While that's true right now, it's been decreasingly less true.

The younger generation are more aware of the power of information and it's power than ever before, so it's no surprise that they're leading the way in embracing cryptocurrency as a genuine alternative to the old system. And fortunately, reality has it such that new young people just keep appearing, whereas old people have a habit of eventually disappearing, never to be seen again I think cryptocurrency blockchains, and their properties and effects, will win out in the end.

Yeah that's the entire reason why Dimon's comments are reported on so heavily, he represents "the authorities".


But Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies defy that authority, Dimon and the rest of the incumbent financial system don't have genuine authority any more as a result, and that's why he has to talk it down. There are no absolute authorities any more

Dimon can talk of bans, but let's see them come up with an effective ban. There isn't one, that's the whole reason why these over-privileged finance types and their govenement cronies haven't banned it in over 9 years of Bitcoin's operation. There's not a thing that can be done, this toothpaste won't go back in the tube.

No it won't, it's 100% predictable that Dimon will either face no consequences at all, or that the consequences will be so meager that they'll never affect him or JP Morgan seriously.

Most likely outcome: Swedish watchdog/ombudsman says, "Bitcoin is unregulated, therefore Dimon can say what he likes"

Well, Coinbase isn't the only exchange, and Bitpay aren't the only processor. It's more likely that the users stick with the known and proven Core team, and that Segwit2x is the chain with no users, just as Bitcoin Cash has ended up.

Even if users choose 2xCoin in sufficient numbers to keep it alive, Bitcoin is as likely to crash against the 2xCoin as Bitcoin is to crash against the dollar, i.e. not that likely. Bitcoin is about enabling people to do what they want with their money, and safeguarding the value of everyone's money. That's why it's risen in exchange value against regular currencies, because it was designed well to do that, and that design is being continually improved by the Bitcoin developers at Core.

Once a large enough amount of traders (and the public) understand Bitcoin well enough (and it's differences with the dollar), Dimon might instead end up crashing JP Morgan shares. Or even the dollar....


If Dimon eventually crashes the dollar talking Bitcoin down, the Streisand effect might get re-named Dimon effect instead

Buy Bitcoin Cash if you want a larger blocksize.



Segwit is already activated. So Segwit2x is not the same thing as getting Segwit, it's a separate, different fork.



Blocks aren't full right now. And that's not a good argument anyway, setting the blocksize so that full blocks are relieved by Lightning like a pressure valve is probably the best compromise.

And the reasons why not to opt for 2x are:

• The blocksize is now 2-4MB (depending on usage patterns) Segwit2x makes that 4-8MB, and 2-4MB is not being used right now (current daily average is between 0.8MB and 1.0 MB
• Because of the above, Core aren't going to double blocksize again, and so it means a Bitcoin Cash style hardfork
• Because of the above, the businesses that want Segwit2x are pushing ahead using devs who've demonstrated in the past that permission-less sound money is not their vision for Bitcoin

People aren't seeing the wood because of all those pesky trees. This hasn't got anything to do with the blocksize, and never did.

Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, and Segwit2x have all been pushed at Bitcoin users with the blocksize as the (simple) issue to push with. And Bitcoin users were always too smart to not see these campaign for what they were: attempts by big business to capture Bitcoin development, so they can change it into a permissioned system, no different to using banks (strange coincidence, I wonder if the banks are in favour of these forks )

---

So, watch out for these people that are all like "hey, blocksize x is not so bad, so let's change the development team tomorrow!". It's got nothing to do with blocksize x, and everything to do with changing the development team.

This really reveals the reason why Dimon is so against independent cryptocurrencies (and why he threatens them with government bans, despite his role at JP Morgan supposedly having no direct influence on legislation).

The Federal Reserve bank is the central bank who controls the issuance of the USD, and it is not independent, or indeed a federal institution, it is privately run, and privately owned. The identity of the shareholders of the Federal Reserve are unknown, but it's a safe bet to assume that large long-established financial corporations, like JP Morgan, are among the shareholders. Even if this supposition is not correct (and there is considerable circumstantial evidence to back it), Dimon's organisation does incredibly well in no small part due to the way the Federal Reserve has managed the USD since it's institution in 1913.

In no way does the JP Morgan corporation benefit if the USD attracts genuine competition as the world reserve currency, and you can see this reflected in the US government's aggressive statements against the yuan-dollar peg, or in the CIA's promotion of the use of the dollar in countries in which it organises political overthrows (a helpful way to export the dollar supply to offset price inflation in the US mainland).

So Dimon is acting either on behalf of his Federal Reserve benefactors, or in the role of an actual Federal Reserve shareholder. It's not totally relevant which, more that this most egregiously damaging of anti-capitalist institutions feels threatened by a tiny little currency with a ~ $60 billion monetary base: because it's powerfully independent. It's decentralised by design, and they cannot hope to control it.

You don't get it, you're thinking in snapshots. The moment when some group of upstart ASIC producers make a Scrypt miner is not somehow frozen in time forever.

ASIC makers, irrelevant of their size when they begin their business, have an incentive to gouge their prices to bestow their own personal mining operations with an unassailable competitive advantage.

The actual solution is to choose a PoW hashing algorithm for which no-one has an ASIC design, thereby allowing regular users to use standard equipment to compete more effectively against warehouse scale mining operations. Algorithms that allow regular people to use standard, non-specialised equipment are the key to decentralising the hashrate.


(you should get a job doing propaganda for established Bitcoin mining ASIC producers, you accidentally say all the things they really want the public to believe)

That would be correct, if it was what I said. But subtly, that's not what I said. You should read (and write) more carefully.

So, you skillfully avoided the question.

