I think bitcoin can't survive until 20 years from now, maximum maybe only 8 years again. The security and banned from the government is the main factor that make bitcoin can't survive for long term.
No, bitcoin can survive until up to 20 years and longer. The total market cap of it keeps on growing and that's the reason why it can survive for a longer time, there would be changes and upgrade but it will remain as the original/origin of cryptos. And once 20 years has passed, the price will become bigger and we can use 1 satoshi for buying something. I thought for 20 years of bitcoin will survive. therefore a time not so long ago. especially at this time bitcoin is still in development stages. course of time it would be a good time for bitcoin Yes most of us believe that bitcoin will survive for 20 years. And it is very possible that bitcoin can be one of the most used currency throughout the world 20 years from now. Once the development of bitcoin is done and we saw the great progress of it and many liked that change then it will make bitcoin as one of the most promising new currency. I don't think it will be bitcoin as the leading currency at this point, but I do expect to see cryptos as a prominent method of payment within 20 years. Way easier way to.maintain a financial ledger, and the fees put current money remission to shame If anything, if we hit space, bitcoin will be space money. |
|
|
|
With bitcoin you can make a nice profit with the volatility. More people I'll join sontje demand goes up and so will the price. If more pope share something then it needed to be debided up more.
Depending on the optics of the Segwit/AsicBoost scandal, we might be seeing a lot of volatility real soon. I have a feeling the price is about to make some major moves,.and they most likely won't be positive. So, I'm thinking hang tight if you want a fairly cheaper entry point into a position. At least, let everything shake out first. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not as popular as we think and also most of the people I met don't want to involve in bitcoin because it is a currency for criminal and bad people, so when they already got a negative mindset, it will be difficult to change it
And it will be more difficult to explain segwit and bu to newbie, even some of the user not really understand that things, the most important for the user is the price
OK, ask these idiots to go to a drug dealer on the street and ask him if they could buy drugs with bitcoin from him and see what happens. On second thought... DO NOT do this, because these idiots might just get shot. Most drugs and economic crime are still being done with cash in hand and people conveniently forget about that. Silkroad gave Bitcoin a bad reputation and now everyone are smack talking Bitcoin because of that. There a millions of people who are using Bitcoin for MANY legal transactions.  This. The blackarks stand out more.to.people than the technology. Bitcoin isoney, unless you dig money and value in an academic way, bitcoin is pretty damned boring. Most lay people I talk to could give a damn about scaling, or fees, or decentralization; they hear about it on Family Guy, or see the price when it surges on the news. |
|
|
|
President Donald Trump reorganized his National Security Council on Wednesday, removing his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, and downgrading the role of his Homeland Security Adviser, Tom Bossert, according to a person familiar with the decision and a regulatory filing.What game is Trump?
You young sprouts might want to put some thought into what you are going to do when the draft letter comes. Looks like I picked the right time to receive my own (Gulf-I.) I think that Trump really was genuine early on when trying to decide whether to try to maintain the global empire or go isolationist and focus on our own problems within. Or hand the keys off to the so-called 'new world order' or 'global corporate technocratic order'. It's looking more and more like he's made up his mind, or that it was made up for him, but the precise flavor of the upcoming conflict is not yet perfectly clear. The loosening of regulations on corporations, and the focus on tax reform, makes me think the 'global corporate technocratic order' box should be checked. As a multinational businessman, this is his interest, and given that he hasn't really divested himself of anything, this certainly would benefit his House and the Houses of those allied with him. |
|
|
|
Do a search for the crackhead (of color) who they arrested...he could barely walk. He seemed very low-functioning and physically very weak. They threw the Felony Book at him.
This could be a test of public / media / first responders for a future stunt.
Atlanta is f*cked without I - 85.
Traffic was fucked.before a freaking concrete structure burned down from a crackfire (yes, I'm coining crackfire, apparently, it's a different beast than what we mere.mortals call fire). But anyway, I'm starting to suspect we had some kind of weird ass industrial accident here, and we are seeing a cover-up for the sake of civil liability. This isn't adding up. |
|
|
|
I personally have not heard any reports about the corruption McCain. I heard that he is not all right with the psyche, but it may be just a rumor. He is a war veteran, was in captivity and only one that I have is trust and respect. What can be said about Trump. I do not respect him.
