That's why it's not the only avenue being explored.  No one is saying that Lightning is going to magically solve all our problems and we don't need to look at anything else.



If you can find support for it, go right ahead.  Count me out, though.  I've seen enough iterations of "hey, let's steal old coins and put them back into circulation" threads to know that only a few well-intentioned-but-ultimately-misinformed fools want that.

We basically know what all the existing options are for scaling (barring any new technological leaps or discoveries) and, for me at least, I'm comfortable in the knowledge there are people working on each option and that they're being implemented in order of preference with the aim of preserving decentralisation.  People can get fixated on the options they can easily understand, but it doesn't mean that's the best option right now.  There's a pretty clear order of priority in terms of where we can increase throughput without centralising the network, so it's only natural we're pursuing those ones first.  People just need to take a step back, look at the bigger picture and chill out a bit.  

You can say "but, but blocksize", "but, but faster block speed", etc, but it's not like we're hearing anything new.  We know those things exist.  The cost/benefit ratio has already been evaluated and wasn't deemed a priority.  Hence other options taking precedence and being actively developed first.  If we need to resort to those options with a higher cost, we can consider that later.

On which note, I'll crosslink this thread about adding buttons on users' sidebars to make that easier.

Yep, and it's not just restricted to banks monitoring your financial activity, but businesses and "Big Data" in general.  Your data is valuable and these companies all want it.  Permission for marketing, selling your details to other companies, cookies, etc.  It's all potential revenue to them.  The less you give out, the better.

Not good for whom, exactly?  

Let's be honest, I don't think there's a single thing any of us do here that a bank CEO will find favourable.  But I'd ask this CEO to look at it from our perspective.  Too big to fail banks are not good for us.  Casino-style derivatives trading is not good for us.  You banksters had your chance and you fucked it royally.  Your failure was our opportunity.  You've brought this upon yourselves.



My general assumption is that it'll only be problem in the near future.  I hold the rather optimistic view that Exchanges as a concept are on borrowed time, mostly as a relic of traditional finance.  The only reason they exist is because they make facilitating large volumes of trade relatively easy, but their centralised nature makes them weak.  I believe that, as technology evolves and things like smart contracts and atomic swaps between various blockchains become commonplace, a time will come when low frequency users (i.e. anyone except day traders) won't need to use centralised exchanges anymore.  Hopefully most people will be able to obtain some amount of any given cryptocurrency with their fiat before regulations become too restrictive.  After that, I can foresee a future where users will be able to execute buy and sell orders directly in their wallet, peer to peer, without a middleman.  

I'm pretty confident that the tech will outpace the regulation and they won't be able to keep up with our advances as trading currencies (hopefully) becomes as simple as sending a transaction.  The potential is pretty crazy when you think about it.

I'd say we do enough with our freedom of speech.  We call them out on their shenanigans and it seems to work for the most part.  Hopefully only a very small number of people still go away with the wrong impression after we've intervened to combat any FUD.  It's not the easiest job sometimes, but it keeps us in good practice for when the next troll inevitably appears.

I hadn't noticed it either, but it's a good change.  Common sense would suggest that one single trade isn't sufficient for positive trust.  A scammer could easily make one legitimate trade to gain trust before attempting to rip several people off, exploiting their new-found reputation.  It should take time to build up trust, making numerous trades without issue.  Neutral feedback is perfectly adequate for acknowledging individual successful trades.

You appear to be missing some of the nuance being explained to you here.  There are compromises that need to be made if you place all your focus on maximising the number of transactions per second.  Scaling carries certain costs to bear.  The first thing which some people tend to sacrifice in favour of raw speed is decentralisation.  But those of us who understand Bitcoin do not want to sacrifice decentralisation.  As bitmover said, being in control of your funds and not having barriers to transact with other users is vital.  Those are not qualities we would ever want to lose.

If you think TPS is the only important thing, that's your prerogative, but you'll find that many won't agree with that.  And because Bitcoin is consensus based, the people who value decentralisation will continue to run the code that preserves decentralisation.  If people wanted what you want, that wouldn't be the case.  This puts you in the minority, which is not generally known for being a position where you get to assert your preference on development.

