IOW you continue in the practice of praising bitcoin forks and likely attack vectors on bitcoin through your analogy.  In that regard, there is no need for me to lighten up about your attempt to paint forks as positives, especially given your recent history in supporting the bcash trash... and likely you have not learned in the right direction from your recent support of scams (aka bitcoin attack vectors).

That no-name business, Chainspace, seems to be ethereum-focused, too.

So, such a focus of shit, could cause facebook to get distracted down the wrong path (or maybe companies do get a lot more excited about various proof of stake mumbo jumbo directions?), possibly because their ego continues to muddy their corporate vision, and they are striving to distinguish their path from a winkelvi-following direction? which would be a BIG mistake.  

Yet, by the way, the winkelvi have also taken a nutjob direction when they created their Gemini "stable coin" with an ERC 20 ethereum base.

Convolution continues in the space - and fear of associating with bitcoin.


Edited to add below response to V8:

As always... V8 is quicker than me to have identified the importance of this matter and the seeming distracted direction in which facebook seems to be heading with this matter.

You are likely correct.  I am a little bit particular in my localbitcoin's advert, and from those peeps who contact me, I end up screening several of them out.  Yet, overall, the more experienced Localbitcoin participants do seem to tend to have a certain level of shadiness.

hahahahaha...

You got the troll there... MicG.

Well, maybe this deserves some further explanation?  I thought that there was a bit of obviousness to the situation that I was asking about. 

Even though bitcoin becomes more powerful because it has been attacked at various times, that does not mean that any of us bitcoin supporters need to embrace such attacks as a good thing.  We don't need to embrace nor applaud the attackers or the bad people nor concede that they are doing a good thing, even if good results come out of the whole situation.

Of course, bitcoin became a whole hell-of-a lot stronger in mid-2017 and thereafter because of various attacks that were going on then and even until present.  So, now, some of the attacks are a lot more easily brushed aside.



Sure.  We don't disagree about these points.


Actually, it is likely that attacks are going to get better and become more sophisticated.  The only way that attacks have any chance for success is by getting stronger and better.


I am not sure if the betamax and vhs analogy is good here, but I think that I understand your overall point(s).


True, but that still does not mean that we should (or need to) embrace them nor embrace people behind them as if they are performing some benevolent service... and some of the attackers (or their supporters) attempt to frame the situation as if they are performing some kind of service.  I would rather tell them to fuck off on a regular basis rather than to treat them as benevolent free marketers.


I agree with you about that too, but still, like I already said, the fact that bitcoin has gotten stronger and better from the attacks does not logically justify embracing bitcoin attackers, attacker supporters nor the existence of bitcoin attack vectors.  They need to be recognized, snuffed out and stepped on like the parasites that they are... hahahahaha   

Does such authority associations scare* you? 

*As a courtesy, I made the above police officer image more petite, to possibly assist you in dealing.

Such a violent inclination that you have there, goldkingcoiner.

Perhaps you have not had any fortuitous trading luck, recently?  No 80x mistakes in your favor?   

Even though you are likely correct, so fucking what?

In essence, any person can be here for a variety of reasons, including likely gains.

You seem to have a problem with a concept of incentives, byebyehi, amirite?  Or do you just have a problem with individuals being able to seek profits?  your religious problem or are you just envious?

Definitely an interesting concept.... which is to see that there was largely a dip in the transactions per day in early 2018 that slowly has been working its way back up, at least since mid-2018.

By the way, Bitcoinaire (or anyone else looking at this matter),  I was a little bit confused by the brown color on that website bitcoinvisuals.com chart, so I also confirmed the daily transaction information with the chart information on blockchain.com.

There are a lot of the pill descriptions that are really dumb and ambiguous.

The most logical of the group of pills, and the best choices are 7 and 9, and the reasons for those two being the best should be obvious, both in terms of the potential to live forever and to have a guarantee of having a sound mind and body. Living forever would allow you to do whatever you want, and hopefully NOT too much boredom would set in from such, even after thousands of years (which might cause you to want to make sure whatever blockchain that you chose will continue to exist, otherwise, poof!!!!!  you are a gonner.)

Anyhow, for number 9, there is a need to disambiguate by defining "still exists" for the blockchain that is chosen. 

Even though currently bitcoin remains the most likely blockchain to continue to exist and for the longest time, even choosing some other blockchains could result in "still existing" and therefore a long life, depending upon how "still exist" is defined. 

So, for example, if your immortality depended on a certain blockchain, even ethereum, to still exist, you could take actions to prop up such blockchain, even if such blockchain is otherwise dead to most aspects of humanity.  In 100 years or 500 years, for example, even if .5% of the world is using a certain blockchain, such as ethereum (hate to talk about such a shitty coin, but trying to make the point of propping up shit), such largely non-used blockchain could fit a definition of "still existing"  because it continues to be propped up by someone (and therefore a group) who is willing to continue to support it.

Just for clarification, according to a Kraken blog post from today, it appears that futures trading has already gone live on Kraken, as of today.

Probably you need to clarify your above statement, jbreher.  

I understand that in the past, you have expressed beliefs that attacking bitcoin, even by fork, is merely a free market dynamic, and therefore, if we believe in free markets, then we should embrace such forkening events.  So, are you still caught up on some kind of suggestion that there is some kind of praise that the bitcoin community should be giving towards various attacks upon it that are likely going to continue, including through various forkening mechanisms?    

