If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.
No, security needs to be paid for. Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you. |
|
|
|
miners want bip100. case closed.
Fortunately Bitcoin is not about doing what the miners want. |
|
|
|
Hello,
In the past few days, I've came across a lot of news about some financial companies and organizations investing in bitcoin's blockchain.
The question now is, how will this affect bitcoin, specially the price ?
On the other hand, if the investment is in another blockchain, would this still benefit bitcoin ?
Thank you.
in my opinion, its the "beginning of the end" for btc. I mean lots of companies are saying specifically that they are interested in, or developing similar blockchain software, but NONE have any interest in btc itself. I see a lot of people comparing btc to the early internet, well it may be like the early internet, but probably more like "netscape" or "alta-vista" if you remember those. Once powerful tools, now relics of the early internet. This boils down to a common misconception of what Bitcoin's strength is: not the payment system Bitcoin will be fine. It is digital gold, the scarcest & most secure crypto-commodity. All these blockchain investements will create crypto-rails within the banking system that will allow for liquidity to more easily enter Bitcoin. So yes, it does benefit Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Sidechains are like altcoins that you can trade bitcoin for without using an exchange, think of shapeshift but if it was decentralized and trustless (no third party), the chains are still pretty much altcoins and will operate so with their own rules, algorithms, miners and what not. The idea of fixing the blocksize with sidechains is ridiculous to me as it just introducing even more altcoins and making it even harder for merchants to accept.
It seems to me you are beyond confused. Yes sidechains can be used to bootstrap an altcoin but there is little interest in doing that. The point of sidechains is that their units' scarcity can be derived from Bitcoin, essentially pegging their value to Bitcoin. That would allow to extend the properties beyond what is possible on the mainchain while leveraging Bitcoin's liquidity and network effect. No one is proposing to fix the blocksize issue with sidechains. |
|
|
|
What would we do without your genius  Scrap this weekend's Scaling Bitcoin conference you solved it all for us!! |
|
|
|
I would immediately empty my cold storage and sell all at market because it wouldn't be sustainable and it would surely correct the massively overbought condition. I would then buy back my whole holding amount in the $xxx (yep, that's triple digits) range and keep the other Billion or so Dollars. But that's just me and likely everyone else with a pulse. Don't lie to yourselves... You'd all do the same.
If Bitcoins reaches 1M$ I'm pretty sure something very wrong would've happened to the fiat world and I'm not certain there'd be any incentive to hold anything but BTC. If it happened tomorrow, it would have nothing to do with current financial problems. There aren't guys with piles of cash on exchanges, today, just waiting for the fiat system to collapse so they can market buy to $1M. Plus, Gov's around the world aren't going to just let go of power so easily. Capital controls will be in effect long before the end of fiat, and at that point, money will slow to a dribble into Bitcoin or any other crypto for that matter. Ya sorry I didn't notice "tomorrow". |
|
|
|
I would immediately empty my cold storage and sell all at market because it wouldn't be sustainable and it would surely correct the massively overbought condition. I would then buy back my whole holding amount in the $xxx (yep, that's triple digits) range and keep the other Billion or so Dollars. But that's just me and likely everyone else with a pulse. Don't lie to yourselves... You'd all do the same.
If Bitcoins reaches 1M$ I'm pretty sure something very wrong would've happened to the fiat world and I'm not certain there'd be any incentive to hold anything but BTC. |
|
|
|
You might get a block increase, but you will be sorely disappointed by its results. Why do you want a block increase anyway?
To make bitcoin ready for future growth in transaction rate. To make room for new users, merchants and use cases. To keep transaction fees competitive and affordable to larger demographic. To give confidence to all actors in bitcoin space that the transaction rate will not be stunted by some artificial cap designed for a completely different purpose. To give an opportunity to Satoshi's vision that the "eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets". (We wouldn't have bitcoin if he wasn't right in great many things) Well, that's few reasons I could think just now, but there's probably more.  boring very sophisticated way to communicate, dude. Do you always react like that when you run out of firepower? Just goes to show... "Not care how big it gets" Do you grok the implications of this? I don't care if Satoshi said it this is nothing that deserves a serious response. |
|
|
|
1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun. 2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info. 3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  They're spamming really small inputs to try to "stress test" the network by giving away the money. Hundreds of people are trying to spend them and it's filling up mempool, but it's not really working like they wanted it to.sounds like they are spamming the network just fine, whats more would they like? anyone experiencing any problem? all good here  Bitcoin eating that shit up like snacks. miners are happy. |
|
|
|
1MB limit will lead to higher fees, at one point only very large TX made by large entities will happen on the main chain. some people say that's fine, bitcoin is gold not pocket money. fine, then tell me what is the incentive for home users to run a full node when they can't even use the network? there is none, so they wont, only the large entities actually using the blockchain will run full nodes.
