To be honest, I think the use of p2p technology is perfectly well suited to some applications for video streaming. Streaming video is too resource intensive and services that need reliability better than youtube are already utilizing the resources of their users to spread their content and reduce usage of their servers' bandwidth and processing power. For this, we are already seeing major providers such as TV channels using it in their websites. We don't need a cryptocurrency attached to these IMHO. If somebody wants to watch free content online, then contributing some bandwidth could be an option.

Sorry to say so, but I think technical analysis is most useless for such a prediction. It doesn't ring a bell to me that OP attached a link to promote something of his own after such a long wall of text that mostly consists of nonsense. Fake it till you make it. 

Maybe this is a very unorthodox attempt to rank an account, perhaps trying to spread some malware in the process too? It could be that OP think naive users would download a .exe file if he made it look that he's naive about private keys.

OP, please can you break the link? Maybe add another symbol to replace the dot or something so it's not clickable. Linking to the website actually helps them rank in search engines.

HODLER is my favorite.

I've also heard cryptonerd nad cryptogeek being used unironically.

It's not the sad truth about any new technology, they're just after profits so they go after the cheapest raw materials. Sourcing from ethical mines is perfectly possible. Tesla isn't the only company that doesn't check on its supply chain, but they sure could do better than use Congolese mines.

Thanks for this piece of history. It's nice to have the background on how things came to be with bitcointalk. Maybe it's just me, but bitcointalk continues to give an eerie vibe of discovery with its obscurity still... The unorthodox design, the technobabble that members talk about... Everything from top to bottom with this forum, at least to me, still looks and feels geeky to me.

Unless this campaign has some BTC reward, I don't think it should be in the services board.

Also recommended to the campaign managers would be to utilize some trusted escrow if they'd like to earn the trust of the forum users.

Happy birthday to the forum that came with Bitcoin, what many call one of the most important inventions of our generation.

Given the unregulated nature of cryptocurrency and how commercialized everything around it has become, I believe the administration of this website deserves a special congratulations for keeping the forum up and running for 10 years with so much interest and

It's amazing to me how uniquely this community has developed, with it's own web of trust and unique forum features, all built on a forum engine with a design many would call outdated. And yet, there still is a constant influx of users sustained in the very same forum satoshi first talked about bitcoin.

Boy, seeing BTC fall more than 10% isn't new but certainly doesn't look or feel nice. People I think got tired of waiting for a new bull run and now we're going to see some real correction from the all time highs if a bear market starts. I think resistance is weak at this point.

I'd rather avoid naming names but I don't think animosity is useful to anyone... The forum's web of trust and merit system appear to be points of conflict for some of the top accounts, which I can't help but state that it makes me sad. I've seen top figures be caught up in drama for no good reason here over the years. It's obvious many of these people have the capabilities to be really creative, teach the world or in general leave something positive behind in some way or capacity. LoyceV is in my view spending a lot of his time to utilize his knowledge and resources building tools useful to forum users, something which I find very admirable. I wish more users of this forum would follow that principle and use their energy to be helpful instead of being ready to take any offense and stir up drama at all times.

IMO it'd be better if this community paid little to no attention to drama, and instead looked down upon immature behaviors. I'm tired of 'drama-lama' threads pilling up pages upon pages of responses, especially if it concerns old-time members.

Btctalk Username: alani123
Bitsler name: alan_the
Post count: 5702
Rank: Legendary
BTC addy: 3CgsDHomAndhyC91e3ZPW9zwD2oPJZXq9x

reapplying with a BTC address

Btctalk Username: alani123
Bitsler name: alan_the
Post count: 5701
Rank: Legendary

To be honest, I don't want this to happen again. Let them add whatever shitcoins certain communities want them to, but the Reddit crowd is already crypto-aware enough. The exposure isn't going to reach many people that don't know bitcoin. Plus, Reddit used to accept BTC anyway... The selling pressure IMO would do more damage. If they add altcoins only it's going to create volumes in crypto BTC markets which is better than just BTC/FIAT selling pressure.

I think that it's not just the scarcity, but also the fact that the most powerful computer network in terms of processing power stands behind supporting this supply and the per-determined schedule for releasing more bitcoins. Every participant in this network holds a mutual interest to uphold these standards and any deviation would imminently have them kicked-out of the network, without being able to enjoy the monetary incentive of mining so long as they support different standards than the ones set in stone in the BTC chain.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care what people have been doing with their accounts. If there's demand for it, it can have market value. Beyond that, it's very hard to regulate what happens behind closed doors.