And from which parts of his words do you infer that notion?  Besides, there's already a fork or two with big blocks and they don't seem all that great to me.

So, if the base protocol may, given consensus, be upgraded at some point take on the additional decimal places to accommodate settling LN millisats to the blockchain, we'd have the option at that point of extending the halvings as well.  Worth considering, I guess.  I'm sure miners won't have any complaints, heh.

It would still take some time to exceed the 21 million cap, though.  My understanding was that currently there will never be more than 20999999.9769 BTC in circulation (or technically 20999949.9769 BTC due to the unspendable genesis block).  Adding more decimal places and dealing with sub-satoshi units would not create enough extra BTC to make up for the 2310000 satoshi shortfall for many years, if ever.

//EDIT:  Unless my math is wrong, which I'm starting to think it is.

//DOUBLE_EDIT:  Nope, seems okay:

20999999.97690000
+
(210000 blocks x .5 satoshi) 0.00105000
=
20999999.97795000
+
(210000 blocks x .25 satoshi) 0.00052500   
=
20999999.97847500
+
(210000 blocks x .125 satoshi) 0.00026250
=
20999999.97873750
+
(210000 blocks x .0625 satoshi) .00013125
=
20999999.97886875
+
(210000 blocks x .03125 satoshi) .000065625  (nine decimal places)
=
20999999.978934375  (nine decimal places)

So yeah, that's another ~20 years without crossing 21 million BTC and I'm sure if I kept going, it's okay for some time, or possibly forever.

I wish him the best of luck in his endeavours.  He's only about 10 years too late.  All my addresses are known only to me until I use them to send or receive a payment.  And even then, if I'm careful, it may not be feasible to tie those addresses to my real-word identity.

Also, when he realises his precious little Treasury doesn't, in fact, police the entire world and everything in it, maybe he can come back with some more sensible comments.

You aren't regulating shit, Steven.   

If I take this to mean you're not giving up on the seasteading concept, then I'm pleased to hear it.  But in terms of fitting into one of those neat little square boxes that regulators are so fond of, I suspect anything related to Bitcoin, or crypto in general, is going to make that a more difficult task.  Most countries don't have legislation that would naturally encompass any attempt at creating a "Digital Autonomous Company" (which I think is what you're talking about here, but please correct me if I'm wrong).

While there's certainly a great deal I could question about your post, I'll stick with this part for the sake of brevity.

Imagine the roles were reversed and the OP was the owner of these boards and someone posted page after page of largely the same thoughts or ideas, to the point where a majority of the recent topics were theirs and the sheer volume of posts is starting to drown out other users.  Are you telling me they wouldn't want to prune some of the more egregious repeats?  Maybe let some other users get a word in edgeways?  Where would you draw the line on consecutive multiposting?

It's not about trying to "silence" the OP, it's about making sure they aren't making so much noise that it effectively silences other users.

It's why they're called "moderators" and not "silencers".  They moderate discussion to keep it fair and open.

Without the aid of a crystal ball or a time machine, no one is going to give you a definitive answer on that one.

Personally, as someone who isn't a day-trader, I'd prefer they stay away for as long as possible. 

Obligatory XKCD reference:



You are protected from legal repercussions when you express your views, not protected from having your posts deleted on a forum.  Your freedom ends where the freedom for people who find you annoying and don't want to listen to you begins.

And for the thread as a whole, still yet to hear a single compelling argument as to why FH should be removed as a mod.  It also wouldn't surprise me if some of the accounts calling for removal of their mod powers were sockpuppets.



Which is surely only an issue for you if you're a self-professed fascist? 

I think the more prevalent view on this board is that it's really not.  KYC causes more security issues than it solves.  If you store a great big cache of valuable personal information in one place, people are going to be motivated to try and steal it.  KYC is inherently dumb.

Should we not just simplify the list and name a single entry of:

• the sham we currently pretend is government?

We'll be here all year listing all the different government bodies, politicians and so-called intelligence agencies.

Might as well make the most of it.  Maybe someone should tell him CSW is satoshi so they can organise a drone strike or something.  

Honestly, I'd be more concerned if he said he was a fan.  Bitcoin is better off without support from people of questionable intellect who are prone to saying profoundly stupid things on a regular basis.