I understand the appeal of the idea, you probably think it's an easy way to earn some money.  But in all honesty, if you don't know what you're doing, you're more likely to have a security breach and lose money than you are to make a profit.  You need to store crypto in a hot-wallet for when users wish to withdraw their winnings and that's where a flaw in code could leave you vulnerable to hackers and other potential threats.

a) Was the screenshot of the entire page really necessary?

b) What the shit are you going on about now?  This constant slew of barely comprehensible new topics is getting a bit tiresome now.  Coins are still "issued in a limited and predetermined amount", so I don't see what it is you think isn't true.  The code determines the issuance rate and consensus is determined by the majority running that code.  So, effectively, when you think about it, "coins are issued by the majority".  Again, that's still true.

If you cared about Bitcoin, you'd stop trying to turn it into a shitty BCH/SV clone.  That benefits no one other than the people in charge of those centralised shitcoins.  Now go whine to the devs of your preferred client, BU, to implement all the utterly dismal, imbecilic crap you think would make Bitcoin better.  Most of the devs on this chain just think you're a sad joke.  No wonder they ridicule you.



No, moron, you've got that backwards.  I've already told you.  

How about you actually wait to see how it's implemented before you completely jump the gun with your alarmist 'sky-is-falling' nonsense, where you insinuate we're locked into a course where SegWit transactions will be malleable?

You could have phrased it that if the feature was implemented incorrectly, it had the potential to allow malleability.  But you chose to phrase it in the way that you did, making it sound as though malleability was the only conceivable outcome. 

You just can't help yourself.  Stop pointing the finger at other people when they call you out on the undeniable fact that you bring it all on yourself.  People would stop calling your integrity into question if you stopped giving them every reason to.

If it looked likely that the proposed feature would reintroduce malleability and devs still wanted to push ahead with it, then I would absolutely question that decision, just as I suspect everyone else here would.  Which is precisely why such an outcome is unlikely to ever occur.  But not once in the course of your last few years of your mindless FUD have you ever come close to making a reasonable statement like that.  As such, you deserve all the attacks people make on your character.  I can't even begin to comprehend how you look in a mirror and like what you see.  You are scum.

He has been asked this question on numerous occasions and never answers it.  Also, his story has already changed since March, when he claimed they had already introduced it.  Now they apparently only want to introduce it:


So if they have introduced it, which one is it, Francis?  Which one allows malleation?  

I'm starting to think he doesn't actually know what the difference between a sighash flag and an opcode is.  But here he is on his little soapbox telling us that the developers don't know what they're doing.  

It's also worth remembering that after compressing something, it also needs to be uncompressed to use again, creating additional time to process and increasing the demands on hardware.  There are definitely limits to what can be achieved in this direction.  If it were that simple, we'd already be doing it.

The listed mod for that board hasn't been online since March, so maybe something needs sorting there first and foremost.

If the general Bitcoin Discussion board weren't such a cesspit, I'd be okay with closing the Press board and merging the two.  But as it stands, it's nice to have all the recent and unfolding events in one place and not buried underneath "who is satoshi x10^8247819124 ", "reason for bull/bear market x10^2418134 " and whatever other stuff too mundane to care about gets posted there.  Despite the initial posts in Press generally being a free pass to copy/pasta, the replies are generally of a higher quality than those in Bitcoin Discussion and the conversations are usually well-informed.  So for that reason alone, I'd be sad to see it go.

At the very least, I think a rule should be introduced (and enforced) that you have to include your own thoughts and opinions on the subject to accompany the article itself.  And not just a basic one-liner asking what other people think, either.  

I'm on the fence with blocking crypto-related sites.  I'd say treat it on a case-by-case basis.  They're not all as dismal as CoinIdol.    

Which is brilliant.  But, let's be honest, based on his posting history, it's not like franky1 is going to be thrilled about the prospect of making implementing features via soft forks easier, now, is it?  

In b4 he posts "another Core plot to bypass consensus blah, blah, blah".  

Okay, but why can't we hear from these traders in the existing speculation boards?  Trading is speculating, so it stands to reason that you discuss that in the speculation boards.  It sounds like what you want is a new topic, not an entire sub.

Such discussions are already well catered to.  Definitely belongs in either Speculation or Speculation (Altcoins), depending on what it is you're trading.  Trading BTC with national currencies naturally goes in the Speculation board.  Anything else goes in Altcoins.



