I'd too want a peaceful life if I had a respectable Bitcoin stash and I'm pretty sure where I'd live it. However my advice to you is check the Global Peace Index which is pretty much spot on this year. Philippines was a big suggestion here as far as I could see, but being cheap isn't everything. I would too definitely cross off my list a country where you'd even have to consider a body guard if you have a big stash. I'm pretty sure you could also live a peaceful life in remote parts or even in the "wilderness" of less safe countries, with the negative parts that those kinds of experiences entail. |
|
|
|
|
Good to see that this project is believed in and has a lot of funding to keep going! Funny thing is that nobody seems to be using it a lot (although it is a very promising project) and that many blame it for requiring stores to be always online...
|
|
|
|
Indeed, they can't fork Bitcoin
Since, as I say, they are in fact trying everything to keep things as they are (i.e. high and higher fees), even if that implies "screaming about larger blocks". Simply because any solution (whether it be Bigger Blocks or SegWit or whatever) will mark the end of their business model. In other words, their income from transaction fees will be running dry. It is a bit counterintuitive but bigger blocks would mean less fees for miners due to less competition between transactors for the inclusion of their transactions in the blocks. If miners want to keep the competition up (with bigger blocks), they will have to leave the blocks half empty, and that would likely be a doornail in the Bitcoin coffin (and the PoW model as such)
I don't know why you still assume that miners can simply fork after some posts on this thread. Would you like a divided Bitcoin? That's asking for its demise sooner that when it should occur... Miners keeping everything as is is counter-productive, but some posts on this thread already explained why, so I won't spend more time on this just for the sake of spending it. Miners don't want outrageous fees at the expense of network usage and stability. That's like robbing someone and have another rob you right after. That's basically losing twice. Miners lose in two ways because less user will transact due to high fees (or the same users will transact less, or they'll be more careful with the fees they use) and because of network instability people will likely lose faith in Bitcoin in the long term... Summing up this last paragraph, a smart miner should want a blockchain that runs just like Bitcoin a few years back: has enough room for everyone to transact and room for growth, in order to have more fees being paid. A smart miner should prefer "many fees" instead of "higher fees". This way they win in 2 sides: the network runs fine and they collect more fee money. It's like selling good ice cream. If you don't have enough ice cream for everyone who wants it, what's it worth charging a premium for the few that can have it (and risk losing clients) if you can simply sell more for a normal price and keep a steady stream of clients? Miners know that if they gamble with users, their future is at stake (not even mentioning Bitcoin's future...). |
|
|
|
|
Last time I used normal fees was quite long ago. In the last few months, I always use fees hefty enough for next block confirmation, mainly because when I spend Bitcoins, I spend them to buy something and next block confirmation are always welcome in these cases.
|
|
|
|
Is everyone on this thread out of their mind? The number of unique Bitcoin addresses used per day is around 500,000. If we're very optimistic, that could be a few million active users and potentially some HODLers or traders as well. That would put us at about 0.1% (absolutely right at the start of the innovator phase) max, if we assume that Bitcoin will actually match that adoption curve. Stop thinking about things based on what you see today and assuming that everyone is into crypto just because you are. Nearly no one actually is - many have heard of it but very few have got involved. I'm probably wrong, but I do feel that quite a reasonable amount of people has seen Bitcoin at least once and many of them are actually using or have used it. Comparing to a few years back, mainstream interest is much bigger. We see many "newbies" asking for input and tutorials on how to buy and transact comparing to previous years. Thus why I wrote what I wrote. I know many people aren't into crypto (at least I don't personally know anyone who is). However we've got quite a lot of people online interested. Besides, we're way past the time when Bitcoin was "the new thing". Regarding blockchain technology and how we conduct transactions using it... If we look at it from that perspective, then we're at the Innovators stage  Don't know why you just suggested the opposite then. I don't see why my post suggested the opposite? Blockchain technology and how we transact using it is very, very different from Bitcoin. They're two things in their own. Bitcoin will probably be insufficient in the future for worldwide usage. New coins will cease being issued around 2140 as per estimations. Bitcoin also has a scaling issue that we can't solve in a future proof way, at least for now. The possibility of Bitcoin evolving so much that it we won't be able to call it Bitcoin anymore or the possibility of having to replace it has been discussed in the community for years. What if something bigger and better than Bitcoin comes in 20 years? Pretty much nothing is eternal, and Bitcoin will likely die somewhere in the distant future. However, the idea of a blockchain will remain and the idea of money free from government control will too. So yes, we are at an infant stage of blockchain technology and its money transacting capabilities, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
You don't seem to know how UASF works. If Bitmain is still stubborn about not supporting UASF and they keep mining legacy chain, if UASF takes over then they will be mining an useless chain that gets wipped.
