ARBITRAGE

convert rupee to USD via conventional methods.
but bitcoin with USD, sell it to rupee

profit

convert rupee to USD via conventional methods.
but bitcoin with USD, sell it to rupee

profit

rinse and repeat

yet again your thinking about bitcoins blockchain and how bitcoin functions.

ill repeat for a third time. a block chain is just a block of data linked to another block.
it does not require to be distributed.
does not require PoW,
does not require Sha
does not require the data to be financial based
dos not require immutability and endless growth
does not require these things but still defined as blockchain.

its just a relationship database (if you want to use old terminology)

however its more programmable than traditional databases to allow it to be secured in a multitude of different ways,
it can be where each branch just stores "headers only"
or yes it could be each branch has all account details of all branches
or even regional centres holding a percentage of the data and/or just headers.
its fully open to options and utility.
 
as for how i see banks using it.. some of the ethical concepts(towards society and customers)  i have thought of probably wont be what or how banks will use their hyperledger chains


again your thinking of it in terms of bitcoins immutable ever growing blockchain that due to the amount of customers requires x,y,z. rather then just thinking of a relationship database, where data can be edited/split into clusters.

imagine it like a block of data is a database table, linked by a reference to another database table. and certain nodes only need to store certain tables and table could be altered if there were a number of authorisations to do so. thus preventing a single user from changing everything.

blockchain is not much of a big new perfect technology. its just a tool to then build ontop on with other things.

in short a blockchain is not a big powerful new thing. yes its a new tool for data utility. but a blockchain alone (without other security features) is not much by itself.
the only way you know what extra security layers and what way it will be used would be to talk to those contracted to build it.

blockchain is not the end tech.. its just the introduction.. bitcoin has many other mechanisms that make bitcoin special.

the chance of getting a block is very very low when doing it alone. so it makes sense to join together to increase your chance and take a share of the winnings regularly. rather then do it alone and wait forever for a one time win

bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your birth certificate is not linked to bitcoin.
bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your marriage status is not linked to bitcoin.
bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your family ancestry is not linked to bitcoin.
bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your home address is not linked to bitcoin.
bitcoin doesnt ask for personal information. your date of birth is not linked to bitcoin.

however if you are going to post your main use bitcoin address in your forum profile
and then tell people on the forum who and where you are.

trying to change bitcoin or complain about bitcoin. when bitcoin asks for nothing. while happily you are giving out info,
is something bitcoin features can never solve. but something you yourself have chose to reveal.

blockchain does have many advantages over standard databases of the olden days. but fundamentally it is just a database. and its what the data will be and how that data is secured that changes things.
think of "blockchain" as simply "relationship database", but much more programmable and layer-able then standard

it all depends on what layers and uses they have

users EG local bank branch and a customer can use multisigs. for the accounts
think of it like each bank branch is a block of data. holding many multisig transactions.
then outside the block(bank branch) the head office signs the entire block and has other bank branches double audit that particular bank branch(block of data)

thus that block is then linked to a chain held by head office.
the bank branch or customer cannot simply edit the block. they need the head office and syndicate of other branches to sign off on the block to then update it. (more of PoA/PoS concept).

meaning the customer alone cant change anything.. the bank branch manager cannot edit anything alone. where it could require between 4-xx of entities to edit an entry.

because blockchain is soo loose in its actual definition. it can be utilised in many ways.. however, the only way of knowing how banks are actually going to use it requires you looking at hyperledger or getting gmaxwell to discuss what he and his employers are upto.

firstly you have not grasped what blockchain is.

its like your trying to skip some steps. grab an idea and then run backwards blindfolded.

bitcoins blockchain is fixed data. due to many SEPARATE mechanisms, one of which is called proof of work that locks the data via hashes.
blockchains in general do not need to be locked in as a permanent unchangeable dataset.
blockchains dont have to uses hashes, PoW. blockchains dont even need to be distributed.

forget all you know of the dozen or so security features of bitcoin.. and peel it all away and think about one aspect. blockchain
forget json, forget SHA, forget PoW, forget transactions, forget distribution with anonymous parties.

blockchain is just a block of data linked to another block of data. like a chain of blocks.

