After 7 years Bitcoin is still unwelcome as a currency and a poor store of value. Until something wonderful happens, the bears will keep winning until first mover advantage is insignificant and irrelevant.
We always need to keep hope alive, at the least we can take solace in that for better or worse the Bears will always be around as long as Bitcoin is still worth talking about. Well, at least trade volume is higher than ever. edit: besides, honeybadger. |
|
|
|
|
After 7 years Bitcoin is still unwelcome as a currency and a poor store of value. Until something wonderful happens, the bears will keep winning until first mover advantage is insignificant and irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Can you destroy a Bitcoin private key?
Without a blockchain a Bitcoin private key is just a random number (and you can create those very easily). So the value of not being able to "destroy" a random number is exactly what? Blockchain can not be destroyed either, just temporarily out of service  Maybe with a global EMP strike it could. After all it would wipe off all online computers. And the few offline PC's would really not matter afterwards. So could global thermonuclear war created ebola zombies with laser beam eyes. |
|
|
|
The #1 attraction of Bitcoin is its monetary sovereignty. This is how it proposes to change people's life. Not because of free & instant transactions.
You can say the same thing about any altcoin. |
|
|
|
Still waiting for the rally caused by blockstream. |
|
|
|
|
That billion invested by VCs should start to see a return when Bitcoin starts to rally in 2019.
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody is working on anonymity, node propagation, currency traits, exchange security, transaction malleability, easy-to-use off-line signing wallets or any number of things needed to make Bitcoin a serious financial tool. See you back in the 200s after this obvious no fee trading Chinese pump and dump ends.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to hobbycoin support at 280.
|
|
|
|
Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.
Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do. "This forum is comatose" Lulz. Looks like the bitco.in forum exiles are back in full force. Go back to your ad hominem thread instead of destroying this thread. Sorry, wrong guy. I don't own any forums and I was never banned. This forum is no longer used much by devs, mostly it's for speculators and non-bitcoin related discussions. It's still fun to come here every once-and-again. |
|
|
|
Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.
Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do. I was referring to relay node centralization, not mining nodes. Yeah, that's a real incentive problem. I wish there was more free high tech stuff in the world. |
|
|
|
Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.
Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do. |
|
|
|
A popular misconception "miners vote by upgrading." They also vote by forking, merge mining, and dumping their income. In fact, the notion of voting goes against the "Byzantine Generals Problem" that Bitcoin solves. Bitcoin isn't a democracy, nor a republic. Developers are not a community. They model their behavior after the scientific community sometimes, but mostly it's works best when its adversarial. You can pretend that you have the high moral ground, but you are deluded because there are thousands of forks that prove you otherwise and they have their sights set on your "community" to destroy it. So my advice is to stick to technical and scientific arguments and keep politics out of the discussion because it's just noise. |
|
|
|
It is so obvious that government puppets want bitcoin blockchain without bitcoin. You know, from time to time developers need to eat! Who will finance them? Bitcoin is not an amateur game anymore. Bitcoin needs dedicated professionals working full time on any serious implementation. We should be grateful what Blockstream is doing for Core devs. This was a job originally planned for the Bitcoin Foundation but they are nearly bankrupt following Mike's and Gavin's advice to lobby and educate government. What the Bitcoin Foundation got at the end for all the efforts and money they've spent is... Bitlicense. You are saying that developers are not eating? Blockstream devs are eating well and yet nothing has been produced for their VCs investment. It seems that Bitcoin Foundation isn't the only group of investors throwing money away. Doesn't matter though. You can tell folks to sell, but investment advice is for suckers. Not sure if you have been under a rock but Blockstream have already released some proof-of-concept revolutionary code, albeit alpha/beta, in sidechains and lightning. We don't need bigger blocks where we're going because we have better performing overlays already that will let the bitcoin blockchain concentrate on doing what it is good at ... security, settlement and distributed consensus without getting bogged down and bloated in payment system feature creeps, smart contract explosions and lattes for da frap.boyz. Proof-of-concept is code for non-functional in the real world. Let me guess, all you need is to add a dash of trust, and a pinch of secrecy. Nothing to see here, folks. Everything is fine. We'll see when your VC money runs out what actually gets done by folks that keep everything open-source. You'ld be surprised that there are more than a handful of smart people in the world that could do a lot of good for Bitcoin when you stop calling them frap boyz. |
|
|
|
It is so obvious that government puppets want bitcoin blockchain without bitcoin. You know, from time to time developers need to eat! Who will finance them? Bitcoin is not an amateur game anymore. Bitcoin needs dedicated professionals working full time on any serious implementation. We should be grateful what Blockstream is doing for Core devs. This was a job originally planned for the Bitcoin Foundation but they are nearly bankrupt following Mike's and Gavin's advice to lobby and educate government. What the Bitcoin Foundation got at the end for all the efforts and money they've spent is... Bitlicense. You are saying that developers are not eating? Blockstream devs are eating well and yet nothing has been produced for their VCs investment. It seems that Bitcoin Foundation isn't the only group of investors throwing money away. Doesn't matter though. You can tell folks to sell, but investment advice is for suckers. |
|
|
|
|
The only support for this movement is 295 because there isn't confidence in 300 to stay there. Bitcoin is still considered an experimental toy that doesn't scale until a "blockchain" solution is found (whatever they mean by that).
|
|
|
|
The company also reported nearly $7 million in losses after the year’s midway point following taxes and the depreciation of bitcoin. It sounds like Australian regulators killed their business. |
|
|
|
|
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women." Conan the Barbarian
|
|
|
|
We are not responsible for your inability to understand fundamental facts about bitcoin scalability issues and centralization. It seems that you keep supporting bigger blocks. For the last time, please understand that our hardware is not capable of handling bigger blocks. This will be devastating for bitcoin, and will turn many people on altcoins, which they have the same scalability issues or even worse.Ohh wait! How convenient! Your nickname looks self-explanatory. LiteCoinGuy, how many litecoins do you own? Well not everyone is invested in LiteCoin, which is just a copy of bitcoin, and 2.5 minute blocks make it even harder to scale compared to bitcoin. I'm not sure where you life so that "our" hardware is not capable of using bigger blocks. In practically all countries i know it would be no problem at all. Might depend on where you live.  There's the rub. Some countries have miners with the advantage of bigger blocks and some have miners with the advantage of smaller blocks. If you get away from the hardware issue and focus on the end user, then more tps and larger blocks becomes evident. Not really. What you describe would be some stoneage country. Every computer nowadays can deal with it. And we surely don't need to make sure that bitcoin nodes can run on a C64, don't you think? One can go too far easily... It takes more than computing power to support larger block sizes. Some countries can't handle the bandwidth of those large blocks to propagate them. |
|
|
|
|
Another pump to 300. The market seems unconvinced that bitcoin will scale beyond a novelty.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