We could probably add to such list.  For example, just off the top of my head, I would add, instead of saying "bitcoin is money," I would say "bitcoin is sound money"  Furthermore, I would also say "bitcoin is self-sovereignty control over your own value" and "bitcoin is uncensorable, secure, unconfiscatable and immutable".   I am sure that folks here can come up with other concepts, too, that do not seem to be captured on such an already long list.

Yep.  Shilling other coins in this thread is off topic, and generally offensive, even if guys (or a gal) is engaged in such behavior in order to acquire more bitcoin.  The mere fact that a person is trying to acquire more BTC does not make such shilling/pumping discussions to be relevant to this thread.

Even though we might not need to know all of the Bitcoin underpinnings, there are a lot of possible levels of complication in bitcoin, including a variety of interfaces that vary in degree of complication - and even questionable security that involves more value at risk to screw up a bitcoin transaction as compared with e-mail.

it is not a fair comparison to compare a brand new asset to relatively mature assets...

In terms of bitcoin, probably starting in 2013 or thereafter would be more fair, although I expect that bitcoin is going to continue to experience an outrageous exponential s-curve adoption in the coming years.

Great!!!!  Welcome back, machasm.    I had lost my account twice in late 2016, and each time, I had realized the value of my original account, even though I had not really appreciated such value and such possible loss of value before I lost access to it. 

The first time was resolved in about a week with the help of Cyrus and Lauda, and due to a hack, and the second time was due to my own logging-in mistake, but took about a month to resolve directly through theymos (likely Lauda assisted with that one too, though she claims to have had no influence at that time.. hahahahaha).  Go figure regarding the quicker resolution process when a hack versus my own logging in mistake.  By the way, my logging in mistake was to attempt to use the auto password recovery feature, and theymos later told me (through text I believe) that all account get banned when they use that auto password recovery feature.  Go figure, again.   

Yes.  Agreed.  If any BTC transaction is relatively small, such as a coffee, and even perhaps decently small retail transactions of less than $50, there might be some confidence to NOT rely upon any confirmation before allowing the transaction to take place without necessarily knowing the BTC sender.  On the other hand, a lot of merchants, and I changed my practice in this regard too, wait for at least 1 confirmation if the transaction is hundreds of dollars or more. Of course, if you are transacting with several thousand dollars (maybe $10k or more, depending on risk tolerance), and an unknown person, then waiting for 3 to 6 confirmations would give the greatest assurance before releasing the non-BTC end of the transaction.

In other words, when dealing with strangers, the higher the stake the more incentive for the other person to cheat, but most regular people do not cheat on a regular basis, but some regular people still might end up cheating (and not do the right thing) if they were accidentally left with a windfall situation that causes them to receive a decent amount of possibly untraceable and irreversible value.  Some people will not do the right thing, even though they may have never been left in such a power position to test how they would react.

I have one personal Localbitcoins story, in this regard.  About a year ago, maybe a little less than a year ago, I had conducted a cash transaction for about half of a bitcoin around $7k.  For some reason, I had miscalculated and gave the person $600 more than what was the current price (So in that situation I gave the person $3,800 rather than $3,200 - something like that). 

I caught the mistake about 10 minutes after the transaction, and after the person already had left the transaction location with the extra $600 that I had given to him.  Neither of us had intended such a situation, he acknowledged the mistake, and after I repeatedly texted him, and even offered to go to his location to retrieve the $600, he did not do the right thing of returning the $600 to me. 

He also began to call me names in what seemed to be a kind of rationalization for him to keep the $600.  Anyhow, I consider that person to have been a regular person, and even that he had rationalized in his own head that he was correct to keep the extra $600 that I had given to him (windfall), but I still believe (my assumption that people who you meet in person are usually honest) only a minority of people would have kept the $600 in that particular situation... but the real test remains getting into the situation, and test of character about whether you personally do the right thing when given an opportunity to nearly anonymously profit.

Yes.  1% has been a conservative recommendation that a lot of BTC HODLers have been suggesting to nocoiners for years, whether the BTC price is up or down.

Of course, each of us BTC HODLers have had differing approaches, and differing ways to present what we believe to be prudent BTC HODLing, accumulating and investing.  Personally, I have suggested a range of prudence for BTC percentage to be targeted between 1% and 10%.  Of course, there are BTC HODLers who have been more aggressive in their personal approach by allocating much higher amounts towards BT , which, historically, has large paid off as long as such more aggressive persons have been able to HODL through decently long periods of bear markets (which can certainly be trying), and surely, such more aggressive approaches would not necessarily pay off if a decent amount of fiat cashflow and expenses (including possible emergencies, which are nearly inevitable to happen over long periods) are not accounted for over such longer possible bear market (BTC price correction) periods.

Even though past performance do not guarantee future results, I think that if any of us BTC HODLers are speaking with nocoiners, we can continue to confidently recommend 1% to 10% BTC allocations as continuing to be prudent, while at the same time attempting to make clear that each person has to take responsibility for their own BTC allocation decision(s) because no investment is risk free, even though BTC continues to seem like a nobrainer to a lot of us who have studied the space in recent years and decided to take a decent stake into what we believe to be its likely future success.

To the extent that Charlie Lee's prediction matters, "within" means "less than," so I don't know where you are getting 2022-2023 from that Charlie Lee statement.