put it another way

if i had some data.. it could be a list of transactions, a chapter of a book or some medical data
i and someone else can sign it so it becomes a block of data.

but we also add a piece of data from another block so that they are linked together.
now you have a blockchain.

if you think a blockchain has to be virtical and has to grow forever it doesnt. a chain can wrap around its self or replace a link in the chain
data can be edited in a blockchain as long as it meets the rules of what linked it together.

bitcoin is a whole different concept. of multiple security features ONTOP of blockchain.. that has many many many more layers to make it near impossible to edit and technically immutable data in regards to the limits of circumventing all of bitcoins other security measures.

again once you realise how small of a security measure blockchains are. you realise it does have some utility.. but is no where near what bitcoin is.

when you realise that "blockchain" is just something like 5% of the security model of what bitcoin is.. you and i can both laugh at what purpose the banks are overselling the "database" 2.0 they are harping on about..

but what data they put within the database. and how they monetise it and how that data has its own utility.. is something only the banks will know.
eg health records, ID, births deaths and marriages, financial, produce and manufacturing tracking data.. the list can be endless. and monetised in endless ways. but that data is nothing to do with blockchain.. blockchain is just a small option for how that data is stored more efficiently then the old way databases worked

blockchain itself is meaningless.. its the data and what that data can and will do that has meaning.. and that data can be anything and unrelated to "blockchain"

research hyperledger.

as to why banks are using it.
here are some reasons

1. instead of one centralised database needing security guards and vetting staff just to be in the building.. the data secures itself and is spread out so no single location can be attacked.
EG bank employee at smalltown branch cant hack the data compared to, if the old style database was distributed.
EG IT guy at centralised HQ where single copy database(not distributed) also cannot hack it.

thus. HR employees that vet staff can be sacked. security guards, IT guys, and many more staff sacked.

2. along with security no longer needing 'labour'. it also no longer needs much maintenance. you just buy a pc load a ISO disk of the operating system that includes the node. and your done. meaning more labour can become redundant

3. due to being distributed it reduces bandwidth compared to 95,000 banks connecting to a centralized server. where each bank branch has 10 employees blasting requests to that central server.. now 10 bank branch employees blast their requests to the bank branch node which then only communicates to another node. which due to relay effect the doesnt require terrabyte fibre connections to a central point
so now servers, internet, electric costs are now reduced, while significantly improving security.

4. auditing becomes easier. so meeting regulation and financial obligation becomes manageable with less labour/equipment.

5. banks actually have "homeland security" staff monitoring threats that can cause issues to the banking system (yea they were useless with 9-11 and the 2008 internal bank terrorism against customers) but now they can be sacked too

6. in short banks can remove their sky scraper HQ buildings and run more efficiently and more securely with just bank branches relaying to each other

there are probably loads of other reasons, i just listed the obvious ones anyone can think of, im sure the banks internal thinktank can think of more. maybe best to ask Gmaxwell what his contract conditions are and if he is open to talk about his employers(the banks) reasons for wanting hyperledger

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

also some of the RPC calls have changed so merchants will need to tweak their webserver to interpret the new RPC's and then translate them into a form that resembles the API quiries the webserver normally sends out to users. but please note some RPC's may give more info and as such some merchants may actually use the updated info from the RPC's, which means the user has to adjust to the new information.
but that all depends on the merchant and what API you are needing. best to check with the service your API calling.

there are a few other things to note. but i feel some fanboys are ready to pounce and declare segwit to be utopian perfection and that no one should worry, and simply sheep follow and obey.
so ill let them get their idolizations out the way before hinting at other issues

as for his other questions about bitcoin utility.
he mentions bitcoin is worthless for buying real produce/ day to day spending.

but strangely says remittance is expensive
if trying to put indian rupee in, to get dollars out.. id agree
BUT when thats the case.... the opposite is true the other way round
its better for dollar in and rupee out

lets take someone working in america wanting to send $100 to his families homeland in india
forex says that dollar<->INR is $100<->₹6795
lets see if we can better that and get the indian family more then 6795 rupee

first having $100
1.a)converting it to bitcoin, lets take the cheapest $739/btc
using ACH bank account 1.8% (1.5% deposit and orderbook 0.3% swap)
$100=0.132882273
(other exchanges have cheaper orderbook fees but higher wire deposit fee EG krakens US$ deposit is $5 and higher spreads too)
1.b)converting it to bitcoin, lets take the krakens $745/btc
using ACH bank account $5 +0.42%
$100=0.12698121

next sending that to someone in india becomes
2.a)0.13278227 standard tx fee
2.b)0.12688121 standard tx fee

