I don't believe we have any concerns at all, no.  One minute the media are saying China have declared war on Bitcoin, the next minute, the media are saying China will use Bitcoin to take over the world.  It's basically just one mindless, sensationalist figment of their imagination after another.   

What isn't a threat to USD's reserve currency status these days?  

I don't see this as anything other than the published musings of a random mogul on what must have been a slow news day.  It doesn't hold water.

I still think 90% of the posts will be from "Mr Millisats" himself, but if you want to contend with that freakshow, then on your head be it. 

Further to Rath's excellent post, I'd imagine it's largely due to who the users of Liquid primarily are.  The average person is unlikely to engage with Liquid directly.  It seems to be oriented more towards businesses.  If the companies you frequently deal with are relying on FAQs on an Internet forum, I'd have some concerns.  They should already know what they're doing.

I suppose such a topic might conceivably be useful for someone looking to start a business, as everyone needs to begin somewhere, but the guide would basically consist of "go to this gatekeeper and follow their instructions".  There's not much more information most of us here can provide unless any of us happen to be involved with one of the companies that use it.

Lots of people seem to be stating the obvious here.  Clearly it's not realistic to think that every country will play along.  But think it through.  If the US is going ahead with their own increase regardless, then there are literally no downsides in attempting to convince other countries to do it too.  Every nation that does raise theirs is a bonus.

I swear most of the participants in the thread are simply venting because they despise Biden/Yellen or progressive policies in general.  You can argue the pros and cons of the tax rate itself, but you can't dispute the distinct lack of negatives if they can reach an agreement and work with other countries.

It's his move by the sounds of it.



But every company can already do that, though.  There's a larger incentive for them to do it while other places have lower tax.  If anything, it helps the US if other nations raise their corporation tax.

Yep, some miners have been known to announce an incompatible chain before it launches.  An unplanned fork probably wouldn't survive for long in the wild.  It's not generally a choice you would make without thinking it through and committing to your decision.  If miners did spend a week or two mining a new chain only for it to subsequently die, that's potentially a large amount of wasted resources.

If we ignore the part about creating ridiculous quantities of supply, there was a time where even some of the more technically astute people thought there might be a possibility that everyone would have their own individualised tokens.  I'm sure I remember Andreas Antonopoulos saying something along those lines once.  The notion does seem more than a little fanciful now, though.  Things just didn't evolve that way.

Yeah, I think this sums it up pretty well.  Ethereum's primary use-case is creating tokens, so NFTs effectively enhance the utility of that environment.  The benefits outweigh the costs there.

Bitcoin's primary use-case is (arguably, because I know there's always room for disagreement on this) censorship resistant and secure transfer of value.  Anything not geared towards that goal is often perceived as a drain on valuable resources.  It doesn't enhance utility.  The costs outweigh the benefits here.

Totally different priorities.

I think it's a question of utility.  It's difficult to say how many people would find it useful.  The idiom "if you build it, they will come" doesn't always appear to hold true in crypto.  Or, at least, they come for a little while and then move on to the next fad.  People build stuff all the time that either seldom gets used, or even gets left completely abandoned.  There needs to be a demand, need, or a purpose, for the thing in order for development to continue progressing.  At the moment, there just doesn't seem to be enough interest in that area for it to be a worthwhile effort to pursue.

Since he's not going to listen to me, can someone else explain to him why everything he just said was absolute nonsense?  


//EDIT:


Yeah, going to lock it now before fantasy1 tries to post more technobabble insanity.

I'm not surprised you've managed to totally misinterpret what I've said.  I'm pretty sure I didn't say the parts I've marked as disputed.  If anyone (other than franky1) can corroborate the above accusation and say they also believe I've said those things, feel free to make yourselves known.  I'll offer a retraction if I have misspoken.  

My stance is, and always has been, that BIP91 bit 4 flag is what activated Segwit with 90+% of the hashrate, but instead of acknowledging that, you continue to moan about a totally different BIP 141 and bit 1 flag only being at 45%:


You are talking about the wrong flag here.  Technical fact.  Do not even try to argue or weasel your way out of it.  No "do research", no "scenarios", no "social drama".  You are talking about the wrong flag.  That is not how SegWit was activated.  

I then went on to point out that the small number of people being forked off the network were using neither bit 1 nor bit 4.  The had network service bit 6 or bit 8.  This is not consensus being "broken".  This is consensus in action.  A rule was introduced that any node with bit 6 or bit 8 would be disconnected due to concerns over the risk of replay attacks as a rival network had launched and had not yet changed their network magic.  This is all well documented and completely factual, but you ignore it every time it is said to you.  You maintain the stance that this is somehow immoral.  I have stated my view you're just being emotional and there there are perfectly valid reasons to disconnect those users if they wish to run incompatible software.  It had nothing to do with trying to rig the result in favour of activating SegWit.



