If they aren't on-chain transactions, then they aren't decentralized, and they aren't actually Bitcoin. You might as well just use a bank.

Credit card transactions are rarely more than a dollar or two, and take no more than a few seconds.

Bitcoin is absolutely unsuitable for mainstream transactions.




No country in the world uses Bitcoin as a mainstream means of transacting--because to do so would be a practical impossibility.

There seem to be a lot of Trump supporters here who advocate voting for Trump for the good of their Bitcoin value. I agree it's a tenuous connection to any president, but if there is any, the only president who could beat Biden's record is... Obama  .

 

Bitcoin went up 500% under Biden. If all you care about is your Bitcoin going up in value, then Biden is the best bet.

And trusting Trump to be pro-Bitcoin (and not, say, officially replacing Bitcoin with Trumpcoin) sounds pretty dicey to me.

The safe bet is to stick with Biden.

Aren't you proud of your support for Trump? You seem to be intent on evading questions about it.

So three posts later, you admit you are an ardent Trump support again. Glad we had that conversation.

So you still haven't answered the question: what possible thing could Trump do that you would no longer support him? Is there anything you can think of?

If the answer is no (and again, you don't have to tell us if you don't want to), then you aren't actually into "politics" or "policy" but rather you are faithful to a singular personality.

And if that's the case, you should spend more of your time thinking and writing about Trump himself since that's the center of your belief system.

Also, by the way, I've been meaning to ask this: why are only Trump and Putin only the second coming of Christ? Why not Xi, Robert Mugabe, or any of the rest of the world's dictators? Is it just Trump and Putin for you? If so, then why?

Everything I've ever read from your account indicates to me that you support Trump. You support everything Trump supports, and you repeat all kinds of negative things the Republican party comes up with about Biden and the Democrats.

In the posting above, you implied that Trump (along with Putin) are the actual second coming of Christ, which, to me at least, sounds like you are very positive on Trump.

If you want to put this rumor to bed, however, you can tell us the reasons why you won't be voting for Trump, and why you hope he loses the election in November.

I'll ask again: what possible thing could Trump do that you would no longer support him? Do you have an answer for that?

Bitcoin went up 500% under Biden.

Have you ever heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? The one Vladimir Putin has vowed to reconstruct after what he called the greatest catastrophe in history in its dissolution?

I am still convinced you'd have no opinion about Russia if Trump didn't care about it one way or another, and you'd be against Russia if Trump was. The reason I believe this is that all of the hard-core Trump supporters I talk to reverse themselves when they learn Trump has reversed himself.

Trump has recently reversed himself on abortion (saying we should have moderate laws now) because he wants to win the election this November. But him reversing himself will be a one-way street for those wanting stricter laws on abortion because he's going to get millions to parrot his moderate views on abortion (which are pretty much pro-choice, at least rhetorically).

So now Trump's followers have gone from "it's murder and women who have abortions are murders" to, "we should have moderate abortion laws like Europe does", calling the Florida law, "horrible" for instance.

This leaves me wonder what y'all actually believe since the only constant is following Trump and whatever he happens to believe that day.

Put it another way, what would Trump have to actually do in order for you to withdraw your support for him? If the answer (which you don't have to write down here if you don't want) is, "nothing", then your beliefs are that of a person and not any consistent ideas. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se--lots of people don't have time in their busy lives to formulate complex ideas about politics and policy--but it's worth at least, for purposes of self-awareness--knowing yourself well enough to understand what really motivates you.

See that's the thing. I remember Russia from the 1990s and before. A "Christian nation" did not describe it in the least.

But now it's important that it's seen as "Christian" so as to be compatible with the Republican voting base, so supporting Russia is compatible with the Republican voting base, so Trump's wishes are compatible with said voting base, so they will help him win the election.

So we have Republicans calling Russia "Christian" now. What a truly bizarre turn of events...

Did Trump really cause you to erase pre-Putin Russia from your mind? Seriously?

This is the same reason the government hasn't banned easter baskets: individuals like the the rules the way they are. () 

You are being way too vague here. What exactly do you mean by "regulate Bitcoin"? Right now you can buy, sell and hold Bitcoin and the only thing the government cares about is paying your taxes just like you would any other investment that gains in value. There's no sign the US government "wants to control" Bitcoin--whatever that means.

Bitcoin is up 500% under Biden, so if you are going to make this partisan, then your party is the Democrats.

You responded to the wrong post. Could you please edit/delete that and respond to the appropriate one? Thanks.

So that fact that nobody could find evidence of anything means... that it must be true.

What evidence to do you have... What "thing in your mind" makes you think there is a grand conspiracy around this? What feelings drive you to this conclusion?

Here's my conspiracy theory: you just want your favorite political party to win the next election so you'll believe absolutely anything anybody says that will help make that happen. I don't have any evidence of that, mind you, but it sure feels true .

No, I don't dispute the description of blockchain in Wikipedia.

And yes, blockchain can be used in a non-distributed fashion--but that's absolutely idiotic. You can also, for instance, write a modern 3D shooter in Perl. Or you can run all of your banking software with flat files instead of a relational database. But why would you do that?

The only valid reason to use blockchain is to evade government oversight into transactions. If you are not trying to do that, blockchain needlessly complicates your architecture, reduces security (because of the added system complexity), and needlessly limits performance to mere Bitcoin levels, which is not ever remotely close to the level of performance you'd need to serve even the tiniest of countries with a mainstream CBDC.

If Satoshi wrote his whitepaper and said, "here's a great way to store data in an enterprise" people would have called him an idiot and his architecture would have never been heard from again. Bitcoin took off because it was a way to evade government subpoenas into transactions. That's the only reason you would resort to such an architecture. If you aren't trying to do that, it's a waste of time and resources.

So what. Everybody else around him did. And who is to say Satoshi won't sell someday? Or that he actually intended to sell but died before he could?

Ethereum is also universally recognized as a commodity, as are many other cryptocurrencies. ETH market cap is over $400 billion. Not as high as BTC, but far larger than most corporations in the world including GM and IBM, and around the same as Exxon Mobile. Bitcoin is the biggest brand in digital currencies right now, but it's certainly not the only one, and who knows what the future will bring.

What you are saying is akin to calling everything that isn't an Apple computer a "scam" because they are from companies that are less valuable than Apple.

And if you think something as volatile as high-tech is going to stay the same "forever", maybe talk to somebody who thought the same thing about IBM in the 80s or Microsoft in the 90s or AOL in the 2000s. Don't get too attached--all I'm saying...

That would all describe Bitcoin as well. Maybe it wasn't called an "ICO" at the time, but that's what it amounted to.



Once again they had absolutely no reason to use blockchain technology in their offering--they only did that as a gimmick. You (identified you) buy a thing from the NFL team (identified as well). What possible value add does blockchain have in that context?

So I guess if you call drawing attention to your collectable using a popular (but meaningless) buzzword, "legit utility", then you'd be right, but in that case I can't see this hype cycle lasting too much longer. There have been collectables in the past for things like this without blockchain, and I suspect they will simply revert to that soon enough.

And I haven't seen any actual concrete examples of how they would use them in gaming and music, but the above rule would probably still apply: you can create the same exact product without blockchain without any loss of end-user value.

Inflation wasn't 500% in the last 4 years. Get real. It was 10% or so overall. Slight difference.

Yeah definitely sell before Biden gets elected. Think about how much money you would have made off that trade if you did that last time--when Bitcoin went up 500% during Biden's presidency.