Then there would likely be an ETH/XMR pair!

sigh.

I don't even know why I'm responding here.  People's minds are clearly made up, and people's lines are clearly drawn.

Full disclosure.  I yelled pretty loudly last year that I thought the block size needed to be raised.  Some agreed; others didn't.  That's okay.  It's not a decision for one person, whatever I think of the quality of my assessment.

I watched blocks start filling up, and on some days there was a very large backlog of transactions.  People were still arguing about the block size increase.  

The camps started to regard each other as enemies and accuse each other of trying to destroy Bitcoin.  Still no block size increase.  Arguments only growing hotter.

People started to openly threaten each other, with schemes to deliberately subvert consensus and plans to engage in deliberate double spends and other scamming behavior held over one another as threats.

Some asshat started blowing something like $60G per week (unless it was a miner - in which case they may or may not have broken even on the increased fees that legitimate transactions were paying) just to stuff the block chain - either because of an enormous financial need to influence the block size decision, or because hey, if we can make them compete with each other more for the fixed amount of space available, it's profitable.   Community could have had any number of constructive responses but instead just started howling and blaming each other.

At about this time I gave up on the community and sold my coins.  If the people driving the decision were functional and worked together, or even if they had been discussing the problem in good faith, I would still be a believer even if block size didn't immediately increase.  But that's not what happened, and I've seen too many other cryptocurrency ideas die horrible deaths.  Digicash, Ecash, E-gold, Beenz, etc...  All kinds of things that existed before the Nakamoto Consensus Protocol was invented, showed up and died.  Most of the centralized or owned ones wound up in court.  The few "decentralized" schemes (which still required a central authority to control userIDs because they were focused on reavealing a userID if AND ONLY IF that user attempted a double spend), died of non-participation as people didn't bother dealing with a gatekeeper.  And a couple of other systems that might have succeeded, died of toxic communities and an inability to work together to solve problems.  IE, of exactly what is happening here.

This one got further than any of the others, and a lot of non-cryptography people have heard of it where most never heard of the previous ones.   So writing it off was a real shame.  But I have not recently seen any reason to believe this community is going to start working together to reach any consensus, and in the absence of any willingness to try, it's simply a poor investment.  And the technical problem with scale is real.  I haven't seen any worthwhile approach to dealing with it - not the one I suggested nor any of the others.  

So...  I'm out.  And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

The answer, as always, is convenience and ease of use. Bitsquare requires users to run their own wallet software, where Poloniex is just a website that you can log into and trade.

I don't see centralized exchanges going anywhere soon.

AnonyMint is one clever mofo. I am sure he will no longer use words.

And you will bow at his feet. Keep your television tuned. The fireworks haven't yet begun.

Early 2014 is when Satoshi was hacked, fwiw (I know some have speculated about a Satoshi connection). 

Just for giggles: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1474403.msg14881854#msg14881854.

Has anyone tried the site (Monero or other coins)? It sounds like a great concept, but I haven't seen any user reviews.

I've successfully completed one trade on bitsquare. This is fantastic news and I hope everybody support bitsquare by adding liquidity to the market. I certainly will.

Seriously dude, WTF is wrong with you? Development has not halted, there is development like every day, a significant new update with massive performance increases is imminent. It attracts not only capable (many) but also top tier developers like hyc and the unfortunately now-deceased warptangent, and even idiots like me who help (if you could call it that) with debugging occasionally.

There is no reason to insult the excellent developers who have worked hard on the project for little money or as volunteers and done great work. If you want to insult me, go for it. Don't insult them with your retarded trolling.

EmilioMann is a key supporter of Decred, and one of the few Facebook pages I follow since it's Decred related. At first, I was ever so slightly critical of Decred which has been curbed, I personally do not hold any DCR. Hope this info adds to the convo and how EM is good or bad for the community. I have no other opinions at this penning.

God responded and sent angels to implement a new feature on XMR, "Zeroday 12 exploits."

I haven't heard anything about the case...

How about an algorithm, that (currently) relies on specific features of specific hardware? For example, the current generation of Intel or AMD processors for desktops or servers, the amount of cache or RAM they have or must have, and certain instruction sets built in to those chips, such as AES or SS-something.

Segwit has been public for a long time... Block 0 on the current segnet has a date in January, and segwit is live on testnet now.

Where is Bitcoin Classic's segwit implementation? Hell, where is their mediantimepast and CSV implementations?  Even when they can just copy code from core they can't seem to keep up. If you're going to complaint about something not moving fast enough, it's not core you need to look at...

Lol. 

I like you.  I really mean that in an, "I hope I still stumble across his posts one day," kind of way.

Keep on being you!

Where do you get your news from? They rebranted their exchange and added eth to it. Nothing more to it.

Calling Dr. Flame to the burn ward!   

What you don't read this thread?

More deceptive garbage-- in particular, it makes it sound like I wasn't referring to my own freeking employees there, or that my flip comment had something to do with working with miners on compromise when instead I explicitly pointed out it was because they went off to hold a secret meeting and let themselves get coerced (literally locked in a room until 3-4am) into an agreement which-- in the sense it was understood-- was physically impossible to comply with (because none of them have the authority to control what core releases or what the network runs)... and they did so after explicitly promising other people that they go to learn and share information and not make agreements. I don't feel any hesitation in calling that a foolish move.

But while we're on the subject of foolish moves, whats the deal with coinbase continually insulting bitcoin technology and antagonizing the people whom are actually working on it?  They contribute _NOTHING_ to the technology, they don't even contribute to maintaining classic.  I guess they might be happier with Ethereum, since it's a far more centralized system they'll know exactly who to lobby to get whatever they want without putting in any effort themselves...  But, considering that Coblee was bragging months ago about how much Ethereum people at coinbase were buying, I think the main attraction is something Bitcoin couldn't match: the ability to use their company to pump an asset they could all buy personally on the cheap-- it's much harder to do that for a system which is mature and less based on speculation.

so basically keep bagholding until maid actually does something meaningful lol...both in price and release.

It does until some point in July / August and is just as active with consumers as the KNC thread is. This thread is linked to the main thread as its unmoderated counterpart, so wherever that thread is this one remains.