3.a) hoping that the receivers of 0.13278227 is the highest indian exchange rate of 60,300 the recipient gets 8006.77 INR
lets say its not. and instead the exchange rate was 56,000 gets 7435.81 INR
3.b) hoping that the receivers of 0.12688121 is the highest indian exchange rate of 60,300 the recipient gets 7656.97 INR
lets say its not. and instead the exchange rate was 56,000 gets 7110.95 INR


an $ to ₹ via btc gets you ₹7110-₹8006 yet forex says they should only get ₹6795

but yes other way round ₹6795($100 forex value) wont get you anywhere near $100 via bitcoin
but then you can always trade rupee for dollar and then buy bitcoin. rather the rupee->bitcoin direct
and ofcourse because you can make a profit. you can sell that bitcoin for rupee and repeat the process until the price settles down due to arbitrage (india gains more supply)

eg
receives ₹7110 to then forex exchange for $104
buy bitcoin with $104  -> ₹7390
receives ₹7390 to then forex exchange for $108
buy bitcoin with $108  -> ₹7670

you got it wrong..
thats 4mb of data.. not 4x transactions.

the baseblock is still 1mb... and still limits capacity..

which if utilising segwit converts to about a maximum expectation of about 1.8mb of complete transaction data at best.

expect the average ~2500 transactions per block now. to be ATBEST ~4500 transactions.

the 4mb total weight is 1mb base and 3mb separate section(partly used by segwit signatures(the 0.8mb accounted for in the underline above))
the rest of the 2.2mb empty buffer space which core are allowing is not for more transactions. but other mundane data and features later on.

later on when new features are added.
it will still be ~4500 transactions but room to include payment codes and mundane data in that transaction.
eg
legacy 1mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value - signature  = total 1mb of 1mb for 2500tx
segwit 1mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 0.8mb -Witnesstxid - signature  = total 1.8mb of 4mb for 4500tx
future 1mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 0.8mb -Witnesstxid - signature... 2.2mb otherfeatures = total total 4mb of 4mb for 4500tx

you wont see the red (baseblock) change to allow more than 1mb.

though many would wish for:
segwit 2mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 1.5mb -Witnesstxid - signature  = total 3.5mb of 4mb for 9000tx
future 2mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 1.5mb -Witnesstxid - signature... 0.5mb otherfeatures = total total 4mb of 4mb for 9000tx

but that would require core to join a logical consensus and not back out and prevent that.. with something like 'we paid for the consensus round table to discuss possible bips, we organised who gets to attend. we even called it consensus, but when we turned up we pretended to just be janitors that cant code a solution so that after the agreement we didnt have to do what had been agreed at the consensus discussion'

just checked out other indian sellars on local bitcoins

then checked out more centralized exchanges
localbitcoins seems to be at ~59,000
centralized exchanges ~56,000
your own listing ~60,300

seems its only you that is the highest, and your complaining about how high it is..
maybe connect to the centralized exchanges buy some at 56,000-57,000 and sell at 56,900-57,900 for a 1% profit(after cost).
instead of 60,300 which is a 7-8% profit

then based on international trends. the price would appear as only a 15% rise instead of a 23% rise.
you could also go deper into the arbitrage game and see if you can get more then $740 for less than 56,000INR and be able to get more btc, for less.
and if you stick to a 1% profit you can become an even better offer to people at even less than the 15% method i first suggested or the 23% your currently offering

---

but i have a question for you. totally separate from the exchange rate..
i want your opinion on the utility of bitcoin in india

knowing using.. yes, just using bitcoin is an 7cent(american) 4.76(INR) tx fee
do you see that nearly 5INR per transaction seems more then just annoying to spend?

would you think that going higher then 5INR per use can lead to bigger barriers of use, than any temporary price drama of exchanges.
EG would you use bitcoin to buy an apple from one grocery store, a drink from another grocery store and pay lets say 3 hours lablour to buy some clothes in another store. if it cost you 5INR per transactions.