McCain is a war veteran. He was savagely tortured while being held as a POW in Vietnam. But these are the only good points I have got for him. As a politician, he is as bad as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. He is another shameless puppet of the oligarchs. The people that were imprisoned with him tell a different tale. McCain immediately began talking to get better treatment than the other prisoners. He was made a trustee by the guards and had an easy time is what I read from their accounts.. Don't know much about it. When he ran against Barack Obama during the 2008 United States Presidential Elections, the media was full of sob-stories detailing the torture which he underwent at the hands of the Viet Cong. If what you had posted is true, then I have to admit that I will be very disappointed. I too though McCain was a pretty solid guy, at least, for the sacrifice he endured fin the service of the country. He's old school in a good way, I can dig that. I've never heard anything like this (admittedly, I've only attached the surface,) and this would absolutely ruin it for me as well. If this guy isn't a hero, dammit, what the hell do we have left, LOL? |
|
|
|
Leave your horror stories for the Russian. We are not afraid of you together with your criminal code. Never in Russia was not terrorist attacks using suicide bombers. This explosion authorities blamed on a dead migrant. Now I'm pretty sure it was the handiwork of Putin. Scared of the protests and staged the attack. Putin is Hitler. I don t know what to think of this, but maybe too early to call a false flag. It is indeed easy to manufacture evidence in that particular political climate, but the current administration would gain little from.orchestrating this, save to misdirect from the growing implications of involvement in the US election process. Or the atrocities happening in Syria at the moment. But given this isn't the first time a subway has gone boom over there in the manner, I don't think they would revisit this theme so soon, and in this manner. But, not saying it wasn't facilitated a bit, we do it alot in the USA ( grooming terror participants directly ). |
|
|
|
Because the banks know that once they legalize it, They wont be able to launder money for their Cartel friends and that stops them from making a huge profit. Its all about money to them.
I'm thinking the shareholders of private prisons are more complicit than the banks. Our failed marijuana policy puts a great deal of people.in jail and subsequently generates a lot of federal funding. If this ever dried up, that particular industry would evaporate overnight, and the are REALLY entrenched. We had started to peel back our reliance on private prisons towards the end of Obama's administration, but Trump has signaled.the opposite, a more aggressive stance on marijuana recreationally, and the decision to continue using the private prison system. Stocks for private prisons soared after he won. It's a bit telling. |
|
|
|
.... I understand your angst and alarm, but I don't think this is regukation.. I think they are looking to develop technologies that reduce carbon emission from grills, which are nothing compared to say, any car, but in the aim of reducing the amount of carbon where they can. The evil EPA isn't trying to get into your ribs/burgers/brisket. They just want the planet to persist, which is apparently an evil thing to some people  You're wrong. It is exactly the evil of excess regulation. Agency hires 1000 new heads, each is assigned to subject areas. The low lying fruit is already picked, new areas are required for regulation in minute detail. Voila, 10 new hires assigned to BBQ grill EVIL EMISSIONS. Fuck, that's out of control crazy as far as it could get. But how would this affect the consumer? If they figured something out, it would be on the grill makers to implement it, who might pass it along to the consumer. But if they can build a better grill, and the gov already did the research for them, why shouldn't they, if they can help reduce the carbon footprint? They would only implement this if it were feasible, and it would take many years to roll out. And would overwhelmingly affect China, I feel as though they make the majority of American grills. And when you have more dudes than you need (this is all government), you get these shit projects that someone kicks out at a board meeting, and some gruny is expected to churn a report out for. It's happened to me, the dreaded feasibility report. I think this was more conjecture than threat. Because there is NO "carbon footprint" to charcoal or wood fire. According to this article (I didn't dig deep) they actually do, as we rarely burn pure charcoal anymore, but those little bullshit brickets that are made of a bunch of filler. Propan isn't that bad, and surprisingly, electric grills are the worst offenders. Also, the article raised the point that obtaining actual charcoal is not the most common thing, and it usually isn't local, so the carbon footprint involved in getting it to you factors in as well. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/109524bullshit. And if you fall / fell for it, that's a different kind of problem. You are a wannabe perverted authoritarian liberal control freak in want of a mission, and have latch onto BBQ regulation as your salvation and the purpose of your life. Your righteous task is to search the streets, sniffing for the EVIL 'QUE. Bruh, if I could roam the streets, roll.up.on unsuspecting fools, and confiscate their delicious grilled and smoked meats, I would drop.everything. now. This keyboard. The mic. I don't give any fucks, there is smoky pork, beef and chicken in need of inspection. No I'm kidding I think this is overreaching, but if it is interpreted as the OP did, which is alarmist. This is one of those waste of money projects that I condemn for being a waste of money. I don't think this is Big Environment putting the screws to us. What is hilarious though, is if you replace the carbon emissions with pot. It's a fucking plant, and motherfuckers actually will come to your crib, take your shit, and imprison you for having it. It would be like it I came and sniffed que, wrote citations, seized the meat, grill, and your house, and then arrested you. So, if you feel the same way about the right to emit grill carbon (who really does give a fuck about this LOL) as I feel about the sweet, sweet Chiba, I certainly understand your outrage, sir AMD yes, real men burn their food over wood. This is America, dammit. |
|
|
|
I don't think there is a need to wait for the confirmation, if a fee recommended or little above is paid you'll get faster confirmations. Other than this once after sending the receiver end gets the transacted amount under the unconfirmed transaction list. This itself helps the receiver a hope of receiving the payment.
And with a debit card you don't have to pay anything to move the transaction through. In fact, it's always instantaneous. And there's no need to buy another currency just to spend it. This is why no one is ever going to use bitcoin at Starbucks. On silk road yes, not not for your daily morning coffee Things might change in nearest future If instant off-chain transactions come about, there won't be any single reason to use the blockchain for so trivial things like buying a cup of coffee or tea (what you like most). That's I expect a tremendous boost in Bitcoin use all over the planet once these transactions become a reality. That will be a major milestone in the Bitcoin story. And that's also the reason why miners are heavily objecting to these transactions even though it should be crystal clear to anyone with a half working brain that instant payments will be a real breakthrough for Bitcoin ecosystem I use a shift card for about 90 percent of my transactions, so while I'm using a debit card, technically it's bitcoin. So even on chain, I'm buying pretty basic shit already just given the fact that spending the Bitcoin is so much easier now (had this been a few years ago, I would have been relegated to selling the Bitcoin, or using giftcards purchased with Bitcoin.) The future is looking increasingly brighter. Now if we can just move past this scaling obstacle.. |
|
|
|
If 1 satoshi is equal to 1$ then 1 bitcoin would cost $100m that time if my calculations is correct. If that would happen then all of us would be really rich and will be living a wealthy life. Our whole life will be secured and even our future generations.
I'm more concerned about what the fee would be on a standard bitcoin transaction, if it gets to this price. It would be cheaper to hand deliver the cash to a person in most cases, I would think, rather than pay the multiple thousand dollar transaction fee should the fees scale along with that price increase. Hell, you can mail em gold at that point, LOL. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not developed enough to be a real currency. As others have stated, it is more of a commodity.
Because of it's volatile nature, it is very very risky to use to as a major currency because something that costs $5 today might cost like $10, $20 even tomorrow.
On top of that, the general public who have no technical knowledge wont be able to use bitcoin unless more people get into development and more elegant and user friendly solutions are developed.
Everybody is still waiting for the killer app of Bitcoin. It will take some time. Bitcoin is great for cross border remittances, but not very user friendly. And the high transaction fees are more or less killing microtransactions. Man, I forgot about the fees, don't even get me started! It used to be OK to send tiny amounts with low fees (cleaning dust) and actually expect them to confirm..Things hang so perilously in the mempool now, it's a crap shoot no matter how.much fee you attach. I simply expect a ten percent tax on my bitcoin purchases at this point. For once, fiat is looking way more attractive to hold asy 'housr' currency. Bitcoin is about to hit a lurch, I can taste it. Too much bull in the air ATM Why do we always hit an ATH, then the world crashes and burns around us? |
|
|
|
Maybe he is even in the open already who knows but in my own opinion, if he eventually shows himself and we believe him, which is a determining factor of the effect such outcoming will have, I think its going to be negative in the sense that then people who want to remain anonymous will become sceptical that its might no longer be possible since the creator of the anonymity is back.
