Saudações

Está a aconselhar a que os membros se desfaçam dos Bitcoins até a definição final?

No way that's worth $15 billion LOL

5X the market cap of Bitcoin, get your facts straight.

Penso que o BIP100 é o que neste momento tem um maior número de votos por parte dos mineiros, pelo menos, de acordo com https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/block_size_votes .

O Gavin e o Mike abriram um grave precedente. Felizmente, parece que a maior parte não foi/vai na cantiga. Na pior das hipóteses ficam com a sua reputação manchada na comunidade. Se a solução deles fosse realmente a melhor, deviam prová-la tecnicamente e não desta forma forçada. Pessoalmente espero que não tenha os "adeptos" necessários e que sirva de lição a toda a comunidade.

Bitcoin denominated transactions can be made outside of the Bitcoin's blockchain. Microtransactions are simply not compatible with engineering demand of the blockchain and will be relegated to payment channels soon enough.

Bitcoin is in fact best suited for large transactions (settlements).

If a transaction is not valuable enough to cover the costs of the network security then it doesn't belong on the blockchain.

>Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
>> I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully
>> peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.
>>
>> The paper is available at:
>> http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
>
>We very, very much need such a system, but the way I understand your
>proposal, it does not seem to scale to the required size.
>
>For transferable proof of work tokens to have value, they must have
>monetary value. To have monetary value, they must be transferred within
>a very large network - for example a file trading network akin to
>bittorrent.
>
>To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one
>must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which,
> naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past
>transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If
>hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of
>bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.
>


Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Bitcoin denominated transactions can be made outside of the Bitcoin's blockchain. Microtransactions are simply not compatible with engineering demand of the blockchain and will be relegated to payment channels soon enough.

Bitcoin is in fact best suited for large transactions (settlements).

If a transaction is not valuable enough to cover the costs of the network security then it doesn't belong on the blockchain.

Yep, mostly uneconomic spam not valuable enough for their sender to include a reasonable fee.

Try paying a fee and not using ad-sig campaigns or faucets or the like to get your coins (which I presume are mostly actually *dust*).

Satoshi never mentioned that Bitcoin should be engineered in a way to suit people to make money from posting rubbish on forums.

  gimme a break. BIP101 was barely tested.

why do you seem to be in a such a hurry?

Yeah, coin base was pretty awesome, but the account that I have verified is tied to an old phone number that I don't have anymore and I can't authorize the "strange ip address" to access the account.

Bitquick.co allows one to deposit cash into a bank account at a local credit union. The rates are, however, about $15 over the market value, and I don't know if that's fair for the amount of risk I am assuming this way.

Not liking XT does not equate to not supporting larger blocks - you do realise that there are several BIPs for bigger blocks?

(again you are a typical XT shill who just pretends that BIP101 is the only bigger block proposal out there)

If Mike Hearn wasn't doing things like refusing to go to meetups with core developers, miners and major businesses then maybe he would have more credibility but instead he keeps on pushing to become the CEO of Bitcoin which it appears very few people apart from Coinbase want.

Spreading correct information != shill. How about you actually educate yourself? Someone deluded you into thinking either: 1) That the solution to the problem from Core are sidechains; 2) Blockstream will profit from Lightning Network; 3) Bloating the blockchain (with coffee purchases) is the right thing to do.

---

---

People don't want to listen to my bullshit, thus they are censoring me!  

Blatant promotion of XT shills, for gaining more "followers", oh , how unbiased your statements are
XT shills area Bitcoin.com forum , where anyone can become a moderator.
How is the new sub-reddit any different?