Agreed, keep trading stuff well away from the Press board.  It's not for blogging, despite what some people seem to think.

One of the comments below the article pointed out that he has a criminal record and it probably doesn't look good for an exchange to be run by a felon.  Seems to be as good a reason as any to step down as CEO.

If the ads are in plain text, contain no explicit material and don't link to anything unlawful, then there's seemingly no issue.  There's plenty of scope for such advertising, provided it is done responsibly. 

It's a pretty funny world where companies use sexual imagery to sell just about anything, but here on the forum we'd have to use plain text when attempting to sell actual sex, but there we go, heh.

It's really easy to get into a debate about precisely who or what is responsible for getting SegWit activated, but the important thing is that we did find consensus for it.  Users, miners and developers moving forward as one network.  I'm definitely in the 'Not a fan of UASF' camp, but whether the threat alone was sufficient to make it happen or not will probably be one of those arguments for the ages that never really gets settled.



Awesome, if you could just substantiate this claim by letting us know which Lightning "hubs" are run by bankers so we can avoid using those particular channels?  

What's that?  You don't have the slightest fucking clue?  Alrighty then.  Would you care to move on to your next barefaced lie?

My understanding was that it makes a difference whether you are using a credit or debit card.  Quite a few banks banks won't allow their customers to buy cryptocurrencies on credit.  Shouldn't make a difference whether it's visa or mastercard, as long as you use debit.

//EDIT:  Okay, you've edited the OP to clarify it is a debit card.  Not sure what else to suggest, then.  Do you maybe live somewhere the US have imposed sanctions on?

I wouldn't even say it's a "trick".  Allaire is doing this purely in pursuit of his own personal interests.  He is not there to speak in support of crypto itself, but in support of his particular business model where he makes fiat profits from those who use crypto.  That's literally all he cares about.

Whether you opt to call it stealing or not, you are still effectively threatening to change the ownership of someone else's coins if they neglect to move them.  It's a concept people have proposed on numerous occasions in the past and you are more than welcome to search for some previous topics where people have outlined the reasons why it's not likely to happen in Bitcoin.  If I were on my PC I'd do it for you and post some links, but it's a ballache to do on a phone.

Sure, that all sounds nice and sensible.  But I'm thinking, at this point, given how diametrically opposed our goals are to that of the traditional banking system, the hope for any legislation we would deem favourable is pretty much a pipe-dream now, regardless of how many genuine BTC advocates contact their senator.  And the hope for no regulation at all just sounds like a joke with a lousy punchline.  It's just not realistic in my view.  Regulation is inevitable and it's probably going to suck.  So I'm convinced the best we can hope for is that morons like Jeremy Allaire fill their heads with nonsense and they at least regulate in areas that aren't particularly harmful to us in the short term because they haven't been given sufficient insight into what we're doing with crypto, compared to what fiat-loving posers like Allaire are attempting, but crucially failing, to to do with crypto.  It's clear Allaire believes that creating gatekeepers is somehow a viable business model in crypto and that's precisely why he and his crappy companies keep failing.  He's almost certainly going to send them on a wild goose chase for a few years while they attempt to introduce middlemen where they have no power to insert them, giving us more time to increase the robustness and capacity of our network.

And I'll remind everyone that this is the same bellend who opened fire on Bitcoin devs in an attempt to blame them for the failures of his own shitty company.  I'm happy for the US senate to listen to idiots and be led round in circles (if you'll excuse the pun).  The more misinformed they are, the more steps they are behind us, meaning we're free to forge ahead and innovate. 

Personally, I don't see how being forced to comply with a blatant political agenda increases legitimacy or trustworthiness.  It's just something they're powerless to fight against, so they're simply taking the path of least resistance.



Most governments on Earth have a poor track record on human rights.  I don't know why people always choose to single out Iran.  Again, sounds like pandering to US political agenda to me.



While I don't agree with any of this, it sounds like you can still have a public repository.  Is that really not an option for you?

I'm content to do both, heh.  The arguments in support of Bitcoin are nearly self-evident at this stage, so it can get a bit stale repeating the same things time and again.  It's refreshing to open fire on an unsuspecting troll every once in a while.  Like how people appreciate a floorshow with their meal sometimes.  Adds a bit of extra flavour, heh.