You're the one who's wrong and who isn't reading anything. If we increase with the right proposal Bitcoin will not fail. If we do not do anything Bitcoin will also not fail. Bitcoin has already succeeded.

Have you ever used a (good) SSD? If not, then stop spreading nonsense. I have one that is 3 years old (in a older system and it is fine). My Samsung 850 Pro is over a year old and has been running constantly in my system. The peformance difference is huge and it does not go corrupt. I'm not sure where you got that 10k read/write from?

Obvious faulty generalization. There's a small risk with every provider, but that's it.

Ah, that is what you meant. I understand now and you're right. Unless you exactly know my email address or something else that is specific, then you can't really tell which one might be me. For anyone that is affected they should just check that they aren't using the same password for anywhere else and there is no problem.

What did you expect when you have people like me who tend to pay 0.01 BTC as a fee or higher? Using the default setting will only make your transactions get thrown in the same bucket as the transactions of a lot of other people that use the same setting. The higher you go (fee wise) the less people there will be before you.

"Broadly, the method places a lot of emphasis on reconciling empiricism and rationalism, and making logical deductions based on empirical data." There's no empirical proof just made up theories. Anything that doesn't go with the flat Earth theory is either a lie or conspiracy according to the believers; it doesn't surprise me that people call it a joke. Buy a drone, fly it over Antarctica (I'm pretty sure that yours wouldn't be the only one around there).

Well not exactly. Wlad has already commit control of Core so that's not right. What I was talking about is something that Mike seems to like, a 'benevolent dictator' (look up the terms Hearn and benevolent dictator in case you haven't read about it before) of Bitcoin. For example, Wladimir will not implement things that do not have a broad consensus and the developers have a right to veto. Taking power would mean to disregard this, and implement what you "feel" is right. Obviously this is bad on many levels.

Badly formatted? What did you use to open the dump with? I thought it was Full name, email, password and it looked fine to me the last time I opened it.

They have been drinking some fine kool-aid. There are so many ways to prove this yourself, yet people come up with such idiotic theories. We're living in the 21th century, wake up people.

Exactly how do you think that could happen if the dynamic system is based on the size of the previous block (for example)? That's not directly possible. As I've already said dynamic != miners voting. Miners voting is just one option of a dynamic block size.

Every single proposal that has been made has issues and every single proposal that is going to be made in the future will have it's own issues as well. Nothing is perfect, and we can't just rush into unexplored territory. A dynamic block size system like the one in the BIP100 could possibly be cheated for an example (this is just one of the problems that has to be dealt with before one could even consider its implementation in the main chain).

Modest increase or a dynamic block size (BIP100 isn't the only proposal that has this feature). As long as we don't try predicting the future, we should be fine. Also "miners choose/dynamic" doesn't have to necessarily be true. The block size can be dynamic without the miners choosing anything.

Yes, legit. I verified.

Not really. As said, I just looked through it I was not looking for anything particular and have already removed the file. Interesting "hard-to-crack" passwords indeed.

They always say "more security" until someone leaks the next set of unencrypted data.

The only reason for which I had noticed this thread again was the "confirmed" part that was based on this image. According to you, if you were to keep going in that direction you would either: a) Fall off into a void?; b) Get to uncharted land. I'm tell you to try it.

Not sure if trolling or the power of the tinfoil hat is too strong. Take a damn boat and keep going in away from Australia and you will see.

You have probably missed the date (I almost did as well) of the tweet. This was posted at end of May, when the discussion was still healthy. However, that is not the case anymore, unless you want to discuss papers from certain people that are based on fairytales.

Well you can't generalize either. There are people that have created their accounts in the past for testing (or other reasons) and have not deleted them. However, you are also right. I have quickly looked through that list as well.

Moderators do not change that message, admins do (that's why it takes a while). Also, stay away from my dog.

If I had to pick one of your options then it would be the following: "It would damage trust in Bitcoin (and the BTC price) to go against the wishes of any sizable portion of the community.". Anyone who suggests someone to take power in a system driven by a consensus algorithm for years is either a fool or evil actor (some people have suggested that the developers take power in order to decide on "controversial decisions"). Anyone with a tiny bit of common sense should not be thinking like this (thus the hard fork threshold should stay high in order to minimize damage).

Without broad consensus you don't have a upgrade of the network, you have a split resulting two partially damaged chains. At this point I'm pretty sure that a single controversial decision forced upon the users, i.e.  without broad consensus, could (at least partially) kill Bitcoin in its current (still fragile) state. At that point it would not be much different from the corrupt monetary system that we live in today. There are a few other coins that would be very appealing in that were to happen.

Definitely not trying to insult you nor anyone directly. I'd never insult someone asking questions. Anyhow let's compare Bitcoin to cash. Let's say we have 2 users that want to transact money. Person A gives person B 100$. In case that person B wants to be bad and ask for the payment again, person A can't prove that he has paid him. In comparison to this, we have the blockchain (a public, permanent ledger). These Bitcoins have to come from somewhere and have to go somewhere. One could argue that a mixer is helpful, but with a competent person and analysis they get beaten. There's also this problem of who is Person A behind address X? It comes down to the actual skill of that person. If they use some service (e.g. exchange like Coinbase), they could be caught easily (especially if the government is getting information).

---

---

Tl;dr: If you want to be 99% sure that one can't trace you, you have to convert to an anonymous coin e.g. Monero to "clean" your coins (one must also consider the sum, if you get xxx$ through elicit means, then don't convert everything at once from Monero to Bitcoin). This is why we call Bitcoin pseudo-anonymous (use Google for exact examples).

Nothing surprising. I've been experiencing a lot of port scans recently, but they all get blocked by my software.