i genuinely am interested in the reply to your opinion about the 5INR tx fee

transparancy
no "fee":
but the middleman profit is in the exchange spread, users have to settle for the exchange rate handed to them which can be very different than what they expect.(much like localbitcoins exchange rate offers have different values)
its like not having to tip your waitress anymore but your coffee is now 18% more expensive as standard menu price

a co-founder:
can you trust a guy with this smile?

not really..
blockchain is not a top notch security thing alone.. in short its just the same as "table relationships" in terms of the old database mechanisms.
most of the blockchains are not using strong hashing algo to secure the blocks(tables) they are not using PoW either.
nor will they be fully public or distributed openly.

its just an excuse to have tax rightoffs to appear up to date. much like updating a company logo every 10 years.
from a users point of view not much will change.

after all if it was near impossible to get a doctor to sign a piece of paper to certify birth in certain places in africa.. being digital wont change the real world problem. something still needs signed whether paper or digital. so these services still have the real world problem that simple paper could not solve. because paper or computer was not the problem.. going digital has only removed the need of paper, but not solved why paper certification failed.(hint remote villages/home births where doctors are not readily available).

9needs are in the need of medical/identity databases, not a funding platform.
they obviously have a banking partner (barclays africa) so bank accounts and international funding is not the issue. their needs are about medical and identity.

as for bitcoin africa.. 7cents in america.. is worth alot of sweat and tears in africa.. bitcoin has priced itself out of third world countries already due to the transaction fee alone being a barrier of entry to bitcoin.

as for africa's financial need
mpesa is cheaper
mpesa is more user friendly
mpesa is more accessible
bitcoin has become something that is no longer better than the old africa fiat system or current mpesa system. dont expect much bitcoin action in africa.

its why hyperledger (sidechains/LN) is the bait and switch for the african unbanked. just a shame that it will not settle back to bitcoin, but instead divert to hyperledger for the third world users.
ofcourse africa needs blockchain ID.. how else will a future cheap hyperledger do its KYC checks

i am optimistic about bitcoin. i am just a realist and aware of the adversaries to bitcoin.
i dont just sit back and take one for the team(blockstream) and have "hope" the team will rain their silky "liquid"(another blockstream alt) over us to give bitcoin more utility.

too many people sit on their hand and let bitcoin lose its ethos and lose its open nature and freedom of use/innovation, waiting for something inspiring to happen

oh you do know that 0.13.1 (released) is not fully segwit active. you will be required to download yet another version when active to actually use a segwit wallet features.

and then...

changing your funds from lagacy keypairs to new HD segwit compatible seeded addresses has risks
eg exchange/merchants needing to replace everyones deposit addresses and reaudit funds

changes to RPC calls has risks

this is why i laugh when people are screaming to just run segwit on mainnet and "trust" the devs have reviewed it. though only as an altcoin (testnet/segnet) not as a bitcoin mainnet node

dont expect smart people to run it blindly. they will all do independant tests. move funds, audit funds warn customers of different deposit addresses..

in short dont expect anything to change by christmas, or expect ~4500 instead of ~2500 transaction before spring.. well lets call it summer before anything actually starts to be noticable

he's reading from a script. not speaking from his heart.
like someone is telling him what to say.

---

now lets see gmaxwell talk about his companies agenda when someone mentions bitcoin having a dictating leader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SeHNXdJCtE

"for wallet behavior, clients non normative stuff, yes sure go fork, please go fork, stop bothering me." (context of the community wanting him to join consensus, and him saying no)

"we are vulnerable to people wanting to jam bitcoin, either traditional money system or another cryptocurrency system" (context of dictatorship control)

and ofcourse gmaxwell loves his altcoins(monero) aswell as being paid to make hyperledger(bankers cryptocurrency system) and being part of the group that owns bitcoincore, bitcoinj XT, knots green address, bloq and many more bitcoin wallets

