Your insistence to discuss LN in topics that aren't even about LN make you the biggest fangirl on the planet.  Please stop derailing topics to fulfill your obvious need to emote your obsession and infatuation with Lightning.

SPV users are still using Bitcoin.  The main difference is they're simply more reliant on trust than those validating transactions with a full node.

Webwallet and exchange users are effectively taking their chances as to whether or not they are still using Bitcoin.  They generally have no real way of knowing that their balance is real until they actually receive a withdrawal to a wallet they control.  The figures on their screen when using any third party service or website might represent a real bitcoin transaction, but it could equally be a scam.  Be cautious or be lucky, I guess.  

---

That's like saying your house doesn't consume electricity because no one would care if you switched off all your electrical devices.  It consumes electricity UNTIL you turn off all your power-using appliances.

Likewise, non-mining nodes fully validate transactions until you switch them off.

What debilitating mental condition did you say you suffer from again?



And if you could just show us in the code where it makes a distinction between "validate" and "verify"?


//EDIT:  From your reply, I'll assume you are unable to do that.  Mainly because you are attempting to create disparency where there is none.

If they weren't specifically about Bitcoin, that's the most likely cause.  People post lots of stuff that's vaguely related to crypto, thinking it belongs here, but I think the idea is to be more strict with it now.  Sometimes topics get deleted for not including the date in the required format.  Links to blogs or anything that could be construed as a "press release" (i.e. Service announcements) are also not appropriate.

You need to include a link to provide attribution to the source.

It doesn't surprise me that the IMF would fixate on stablecoins.  The ones where there's a centralised entity holding the reserve.  Naturally that would appeal to their desire for relevancy in a world that would otherwise see them defunct.  Problem is, stablecoins are one of the biggest ticking time-bombs in crypto.  It's only going to take the collapse of one stablecoin for people to realise how much you need to trust the entity holding the reserve and how deeply flawed a concept that is compared to Bitcoin and its trustless algorithmic emission schedule.

So a team of plagiarists is somehow better in your opinion?  And what difference does it make anyway?  It looks like you're placing the emphasis in all the wrong places here. 

Makes me glad I don't have a twitter account, heh.  I'm only more convinced by the day that the only purpose served by twitter and reddit is for all the idiots to congregate in those places, so that the rest of the internet can be a nicer place.

I think we're set for a perpetual cycle of <insertcelebrityhere> taking a brief interest in Bitcoin and then getting overwhelmed by the responses and effectively being driven away.  It's like they're just getting slammed with a wall of information and it's too much to take in.  People need to take it down a notch.

You chose the timing by posting those topics on those dates.  I'm merely pointing out what you did and how your own topics don't even support the point you are trying to prove.



Look at the last two halvings.  It didn't happen right away with those either.  When you say:
you would have been 100% wrong if you had said the same thing immediately after the previous ones.



I'm not dealing in extremes like you are.  You literally just said the price will NEVER go up.  I'm not saying anything nearly that ridiculous to warrant proof.  My stance is that prices will continue to be volatile.  There will be highs and lows, but the general long-term pattern tends to be upwards.  There may be another sharp drop in future, but if there is, it's certainly not the end, as you would have people believe.

Today:
BTC Price =  ~$9,337.65

Last time HardFacts posted a bullshit FUD topic about Bitcoin's price - April 11th:  
BTC price = ~$6,867.44

The bullshit FUD topic by HardFacts prior to that one - March 18th:
BTC Price = ~$5,227.11   


HardFacts:

"HuRr DuRr ThE bItCoIn PrIcE dOeSn'T gO uP!"

Moron.

Latest episode of 'Blindspot' (season 5, episode 2) had another guest appearance by Bill Nye and his character in the show said they weren't concerned about money problems as they still had some Bitcoin.  Nice to see it mentioned in that context and not like they have in previous episodes where it was always some shady darknet hacker thing.

If a domain name belonged to you, would you be wanting opinions from strangers on the internet when you haven't requested any assistance regarding who should receive your property?

I'm sure if Cobra needed help making a decision, they would ask.  Until then, it's not our place to say.


//EDIT:  Apologies, I missed that part.  I just saw the more recent post where Cobra mentioned two names they had in mind.

To be pedantic, it arguably doesn't belong in Meta as bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.org are two distinct and separate websites.  I can see why they're still traditionally associated together, though.

That seems unlikely given recent developments.  Further clarified here. 

That's not how ownership works, though.  When someone owns something, a bunch of random people on the Internet don't get to decide what happens to their property or who should inherit it.

Whatever your personal opinions on the matter might be, it's Cobra's choice.

I don't see that happening any time soon, heh.  What's that old adage about conflict being more profitable than peace?  And how about the expression "everybody loves an underdog"?  There are definitely psychological games at play here.  I get the impression that stirring up controversy and polarising opinions helps him attract an audience.

Caring about the network takes the form of not being reckless and trying to push those who secure the network away by draining their resources and overburdening them.  You are the greedy narcissist who believes other people should pay the cost of scaling and repeatedly espouses the absurd notion that only big businesses should be able to enjoy the privilege of running a full node and that regular users should only have the option of SPV.  You don't care if your selfishness centralises the network.

Anyone who has a strong understanding of how Bitcoin actually works will understand why none of your desperate attempts to undermine Lightning are in the best interests of future users or the network itself.

Speaking of embittered sore losers and/or altcoin shills who are still kicking up a fuss about Lightning, look which two users suddenly appeared in the topic almost a minute apart.  Almost as though it was a coordinated effort on their part...

*narrows eyes in suspicion*

Lightning by itself isn't a "solution" to the scaling question, it's just one of the many ingredients being worked on that help towards that goal.  Given that SegWit allowed for slightly higher on-chain throughput, anything else that can allow additional throughput without centralising the network, such as efficiency savings and off-chain ideas are now being given higher priority.  Once those methods are exhausted, then we can look once again at on-chain increases if necessary.  This method is widely considered the most responsible way of moving forwards.

I'm personally convinced that all the people who still choose to raise a stink about Lightning are just embittered sore losers (and maybe a couple of forkcoin shills thrown in the mix, too).  They took their own opinions far too seriously and still aren't willing to compromise and accept the fact that they share this network with other users and don't get to have it all their own way.  There is a cost to be paid when on-chain throughput is increased.  So until those securing the network are willing to bear that cost, the sore losers are going to keep whining about it.  They have no valid arguments to counter the issue where they generally want other users to pay a cost they probably aren't willing to pay themselves.

As I've recently commented in other topics, Lightning on mainnet is only two years old and very much under active development with many aspects still subject to change.  It's not considered "production-ready" to on-ramp the general public yet.  Right now, I'd say its intended audience is largely what tend to be called "power users", or people with a strong technical understanding who know exactly what they're doing.  But over time, as it evolves and the software improves, the learning curve will get a little less steep and it will become more beneficial for the average user to take advantage of.

Ah yes, it wouldn't be right to have us challenging the classic misconception that "mUh fReEdUmZ oF sPeEch" means anyone is free to spout abject lunacy in a space that's used by many individuals and that any attempts to restrict such behaviour is apparently tantamount to fascism.  How terrible a thought.   

Try reading the full topic before overreacting.  It has since been clarified by gmaxwell that they simply meant having a way to mark a post as nonsense.  They're not proposing deducting merits from users:

Yet.  It could take many years and may never be part of the base protocol, but I suspect because of the advantages smart contracts have over escrow, some gifted individual will eventually find a clean way to incorporate that feature into a secondary or tertiary layer built on top of Bitcoin.  As a general rule of thumb, if there's sufficient demand for it, someone will probably try building it.