So it's on their interest to support UASF if starts gaining more and more traction.
Correct. If anything gains traction, either be it SegWit, UASF, Unlimited, SegWit2x, Classic, or whatever, whoever mines on the "legacy" chain, loses. However, for that to happen, one of the said implementations has to gain (enough) traction. |
|
|
|
Seems to me a bit too much optimistic to assume we're in the Early Adopter stage... However we're probably still in the Early Majority phase. Regarding blockchain technology and how we conduct transactions using it... If we look at it from that perspective, then we're at the Innovators stage |
|
|
|
Now try to address the dilemma I stated
If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't just hard fork Bitcoin (given their mining monopoly)? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency and emergency in increasing the blocksize, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and his damned dog should readily and happily switch to this fork. If they won't and ain't gonna, then all outcries and screams and yells on the miners' part are in fact no more than deliberate and cynical attempts to postpone or prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates and preachers here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then decide to unignore for some obscure reason)
Consensus is the answer again... Miners have everything to lose, they can't just fork Bitcoin however they want, whenever they want: nobody would follow them and they'd be risking huge losses. And miners definitely don't want losses. It's in their best interest to play good with the whole community. The future of Bitcoin is tied to their income: if Bitcoin does good, their income is good too, and Bitcoin is definitely not doing all that well at the moment. By taking care of the interests of the community as a whole, they're also taking care of themselves... I hope I'm making myself clear. I don't see how miners are postponing the evolution of Bitcoin, especially when there are miners trying to plat on both "camps" and reach an agreement/propose solutions that are interesting to all. As said, it's not of their interest to do this, plus they want a solution that's as most future proof as possible to deploy as of now. I just think you're jumping the gun. Increased blocksize is urgent, but the network isn't entirely crippled yet....I'd say we are at a tipping point where something needs to be done. So I'd say let's wait until Segwit2x code is released, see what happens through July, and then if STILL Core won't compromise and miners won't fork off I would say you have a good argument. I just think the miners are being extremely patient. With the current price still rising, it's definitely not in their interest to split the chain.....yet. Something's going to give in the next 60 days however, I'm confident. If core doesn't compromise then we will have a big block chain to go with the 1mb settlement Core chain.
Yes, it's not crippled yet, but it's close to that point... You make fair points, however I don't really agree with the last part. I think it will be difficult to see both chains operating: none of them would benefit if another exists. That's what I'm telling next
And now you are about to arrive at the same conclusion and inference that I had come to myself some time ago (I made a few posts about that as well). My point is that miners are interested in keeping the current status quo, at least, as long as prices are rising. How come? Because any decision that is going to be accepted will hurt them financially.
Price movements on LTC after SegWit activation might not happen on Bitcoin. Either way I bet miners will have electricity expenses paid well in advance by now. And here's the crux of the matter. If you look at the actions of the parties involved from this point of view, it becomes abundantly clear that miners, rogue miners are intentionally putting grit in the machine. They come up with a sort of compromise but make it unacceptable so that the stalemate is set to continue, which is exactly what they aim at. Regarding Segwit2x code, do you really think it will be less buggy than BU, and Core is ever going to accept it? Its aim is the same as that of now dead BU, it is not meant to be actually implemented, as was the case with pure BU
I disagree, grit in the machine is really, really bad for miners, why would they compromise themselves and jeopardize their operations? And why is their compromise (purposefully) unacceptable? After this one may ask: why is Core SegWit acceptable (when not everyone agrees with it, just like "SegWit2x")? Things go both ways. because consensus (real consensus) not the reddit propaganda crap the fudsters script... REAL consensus doesnt work by pools simply making bigger blocks.
those bigger blocks would get rejected in 3 seconds
Yep... So who is lying here?