Forum mods should be impartial enforcing the rules on a case by case basis but trying to preach that bitcointalk is not an investment is something that many people would just not listen to. It's hard to enforce so to me just banning spammers is enough. I wouldn't want the mods of the website to be preoccupied with account transfers, going paranoid about such activity. Hunting spam is already a colossal task.

I don't like the new design of the blockchain.com block explorer, and I especially dislike how they make you go through a prompt about which blockchain you want to search into if you search with an address, also including Bcash there... But the feature where the value at the time of transaction was included is still there. Just search the transaction hash and it should be there at the bottom. For example:

Searching for: 12a7580280a67d7da6695eb01b798100385e0e04072dd155c98cd63fadd638c5
You will see the following:


It's in the Details section.

See: https://i.imgur.com/GJOZNjc.png

I think it's just because DEX have really small orderbooks, no market makers and the trade graphs are not regulated or intervened with in any way to look nice.

I would like to ask this forum about opinions on which candidate with chances to win either of the big party.

Issues at focus to draw out which candidate would be the lesser evil for BTC are (at least in my opinion):

• Free international trade.
• Less state involvement.
• Anti-surveilance.
• For absolute press freedom (especially concerning views on Julian Assange).
• Not favorable to the bank monopoly.

Democrat party:

Biden is quite pro-censorship and surveillance based on his voting record in spite of him stating the opposite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Internet_privacy_and_file_sharing
Biden is also close to the banking carted from his days as a state senator.

Warren regarded Julian Assange as a bad actor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Elizabeth_Warren#Prosecution_of_Julian_Assange
And supports a state-intervention policy to prevent banks from collapsing.

Sanders' policy against banks that are 'too-big-to-fail' might sound positive to some. If you're an accelerationist then sure you can interprate this as good for bitcoin, although indirectly. Although, his trade policy is one of the most protectionist ones even within the democrat party. To his credit, he has made statements favorable to Snowden and Assange and also against surveillance.

Andrew Yang is one of the very few candidates that has shown capability to personally comprehend cryptocurrency. His overall tone in regards to groundbreaking innovations in technology is that they should be utilized in a way that benefit would be spread to the greater population as much as possible; at least this is what I get with his views on a UBI as a follow up to AI and automation taking up jobs in the future. In regards to BTC, his proposed policies make direct reference to crypto, which is very impressive for a presidential candidate. However, his approach is not the most liberal. He is for regulating crypto on a federal level, something that many argue would improve the landscape and outlook for institutional-level investments to take place. He is certainly one of the more positive potential candidates, but the likelihood for him to be the nominee doesn't seem to be that great.

Republican party:
Donald Trump has a long record of supporting state-involvement, applying tariffs and initiating 'trade wars'. He's clearly not for free-trade and would succumb to any state-involvement for the sake of jobs, no matter how short lived that might be. He has also made pro-surveillance statements. He also has a history of personally attacking journalists and the media, which to me is quite conflicting to see coming from a president.

Bill Weld seems to be a libertarian at hear. He has made favorable statements towards Snowden, is against all surveillance, pro international trade and also supports a very fiscally conservative budget policy. His positions on big banks are unclear but he himself has a banker background. Although this sounds interesting: During Weld's tenure, the Attorney General's office prosecuted some of New England's largest banks in cases involving money laundering and other white-collar crimes. Sad to say, but historically speaking, libertarian candidates don't fair well in the presidential race.

Overall, I think that no candidate of those with chances to win the nomination in one of the two big parties appears to stand behind liberties and freedom sincerely when it comes to both finance and online communications.

Off the Candidates above, I would say that Bill Weld is the 'lesser evil'. But provided that he's the least known of all the aforementioned and the republican party hasn't had many candidates so far, I think it'd be important to go for a second choice.
Personally, I'm putting more weight on positions related to big banks and internet freedom if we're talking about bitcoin. In that regard, Bernie Sanders appears to be a better choice. His tax increases and increased socialist style welfare might indirectly contribute to reduced financial choice, which of course isn't pro-bitcoin, but on the other hand, for a four year term, I'd be willing to overlook that provided that other candidates have worse positions.

Edit log (for transparency):

To be honest, I see a very conflicting run for whoever is a democrat in the US. I'm not from there personally but I find it ironic how the last election's runner-up candidate (Bernie) is a democratic socialist, while this year so far in the polls his percentages keep looming around Biden and Warren, two establishment-friendly politicians that have conflicting positions even within their own platform. If I was a democrat I'd be split between Bernie who's known to be honest in his voting record and also adamant with his positions, and the lesser of two evils between establishment candidates that have better chances to take the lead (as Hilary did).