"Mentioning details" about flags does not constitute a technical post unless you UNDERSTAND what those flags mean and you don't try to twist the data you're looking at to support narratives that simply aren't true.  When you do that, you cross the line from "technical" to "techno-babble".  And you cross that line OFTEN.  It wasn't a "tactic", consensus never "broke" and it absolutely will happen again if it is deemed necessary to protect the network.  "Should" is an opinion, not a technical argument.

According to this topic, a forum member is banned from posting in that particular subforum.  After a while, they started posting there again.  I had been wondering if the ban was temporary and had now expired, but a mod has confirmed the ban is still in effect.  So that user has been wilfully ignoring the ban and posting anyway.  49 times this month, no less.  

Should they be permanently banned from the forum for ban evasion?

Translation:  "No one is allowed to do anything unless I say so".

So much for permissionless, I guess.  Unless of course, everyone simply ignores you, which they will.

If you have an issue, raise it on GitHub.  That's what it's there for.  Have all the discussion you want.  They're not begging for your approval, though.

That doesn't make rational sense.  You don't get wealthy by merely adopting stablecoins.  You could only potentially increase your wealth by gambling with them by attempting to buy other coins with them that might increase versus the value of the stablecoin.  But at the same token, you can also lose wealth doing that.  Simply holding stablecoins doesn't do squat.

I swear, there is no facepalm gif large enough to express how utterly gormless you are. 

As always, you're the one who needs to learn to read.  Here is a larger font to assist you:


It doesn't matter if the only thing you care about is a particular feature activation that was being decided upon.  That's not the only reason you can be forked off.  How many more times do you need it to be said?  Most 5 year olds would have understood it by now.  The other network rules don't disappear just because you're looking at a certain possible rule change.  Why do you still think it's like an election where people can only pick from the preset outcomes on the ballot and we have to wait for a set date and time for the result?  You have seen with your own eyes that's not how it works. 

How can you possibly believe a proposed feature in the process of being decided upon would somehow magically grant immunity to being removed from the network for other reasons?  If a feature is being debated and a miner happens to start publishing invalid blocks at the time, do you think that miner stays on the network just because the feature hasn't activated yet?  Of course they don't.  Features don't change that.  You cannot argue that point and expect people to take you seriously.  THINK before you click reply.  If the network introduces a rule that bit 6 and bit 8 get disconnected, your precious feature activation does not factor into the equation.  Anyone flagging bit 6 and bit 8 goes bye-bye.  It's done.  History.  Accept the facts.  This is how it is.  "BEFORE ACTIVATION" is irrelevant.  Meaningless.  Not connected in any way, shape or form.  Other network rules exist as well and cannot be ignored.

*waits for franky1 to cry "bEfOrE aCtIvAtIoN" yet again because he can't comprehend*

That's some brilliant franky1 logic right there, heh.  You want to maintain that nothing changed but at the same time people got forked off?  Which is it?  If nothing changed, how did anyone get forked off?  No doubt that's yet another question you'll completely avoid so you can just repeat the same things you've already said another dozen times.    




There's that famous "should" again.  Where you think you get to set the terms and decide how it works.  Engage in wishful thinking all you like.  It doesn't work like that, though.  If enough people agree, that's sufficient.  If you think the rest of us need your permission to do something, you don't understand Bitcoin.
 It's as simple as that.  I'm not explaining how I think it should work.  I'm perfectly happy with how it does work.  Remember, you're the one who wants it changed.  You want us to bow to your wishes.  I like it how it is.  We bow to no one.  It doesn't have to be total agreement, otherwise nothing would ever get done.

I'm sure you would prefer a network where rules can't change without your explicit permission.  Anyone can see how that would appeal to your desire for absolute control.  It's just a pity you didn't realise that isn't how this system works.  If only you had done more research.    

What exactly do you think you're going to achieve here?  What do you think will be different next time?  Are you trying to guilt-trip everyone into enacting "scout's honour" going forwards?  Do you think all participants will naturally embody your absurd notions of playing nice?  

This.  There are several inherent dangers in presenting arguments against competition, as the OP has.  That's a slippery slope.

Competition is vital, because it keeps the market honest.  If you attempt to suppress a free and open market, creating an environment where coins were equal and nothing operates on merit, that environment could then, in turn, be manipulated to someone's benefit.  It would make collusion and rigging far easier. 

Competition breeds innovation.  All coins have to adapt to stay relevant.  That's inescapable.  Taking that away would simply result in complacency.  No one would be trying to push the envelope and break new ground.  Technologies would become stale and the industry as a whole could stagnate.

Competition is also important as it means niches within the market can be served.  As good as Bitcoin is, it can't do everything.  The market needs to be able to arrive at its own decisions.  It doesn't help to kneecap coins in a misguided attempt to create fairness where it doesn't belong.