If 8MB blocks (identical to the Segwit2x limit) are an "acceptable bigger block size", you can choose Bitcoin Cash.

Why. Not. Do. That.


And why no discussion of the actual pertinent point: what's the real reason for the Segwit2x hardfork? It's pretty interesting that you're using the same presentation that all previous shills supporting alt-dev hard forks have ever done: you only ever talk about the technical parameter used to promote a hard fork attempt, instead of about the future of Bitcoin after the hard fork. What a strange coincidence.

So, see if you can avoid answering this question too: why do you keep avoiding discussion about who the alt-dev team are or represent, and what their intentions are likely to be post-fork, and instead concentrate on talking about the issue the fork is being promoted with?

Ah, sorry, was working from (apparently very bad) memory.

So to answer Omega's question, presumably Bech32 addresses will in fact be more difficult to create vanity addresses with?

51% attacks against the Bitcoin network are:

• Permissionless
• Also possible with 92% of the hashrate

And that's what this "fork" really is, using a cartelised hashrate to perform a 51% attack to steer the Bitcoin network away from the interests of the users. It's pretty obvious, as the fork provides no discernible upgrade to the network, includes uncompromising support from every questionable corporation in Bitcoin commerce, and features a political authoritarian as the chief developer.

If there was some kind of technical merit to Segwit2x, sure, we call it a fork. But seeing as it's a hashrate-led political move, it's a 51% attack.

I think it's more accurate to say: world governments feel highly ambivalent about blockchain tech & cryptocurrencies.


On the one hand, it adds to the mix of currency instruments and payment networks that reduces dependence and upsets monopolies. This makes it easier to handle businesses like Mastercard or Paypal, or political organisations whose currencies play the biggest role in world commerce (US, EU, China etc), as these organisations' hand has been weakened by Bitcoin, and so they are not in such a strong position to behave in a demanding way with respect to getting favourable conditions in the countries that do not directly represent the dominant currencies and payment networks.

On the other hand, it also strengthens the citizens of their country against the laws and/or abuses of the law by those same governments (and the US, EU and Chinese government are not spared this problem either). In addition, cryptocurrencies also have the potentianl to strengthen large international governmental organisations against the weaker governments too, depending on the aggregation of reactions from world governments, and on how financial markets behave too.


This could ultimately be a good thing, though. Governments cannot misbehave on the same scale as in the past, as they threaten a tax revolt if they are too shameless. And so the price of being too cynical or reckless is too high, politicians do need some kind of territory to live in, despite how poor their moral standards usually are, allowing the state to break down altogether will not be a viable option for the majority of politicians. Is it possible that blockchain tech could usher in an era of such incredible accountability that the governments finally fear the people?

I predict the public finances incentive will act particularly effectively for those governments with the worst public finances, and so it's no surprise that Japan has been quite accommodating to Bitcoin, for instance. For Japanese politicians, having an exit-strategy to their fiscal issues (the worst in the stable/developed world) that they don't need to take responsibility for (either to their subjects or their powerbroker state the US) should be quite attractive as an option.

China is an interesting case also, and I expect alot of this "crackdown" posturing will be no more than the hot air that it is right now. China have different problems to Japan, but the ultimate source is the same; an over-managed reserve currency backed by an increasingly belligerent USA. If the USA government continues to behave as it has, the Chinese government will need different options available to prevent the dollar and the SWIFT network being used against them, as crazy as that sounds. The Chinese government has financial counter-attacks to anything the US government could do, but it doesn't hurt to have a great-leveller style option (i.e. blockchain tech) in the arsenal, ultimately, the US has no counter to it (and it hurts the US more than any other government, the dollar is essentially treated increasingly like a credit card by each successive US administration).

I think it may be sensible to point out that "we see today" is an important condition of your statement. In future, Lightning, CT and MAST transactions could push that average higher.

Maybe there would be a reason to keep invalid transactions to prove they took place? If a pair of commercial partners has a dispute over whether or not a payment took place, records may be desirable in order to prove what happened (I guess this is highlighting a weakness of Lightning; no such problem can be exploited when transacting on-chain).

It's a variable called MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT, and it's in a file in the consensus sub-directory called consensus.h (and it's 4M, not 1M)

No he's not


Remember how Dimon and his ilk launder money for their fellow criminals, and never get prosecuted?

Remember how Dimon and his fellow cartel members created dangerous financial instruments that crashed the financial markets in 2008? Remember how they faced no consequences whatsoever?

Remember how Dimon and his protection racket circle have been profiting from inflating asset prices (with an inflated money supply), the effects of which are yet to be felt in the wider economy, as the market price of the inflated assets hasn't yet corrected? (which won't happen before the money supply has stopped being inflated)
 

Do you actually remember (or did you ever know) any of the various reasons for Bitcoin being created in the first place?

No.

Users can choose to use new versions of the software, if at all. But they cannot choose whether or not to receive alert messages.


Current situation is a good compromise; you're wrong, the alert system still exists, but it's determined by the software, and has a narrower range of events for which alerts are sent.

The behaviour you're seeking could be added programmatically (i.e. without requiring human input), you could write the code and submit it as a pull request for review.

Uh, that would be a reason against using Scrypt. Mining cartels would still be pushing their agenda if there is ASIC hardware in existence, which for Scrypt, there is.

Yeah, that was one of the improvements (performance upgrades to the way the chainstate database works, database libraries were updated to something with CPU acceleration, the way the disk cache works with blocks was altered).

Supposedly block syncing goes even faster if you have SSE 4 instruction set support on your processor, but one of those improvements is a non-default experimental mode (SHA256 acceleration, I think)