing' into an investment be irrational?). Anyhow, we've yet to see the full effect of this. It does take some time for the money to move and judging by the Speculation section people are divided when it comes to the effects of Brexit. Some claim that it has no effect, while others say the opposite.

After being proclaimed dead for more than a hundred times, something positive is bound to come by released by the "unbiased" media.

Why is that? I tend to use Bitcoin for the majority of my purchases. The only times that I do have problems is when merchants such as Amazon are too stubborn to accept Bitcoin directly, so I have to take alternative routes (buying gift-cards from members and services). I'm certain that this experience shall improve considerably in the near future.

Enjoy your stay unless you are able to contribute to Bitcoin in any way (developing, testing, etc.). Maybe we will see a new 'round' of scaling proposals in late 2016, you never know.

That a one of a kind event that broke the initial specifications of Bitcoin. I doubt that it was hard to fork back then considering the small size of the ecosystem.

A decentralized, censorship resistance coin should have no leaders at all. It seems that ETH is going to lose its initial values (code is not law in these "smart contracts"). Besides, this is not the right place to discuss altcoins.

You have your answer right there. You don't understand, as in, you didn't do enough research or do not understand the risks behind it. Even if we exclude HF's as being risky on their own, a 2 MB block size limit is potentially un-safe (due to validation time being O(n^2)). Gavin knows this and that is why he has added several limitations in his BIP for Classic. Segwit aims to solve transaction malleability but shall also boost capacity (rising with user adoption), scale down that time to O(n) and bring some other neat things with it as well.

I should publicly stated my opinion: I agree with two of the proposed sections, Exchanges and Online wallets.

If by 'active' you mean spammed by signature spammers and a huge mess, then I agree. Finding the content that you're looking for on a forum should be easy (which is not the case in that section - as seen in the statistic provided), especially for new members.

Then you mean that your Node is not able to catch up with the network. Interesting. I didn't know that the Pi couldn't handle being a node anymore. If it is not able to catch up using Bitcoin Core 0.12.1 I see no reason why it would be able to do so with 0.12.x or 0.13.0 (both haven't been released yet).