I don’t think he is someone we know, I think he has been successful in avoiding revealing his identity to the world and there is a big chance that we are never going to know his identity and I think that is better for us and for bitcoin. Precisely. It would break the mystique at this point, ruin his life, and people would start to ascribe political ideology because of his background/national orign once it was known for certain. Better to just let this dog sleep, it would be like finding out the cake is a lie. But the scandal would probably make the price dip; I guess it just depends on who 'Satoshi' is (having it be someone like Steve Hawkings could be a bonus, meh). |
|
|
|
If you fork and bankrupt miners who bought hardware, Bitcoin can never again be trusted. It means Bitcoin is run by democracy and not by immutability. Satoshi (Nash) will roll over in his grave.
The whales of Bitcoin will destroy any such fork. I guarantee you that!
This is the other glaring point of it. The respect was hard fought, and the trust is barely there (we just got denied the ETF yet again). If majority of miners get burned because of a political decision, bitcoin will be passed over. We will go out like ETH went out with Slock.it, it wasn't a pretty thing. But ETH recovered, amazingly so. I don't think BTC would do as well. And some would call me a maximalist. |
|
|
|
Why would you want the bank to store your coins when you can yourself. That's the point of bitcoin you are the bank.
That correct, we do not need a bank that is similar to banks in real world that accepts fiat, bitcoin is created to give us freedom as we are entitled with that. Bitcoin is the answer and it's not controlled by the government so we can do whatever we want without being watch and being restricted. For me, it's the freedom that we are looking and with this freedom that we experience if we share with other people we will grow as a big community. Banks do have some positive aspects that create value rather than just slurp it from others. For example, pooling bitcoin investments, using them to fund real world, non bitcoin related.ventures is something a bank would do in RL. Also, offering long deposited bitcoin to lenders for interest. While I agree that the whole purpose of bitcoin is being your own bank, the community aspect/pooled risk characteristics of.banks can dovetail with the spirit of.bitcoin in a meaningful way. But, you will have to relinquish trust. Like a bank |
|
|
|
Using Bitcoin is just a choice that someone decides on making. Bitcoin isn't a mandatory thing where it's the only payment method that someone needs in order to purchase items. Introducing Bitcoin to another person that is not familiar with Computers and certain electronics may intimidate them and they would stay far from Bitcoin due to its complexity.
It depends on the person, Bitcoin is the same thing as regular Currency -Bitcoin is used more electronically is all.
Bitcoin isn't as complex as other people might think. It just so happens that bitcoin has not been introduced to a wider audience yet. I think it is up to us early adopters to spread the word and do our small contributions in making bitcoin more popular, which would in turn arouse the curiosity of those who are still clueless what bitcoin can do for them. I don't think it is the complexity of bitcoin as much as the complexity of regulating bitcoin. It moves through borders too easy, is hard to restrict, hard to tax in a meaningful way, and anonymous enough to make law enforcement say fuck all this, this is evil darkwebz money. Not being able to control the supply and distribution doesn't help toouch either. And banks can't manipulate it, so they don't really have an incentive to let it compete with King Cash and his brother, Credit. |
|
|
|
Fucking over everyone using bitcoin is great... Potential user sees a group that's able to game the system with an advantage, and want's to run the other way. Was it illegal, who knows. Amoral, unethical, fucked up central banker shit absolutely.
Well I would agree that given the context of Bitcoin that everyone should be able to compete fairly, a patent should be unenforceable, but I wouldn't blame Jihan for trying to mine. Everyone using ASICs is trying to gain an advantage. Ridiculous imo to try to change the PoW... its the last thing Core should be doing. Having an exploit and using it is one thing. Especially when that thing is a sizeable advantage. But an entirely different thing to manipulate the environment, in order to maintain that advantage. You should evolve, not.stagnate everyone else. I hate this about DC politics, hate to see it in BTC as well  |
|
|
|
7.25.3.6.5 (02-23-1999)
Religious Belief Defined
The term "religious" as used in IRC 501(c)(3) is not subject to precise definition. The leading interpretation of the term was made by the Supreme Court in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), in which the Court interpreted the phrase "religious training and belief" as used in the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C. section 456 (j), in determining an individual’s eligibility for exemption from military service on religious grounds. The Court formulated the following definition: "A sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition."