People making us believe their "camp" is better than the other... Not people suggestion solutions. |
|
|
|
Looks like some "Bruce Wagner" tier whale is getting pretty pissed at his billions going up and down everytime Jihan Wu and co tweet
Interesting. "Salty" whale we've got here, huh?  so they may go all in on UASF to force them to mine the BIP148 segwit-enabled chain or else risk total bankruptcy by staying on the legacy, slow ASICBOOSted chain.
Force them with what exactly, missiles pointed at their mining facilities? And who exactly risks total bankruptcy? We already saw BUcoin futures getting dumped in the market
This had nothing to do with Bitcoin and as far as I could gather it was simply an attempt from an exchange to have some profit. |
|
|
|
luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed. what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways
Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...) 80%+ miners agreed to SegWit2x. They start signalling after SegWit2x code is ready and tested.
How long will that take and how much longer can we go without it? Litecoin right now is what Bitcoin might only become
A coin with less users? We can't turn back time. Only way to have less users is to (keep) destroying Bitcoin, but I'm pretty sure 99% of the people here don't want that. |
|
|
|
I don't see a reason to worry with coins in exchanges beyond the usual ones. Besides this, emergent consensus is still ahead of SegWit. So miners who care about profit could risk a lot. If you count only the ones who dont care they could just waste electricity in the end
There are no miners who "don't care" about wasting electricity, they all care, otherwise they wouldn't be constantly trying to be ahead of the curve. Mining is not a charity in the end. Eventually there could be some miners running at no profit, but definitely there are no miners mining on the red. |
|
|
|
|
Pretty much all wallets that exist? At least the bigger ones... Bitcoin Core and its variants, Electrum, Armory...
|
|
|
|
Uh... no. And I'm not even sure what's that altcoin. Edit: googling about it has said enough OneCoin is a Ponzi scheme promoted as a cryptocoin with a private blockchain |
|
|
|
|
As said, they co-exist independently. However, I am willing to bet each and every altcoin would suffer if Bitcoin ceased to exist: it would suffer in price, in users, in trust, in merchants accepting them, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is obvious, I'd get a way to build these machines massively and sell them. Hashrate increase throughout the network would be my main priority, sending machines to all corners of the world if possible. Handing over the design would be a to-do eventually, or maybe even immediately.
|
|
|
|
A very, very big milestone for Bitcoin that's worth remembering, especially in these times when we're not sure where we're heading...  |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Ticker, Crypto Pro, ZeroBlock and BitSpotty are really great. If simple price monitoring is what you want, either BitSpotty or Crypto Pro will be your favorite choices
|
|
|
|
|
If this is real and these meetings actually happened, to me this simply looks like folks who were initially against SegWit are now converging with the other half of the community in order to move forward.
I don't think these people will develop any kind of client, this is just a way of them saying "let's end this dead-lock, this indecision, and move forward, here's what we'd like to see/what we'd accept".
We seem to finally be reaching the halfway point where we can have everyone come together in a solution that's of interest to most.
Now let's wait and see the community react. So far it's been a more positive reaction than what I expected, so that's a good sign. This also doesn't look as hostile to me as some are saying it is, neither does it look like they want to raise hostilities or push things further to their own side.
|
|
|
|
|
Not that strange. Despite having issues with lockdowns (which I'm unsure of what's really happening at the moment, as I don't really keep track of that) the markets would eventually have to keep up with growth...
|
|
|
|
|
As much as the penultimate BTC will be worth.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
