Not really. Quite a few of the biggies who've been interviewed have stated they're purely in it for the dollars. They'll go with what'll load them up in the short term. Long term whatever they choose might be fatal.
Can you blame them? They have invested a large amount of money in a platform that generates money. Do you see where I am getting at? |
|
|
|
"To mitigate potential existential risks, it behooves us all to take the time to evaluate proposals that have been put forward and agree on the best solutions via the consensus-building process."
"We're committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values." According to the letter, bitcoin is a security-critical system with billions of dollars of users' assets that a mistake could compromise. That is true. One cannot argue with that. We have seen what "bad news" does many times so I can imagine what a mistake could do. |
|
|
|
Change your ISP. Problem solved  |
|
|
|
Or the most wealthy parties would make all the transactions, while normal people would be completely blocked out by fees. Though I think that such expensive to use network would just die as even the wealthy players would move elsewhere.
Not necessarily. As mentioned above, the banks will serve the public. These "banks" will have their own ledger which will report to the "Federal Reserve" (Bitcoin blockchain). |
|
|
|
in terms of price, bitcoin is still better
but in trading, LTC may still be better
Volume of BTC is much bigger than LTC. So BTC is easy to trade, but LTC is easy to manipulate. BTC is also easy to manipulate if you have the means. If it wasn't then you would have been looking at a much higher price. |
|
|
|
In my personal opinion, Satoshi is almost certainly already dead. However, he fortunately already expressed an opinion about increasing the blocksize before he disappeared: It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
Sounds like he was in favor of increasing the block size when it is needed. The only question is: "Is it needed yet?" Almost certainly? Like in cryogenics let's say? Also, I would say that it is not needed yet mainly because tx no is still low and apart from that any change made to the protocol without full consensus is a mistake IMO. There will be a winning and a losing side where there should ONLY be one side and that is no side This is not politics. It's the future of money which might become the past if not handled properly. |
|
|
|
Has Ukraine declared that Bitcoin is illegal in their country? If it's not illegal, it must be legal already.
It IS great news, however, that they're taking Bitcoin seriously...the challenge is that there investigation could lead to them outlawing it rather than ignoring it. There's always a price to pay with awareness and growth.
I was wondering about the same thing. When was Bitcoin illegal in Ukraine? |
|
|
|
Lost Access to At Least 15,000 BTC
134634.39864659+15000=149634.39864659
Right..... In that case I lost 750000 BTCAdd that to the total: 149634.39864659 + 750000 = 899634.39864659 Oh, call me Mark btw. My old username was Magical Tux. Now I usually go by the handle Magical Fux  |
|
|
|
i recently found a malware that changes bitcoin addresses when copied to the hackers address so just watch out and check to make sure that the bitcoin address you copy comes out the same when you paste it  Thanks for sharing this info. It is amazing the genius of malware programmers ... changing the copied address.... shocking. I mean honestly that's not really that genius. Anyone that knows windows programming can check every time something is copied to the clipboard, see if it's a bitcoin address and then replace it with their own. That is true, but it's usually the simple things in life that work better |
|
|
|
|
I am not quite sure if this is good news or not yet.
Only time will tell.
On a side note (and probably irrelevant) Barclays has been/will be closing down Brittons accounts in Greece and Cyprus.
|
|
|
|
apparently miners and merchants are the government of bitcoin, you will follow them when they will choose the form, so bitcoin isn't really decentralized and GOV free
there is no real consensus
 Where did you get this idea from? Miners will vote which client they prefer. The merchants can approve or disapprove the miners decision by accepting or not accepting the resulting coins. |
|
|
|
Conclusion
Restricting the size of blocks to 1MB permanently is great if you are a major financial services company. You could co-opt a very robust network, act as a trusted intermediary and force direct users off the chain onto centralized services. For the same reasons, it is a horrible idea if you even want to keep open the possibility that individuals will be able to participate in that network without using a trusted third party as an intermediary.
Enough with theoretical calculation, we need some real world examples that show how people will react when they are facing a hard limit. Humans are adaptive, they will always create solutions to adapt I'm still not convinced that a designer of a monetary system should think like a service provider. A service provider always try to satisfy its customer since he need to make money from his customer. But designer of a monetary system has a totally different sets of concern than a service provider If you look at Federal Reserve's dual mandate, they are low unemployment and low inflation. They never worry about transaction capacity, since that is a too low level of concern: Humans have been transacting slowly for several hundred years and central banks have never tried to improve on that area, it is the mission of commercial banks and payment processors Of course bitcoin is different, it is decentralized, thus require different priorities than a centralized monetary system. But still, the way of thinking matters So you 're saying that Bitcoin should act like the Federal Reserve and serve the banks who in turn will serve the public? If yes, can't we just have Bitcoin act like Bitcoin and nothing like ANY bank or monetary system has ever done before? I mean, we have seen how all types of money failed until now. |
|
|
|
That's nice, but this belongs in the Services SectionYou will get more response there as it is where members usually go for services like yours |
|
|
|
You're only demonstrating that you're incapable of a basic level of understanding.