The Court elaborated upon the Seeger definition in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 33 (1970), stating that "f an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source and content but that nevertheless impose upon him a duty of conscience to refrain from participating in any war at any time, those beliefs certainly occupy in the life of that individual a place parallel to that filled by... God in the lives of traditionally religious persons." Thus, religious beliefs include many beliefs (for example, Taoism, Buddhism, and Secular Humanism) that do not posit the existence of a Supreme Being in the conventional sense.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-003.htmlNo. Doesn't have a supernatural element (you can jokingly place Satoshi here), or a sacred/profane division. Lacks many other characteristics of a religion is well. It could be defined as a social movement, however. |
|
|
|
.... I understand your angst and alarm, but I don't think this is regukation.. I think they are looking to develop technologies that reduce carbon emission from grills, which are nothing compared to say, any car, but in the aim of reducing the amount of carbon where they can. The evil EPA isn't trying to get into your ribs/burgers/brisket. They just want the planet to persist, which is apparently an evil thing to some people You're wrong. It is exactly the evil of excess regulation. Agency hires 1000 new heads, each is assigned to subject areas. The low lying fruit is already picked, new areas are required for regulation in minute detail. Voila, 10 new hires assigned to BBQ grill EVIL EMISSIONS. Fuck, that's out of control crazy as far as it could get. But how would this affect the consumer? If they figured something out, it would be on the grill makers to implement it, who might pass it along to the consumer. But if they can build a better grill, and the gov already did the research for them, why shouldn't they, if they can help reduce the carbon footprint? They would only implement this if it were feasible, and it would take many years to roll out. And would overwhelmingly affect China, I feel as though they make the majority of American grills. And when you have more dudes than you need (this is all government), you get these shit projects that someone kicks out at a board meeting, and some gruny is expected to churn a report out for. It's happened to me, the dreaded feasibility report. I think this was more conjecture than threat. Because there is NO "carbon footprint" to charcoal or wood fire. According to this article (I didn't dig deep) they actually do, as we rarely burn pure charcoal anymore, but those little bullshit brickets that are made of a bunch of filler. Propan isn't that bad, and surprisingly, electric grills are the worst offenders. Also, the article raised the point that obtaining actual charcoal is not the most common thing, and it usually isn't local, so the carbon footprint involved in getting it to you factors in as well. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/109524 |
|
|
|
I'm hoping Bernie survives til 2020
I will not be surprised if the DNC forces Hilary on the people again. Her time is gone and over. Apart fro Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders there isn't anyone who can successfully challenge Trump. They can't Go ahead and google, "the most popular politicians in America", and tell me if you see any names besides Bernie Sanders here's a link https://www.google.com/search?q=most+popular+politicians+in+america&*In 2015, nobody knew who Bernie was... they kept him out of the media, only held 3 debates, all on satuday nights, etc... so nobody would know who he was or what he stood for But now in 2017, everyone knows who Bernie is, and they wish they had voted for him... They simply could not use the same tactics I have to agree. I think Hillary is finally coming to grips with her unlikeability among a sizeable.portion of the population. The Clintons have too much baggage to participate in the Federal government again, but they will do swimmingly in Washington proper. Bernie isn't in bed with the sponsors seemingly, his non sponsored views are refreshing. Lol, you and some other true believers in Bernie should understand that a lot of Americans do not want, and do not like his version of dog-tired old rehashed socialism, and are not excited about it one bit. Yes that includes democrats. Regardless, go ahead and get him nominated so Trump can easily win Term #2. I won't complain. The world will burn cold before Trump gets a second term. Hell, the GOP might largely not exist after this election cycle, LOL. They are distancing themselves from 45 now, pending how RussiaGate shakes out. Russian is the slow moving ttainwrexk that will happen, the possible clusterfucks are gross mishandling of the tax reform and the wall. They dropped a ball they had been dribbling for SEVEN years, with the healthcare repeal. Fox can blame the Freedom Caucus all they want, people will remember the farce that was Trumpcare. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