There are many incentives for home users to run a full node, but of course not everyone 1. By running a full node you can make the sure the network is robust and secure, thus indirectly secure your investment (Suppose you treat bitcoin like gold as long term investment). Unlike gold, which is protected by the law of nature, bitcoin need its user's protection by running full nodes, and anyone who have serious amount of coins will definitely run a full node 2. By running a full node you have a direct insight of what is going on in the network, which is good for following the development in bitcoin 3. By running a full node you have much more control of the transactions (Look at the current coinwallet.eu coin give out scheme, if you don't have full node you can not even receive those 0.5 bitcoins in each private key ) 1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun. 2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info. 3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key? 1. What type of logic is that? Nodes will become commoditized and trivial to run. Running a full node coupled is still the most secure and private way to use Bitcoin. Some value these aspects a whole lot especially when dealing with millions of dollars. 2. But no privacy. 3. I suggest you go ahead and try sweeping one of these and see what happens. |
|
|
|
 see that? Bitcoin working like a champ. |
|
|
|
You might get a block increase, but you will be sorely disappointed by its results. Why do you want a block increase anyway?
To make bitcoin ready for future growth in transaction rate. To make room for new users, merchants and use cases. To keep transaction fees competitive and affordable to larger demographic. To give confidence to all actors in bitcoin space that the transaction rate will not be stunted by some artificial cap designed for a completely different purpose. To give an opportunity to Satoshi's vision that the "eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets". (We wouldn't have bitcoin if he wasn't right in great many things) Well, that's few reasons I could think just now, but there's probably more. boring |
|
|
|
[img - https://i.imgur.com/AyuQhfn.png [/img another round of..... #REKTPeter R: this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations" This smacks of the 'voting' fiasco which was so exploitable that it hit little old me within moments. They are making it to easy...and that makes me uneasy. If I had Conformal's 'bctd' implementation in my back pocket and wished to switch to it, I might be inclined to make a lot of 'mistakes' in XT then blame the (very real) messiness of the Satoshi-based core. People should consider what they are going to do if, say, Coinbase and various trinket vendors adopt the 'new' XT. And, concurrently, established financial players (e.g., Paypal) suddenly see a green light and choose the 'appropriate' fork. I'm not saying that this is going to happen. I am saying that if I had my hands on certain levers and a desire to achieve a certain favorable result for TPTB, this is how I might proceed. At some point something like that will happen if Core doesn't scale properly. Core will begin scaling by first getting rid of spam and making more efficient use of the existing space on the block chain. |
|
|
|
The sidechain is a separate blockchain right?
Yes. And there can be more than one sidechain. What group of miners would secure it?
This is undefined. Sidechains could be merged mined, or even secured by proof-of-stake. is there any way they can be used to scale Bitcoin while using decentralized nodes backed by the security of the main chain? Define scale? Scale transactions? Not adequate. Scale properties and use cases? Definitely |
|
|
|
what is happening here, people starting to make sense |
|
|
|
well my posts here got censored  and will continue to be until you stop trolling  |
|
|
|
Julio Faura, Santander : "Micropayments and Internet of Things will be one of the game-changers. The whole thing will change when Central Banks issue currency on distributed ledgers." OMG, that means even more blockspace to buy! |
|
|
|
Greetings gentlemen, ladies! I was graced by the hands of our most cherished admin, theymos, with a ticket to attend this weekend's event. In exchange I was asked, and politely obliged, to maybe make it an opportunity for the forum to have a window on the coming days and provide a way for me to share your opinions, questions or concerns, if given the chance. I will of course be posting during the presentations and also be chatting on the irc channel http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=bitcoin-workshopsTo be clear I am not your PR person. I will not address any non-relevant or misguided questions. Yes, this will be completely arbitrary. Here is the schedule for the event. https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/#scheduleIf you believe you have it in you to formulate a cogent and rational question pertinent to the content of the presentations I might consider doing my best to put it forward. Please be specific and note the technical tone. Any political gossip will be ignored. Yes I will censor you if you cannot behave. |
|
|
|
Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions… More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcwBitcoin has more users and more transactions than ever and the node count is at its lowest since its early days. This is a PEER-TO-PEER network. A peer in the Bitcoin network is a node. MORE USERS = MORE NODES MORE TRANSACTIONS != MORE USERS 58 'posts' today. Why are you fulltime spamming all the threads? Gathering quotes to put together somes good jokes for this weekend's conference |
|
|
|
brg444 is the only one that voted bigger blocks I didn't vote |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