1. Those Core devs had open concerns about raising the block size limit before Blockstream. So their position clearly isn't a consequence of Blockstream's existence.
2. Both sidechains and the lightning network (and LN did not come from Blockstream) would benefit from bigger blocks, so if anything the supposed "conflict of interest" should have caused them to change their opinion.
Now, do you understand those two very basic points or should I type them slower?
Maybe you are right but their inaction speaks louder than any argument they could make at the moment. It's up to them to prove they don't have ill intention even if they are in such position. So far so good they have done nothing to prove it. Sorry, but how do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intention? Give the funding money back? Quit from Blockstream? And how would they make a living then? Your donations? What about Gavin and Mike Hearn? How do they prove they don't have ill intentions? Didn't they try to pass a blacklisting code in their version of a Bitcoin client? Now, when you answer all above questions, please explain to me WHY do all of you still argue and fight each other when you can easily modify the code (with only a slight block increase)? It's because you guys want to be governed. It's either Gavin or the rest of the devs, right? I completely forgot that Bitcoin is decentralized, and thank God we have the above mentioned options.....  |
|
|
|
Just like the title asks.
Is there a minimum value amount to give in order to claim it as a donation? If not, couldn't a faucet owner consider their payouts as donations and then include them on their next years taxes? I own a faucet, but I don't plan on doing this because it just seems silly, but the idea popped in my head today while driving and thought I'd ask.
I don't think it counts as donation mainly because you need to have proof of payment to each individual. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin doesn't need governance: Bitcoin is governance.
PS: Ph0rk you Gavin!
Lessons in propaganda: teaching the controversy. "This is not about the block size but really about Bitcoin governance. It doesn't suit populist interests and we should change it!" Hmmm, interesting how people must politicize everything, to satisfy their egos and make themselves feel good and important, even though the things they are trying to politicize weren't meant to get politicized and we're invented exactly to fight against this politicization. True, but like you said, people must politicize everything, to satisfy their egos and make themselves feel good and important. Think about it. Bitcoin is open source, therefor anyone can modify the code. However, if they become it's "politicians", then they have control (over something that is not mean to be controlled - ironic). |
|
|
|
RIP Hal. RIP indeed. But who knows? Maybe he'll be back to witness the final satoshis pop out in 2140.
It's pretty mind blowing that this is a possibility. Im scared of transhumanism and let alone being frozen after being clinically death and waking up centuries after, probably with robotic implants because I doubt they would be able to make the entire body function, specially if you had some sort of sickness as well. And at the same time I wish I had the money to do that, you know, just in case it actually happens, but right now it feels too sci-fi. Also who knows what will happen in 100 years. If there is a big war, the lab where your body is stored may get bombarded or something.Yeah, but you will already be dead anyway so it really doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Well Gavin is barely active on the forum, it seems he is more active on the mailing lists and reddit. I think what happened is clear already. There wasn't consensus and Gavin was tired of the blocksize increase (and other BIPs) being ignored so they (Mike too) went the XT route, too bad they ruined it with all the extra code, now no one wants to trust XT. Also I don't like the idea of an insanely big blocksize which is what would happen with XT or BIP101.
Indeed. I too am in favor of larger blocks but not too large. The end result according to XT will be 8GB blocks. That means that the trustless becomes depending on trust (on third party) because I doubt that we will have anywhere near as half as nodes as we have today. Centralization is unavoidable down that road. What does Gavin mean with his sig? Core or XT or something else? Signature:
How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
He had that signature before XT, so I am guessing he is talking about the chance to be a part of Bitcoin. However, I doubt there are second chances in this game. Let's all hope that it all goes well and consesus is reached so we can all go back to discussing truly important things. |
|
|
|
The name Bit or Coin or Bitcoin in the name makes me feel better that it's not some alt scam site.
Coin is a more general word, so that could include alt-coins. Personally I do think that the name matters (you obviously wouldn't call your business a shitty name), but I think the service/product matters more. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