I told you, I'm not wasting any further time explaining why you are wrong about SegWit activation.  There's no point.  For over three years you've been crying foul and for over three years not a single person has rallied to your lost cause.  And it's not like you'll ever understand, even if I explained it 1000 times.  Going forwards, I'm only interested in debating your utterly flawed concept of consensus.



Says you.  There are two fundamental flaws in your comprehension.  Activation and enforcement.  We'll start with the latter:

Clearly you have a problem with enforcement.  You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not in a position to enforce it.  People who are collaborating together, however, can enforce things.  If you work with people and build a network that is based on rules, the participants either follow the rules or they can be excluded from that system by the others.  Much like a society, but less restrictive.  Traditionally, if you break the law, you can be excluded from society in the form of imprisonment or, in some places, even death.  Thankfully, consensus mechanisms are not that draconian (so it's often baffling as to why you're such a whiny little crybaby about it).  Instead, you get to instantly form your own society if you disagree with our one.  The only downside is you don't get to take advantage of the existing infrastructure, the network effects or the security of the society you chose to leave.  You have to build that for yourself if you decide you can't work together with us.  The choice is yours.  And it's not a one-time deal either.  At any point you can re-join our network.  All you have to do is follow the rules (so stop pretending it's on par with a crime against humanity if someone did get forked off, you histrionic drama queen).  Our door is always open.

Now, onto activation.  Activation of a given feature (one that you happen to be totally obsessed with) is not the only occasion where the rules can change.  The "mandatory" part you keep moaning about wasn't even related to activation of the feature (also, you mean bit 6 and bit 8, but you keep saying bit 4, as if you somehow felt it necessary to further illustrate your lack of understanding).  You were so caught up in hating the feature, you mistook a totally different and unrelated change in consensus to be tied to activation of that feature.  But you still can't grasp that fact.  Consensus can change at any time, for any reason the majority deem appropriate.  The majority decide what the rules are.  Block by block.  The minority do get forked off if they don't follow the rules.  Again, if you want to take advantage of our security and our network effects, you follow our rules.  That is how the system you chose to be a part of functions.  

So, to ask the obvious question, why did you join this system if you are fundamentally opposed to how it works?  How misguided do you have to be to complain about an integral, crucial function that underpins the entire foundations of everything we've built?  It sounds as though you understand it so poorly that you believe it to be somehow immoral.  Even though it can't work any other way.  You do see how your position is completely untenable, right?  Logically, you can't take the stance that everyone has to agree when you can't eliminate free will.  What are you going to do?  Hold a gun to peoples' heads to make them agree?  How have you not thought this through to conclusion?  What are all these "scenarios" you run even for if they can't bring you to a rational conclusion?

Bottom line, if you can design a consensus mechanism that forces everyone to agree, feel free to publish it.  You can't stop other people from running incompatible code.  You can't stop me from deciding when someone else's code is incompatible.  You can't stop me choosing to disconnect or ban other nodes if they run code I don't approve of.  What you are proposing is quite literally impossible.  It could never exist.  Even if you were the most gifted programmer in the world, rather than the clueless, raving narcissist you are.  Accept the fact that you can't control people and move on.  Or cry harder.  Up to you.

And even if you had an answer to all of that (hint: you clearly don't), it has been explained to you on more than one occasion that if someone creates a Bitcoin fork and doesn't alter their new chain's network magic, this will result in replay attacks becoming possible.  Don't deflect from this issue as you've deflected every other time it has been raised.  Tell me, in no uncertain terms, how you would prevent replay attacks if a fork won't change it's network magic, since your glorious "everyone-has-to-agree-democracy" system won't allow disconnecting or banning nodes until you're personally satisfied that everyone is in agreement?  It appears that not only do you hate freedom, you also want to endanger the imaginary users of your imaginary totalitarian system.



That's not a "mindset".  That's actually the closest I've ever seen you come to finally understanding the basics.  

Just so you're not derailing yet another LN thread, replying to this here:


My loyalty is to freedom.  Yours is to fascism and thinking you can tell people what to do.  

I think consensus means those who choose to agree build a chain together.
You think it means "everyone has to agree because I say so".  Which not only sounds utterly childish, but is also demonstrably not the way in which Bitcoin works.  And each time you commit to that untenable position, you prove exactly why no one should ever take you seriously.  Please keep it up.

When I say "if you don't like it, you can fork off", I say it not as an instruction, but as a list of your available options.  It's merely a statement of fact.  If you want to run incompatible consensus rules, you don't have a choice in the matter.  That's just an explanation of how it works.  I don't get how you are still unable to comprehend that fact after all these years.  If you think you can run code that is not compatible and still remain connected to other nodes that deem your rules invalid, then you leave me no alternative but to question your intelligence.