---

when the horses mouth(maxwell) is telling you that if you want change that is not dictated by those paid by bankers, requires forking off to an altcoin to get momentum.. you start to see the problem

bitcoins single most best security feature is not the blockchain or PoW. its consensus.
the funny thing is gmawell hates consensus in bitcoin but loves it and concentrating on in in hyperledger
the funny thing is gmawell hates dymantic blocksize in bitcoin but loves it and concentrating on in in monero

funny how he pretends to say it keeps him up at night(context of banker takeover). yet he could always resign from blockstream and stop playing with altcoins and just do something positive for the bitcoin community. but im guessing he sleeps like a comforted baby and to use his words is looking forward to "the experiment failing".

he has lost all care for bitcoin and is happy in the banker camp of hyperledger who are slowly taking over and gaining ground with having ownership of well over 51% of code

---

as for segwit. its november 16th and after core said it needs 18 months for any other big thing to beactivated.. core are saying segwit by christmas. with code only pblicly usable ON BITCOINS MAINNET!! for a couple weeks.

as for the malleability fix.
does it fix double spends. nope. RBF, CPFP now allows double spends
did it ever have an issue for LN. nope because LN is a dual signing process. so a tx cannot just be manipulated after broadcast to then override the first tx. due to it needing second party signing on the second manipulated tx. thus the dual signing alone countered that.

as for linear/quadratic fix.
is there ever a need to have 1000 signatures in one tx? um no.. so limiting sigops could have solved it.

as for the 2mb debate.
is setwit preventing bloat to be well under 2mb. nope. it can go upto 4mb due to enough buffer space for payment codes and other features. BUT still hindering the transaction capacity growth.
yep 1.8mb block for ~4500 is the new expectation. the other 2.3mb buffer is for mondane non transaction capacity bloat features like confidential payment codes and mundate data to pair to a hyperledger sidechain

unicef gives money to african company https://9needs.net
african company gives money to a company http://consent.global/our-team

consent.global are using a blockchain that is part of the hyperledger(banker blockchain), but used for identity, not "value"

nothing bitcoin related.. moving on

use a bitcoin ATM
https://coinatmradar.com/country/105/bitcoin-atm-italy/
hope there is one near him

alternatively use something like circle or coinbase

from 2009 there were many independent people working on bitcoin, they were compiling their own implementations and helping each other with new features and bug fixes. where sourceforge was one of many, but the most popular location of the code. but some had their own locations too, which was advisable

as it approached 2010 more people joined and helped.
satoshi disappeared by the end of the year when bitcoin gained negative press as drug currency and devs were being slated as government plants.

in 2011 github became one of the locations aswell as sourceforge and other places as the main download locations.

by the time it got to 2013 (2 years after satoshi left) github became the popular download location. but people still had their own versions in other download locations.

2013 github.com/bitcoin got rebranded into bitcoin core, and suddenly they seen themselves not as independent individuals but as a power house. between 2013-2015 several people got peed off that it was turning into a power house and some left for different reasons

a few notable names were either pushed out, deemed negative to the power house, moved off as a bait and switch. and many other dramatic things.

mike hearn: owned bitcoinJ and started up XT with other devs and sourced some VC funding (hindsight: was a bait and switch when the bankers were trying to gain control of bitcoin they linked themselves to blockstream, bitcoinj and XT).
it was a bait and switch because blockstream-core devs were attacking XT as banksters(hindsight: attacking their own), to at the time hide/distract cores involvement with bankers by pretending something not core was the banker enemy.

gavin andresen: moved away from blockstream-core due to the banker politics. and joined XT, but soon found out they too were still part of the same banker politics, so he moved out again and formed his own dev group in classic.

other names: J garzik moved to bitpay, then formed bloq, then joined the bankers...,
others moved over to MIT, blockchain.info, or other bitcoin related developments.

even today luke JR is trying to brand his implementation as Knots, as an alternative to core, while being paid by the same bankers that contract devs in core, bitcoinj, and xt.

independent code and non-banker funded implementations are becoming harder to find. even green address and other bitcoin standalone or web based /app based implementations ar coming under the same banker control.

so far the main one not attached to bankers is BU (even gavin seems to be tied to bankers now, due to his ties to bloq). but that hasnt stopped the bankers diverting banker intentions of core, by attacking BU as being the saboteurs. as the latest bait and switch to try getting users into the banker dominance camp (wolf calling a sheep a wolf, to scare the sheep into the wolves mouths)