in my opinion is it will convert to half of money and another half again reinvest. what is your opinion and let rock together with my topic.?
Well, making money the end goal wouldn't take us too far. A lot of people have been trying to make crypto and bitcoins there one source of income and are doing all sort of spammy stuff with that in mind. This isn't going to be sustainable. What I have aimed for is to gradually build up expertise in the area by learning. A stable side income from occasional campaigns is welcome but the main goal is to have enough know how and expertise in this field. Both in terms of its economic/ financial implications as well as the technical nitty-gritties. (Have to accept that its crazy hard but worth it) So its pretty much a long term goal. So there is no "next step" for me. This is a worthy journey and I am taking it for the sake of it. Not to get too over-confident, but i feel that keeping this approach will also ensure that my "life doesn't depend on crytpo". I say this because a lot of these spammers are making it feel like that. Its a community project so we all should learn and try to give our contribution so that we can someday have an alternative route from our corporate/governemntal clutches. In the mean time, we should all get the normal jobs too and ensure we are not completely dependent on just one thing. |
|
|
|
Well it certainly is. Bitcoin is just getting started and its real effects are meant to be much farther reaching than just a few thousand people multiplying their portfolios. Bitcoin is working to enable micro transactions so that everyone can use it for as small amounts as needed. These scaling solutions are layer-2 solutions that are dependent on the main blockchain for their authenticity. A lot of work and research has gone into it and it is being deployed even as we discuss this here and even as the usual naysayers continue their FUD. No matter what others claim, none of the other crytpos have the same level of decentralization and network infrastructure that bitcoin has. With Lightning Network, it will be the first of its kind to have it widely deployed. It is here for the long run and is definitely worth a small part of your investment. It should be treated as making yourself part of something revolutionary. If you are not excited by the technology, its potential or don't understand it, then its best to stay away. Those kind of people generally cannot stand the volatility and turn into naysayers. Nobody wants them. |
|
|
|
|
The economy as we know it today treats human being as a resource. The governments and big business work together to create "opportunities" for the masses. These opportunities take the form of new investments, bigger factories, faster rails, wider roads and so on.
The masses on their part, sell their time, creativity, muscle power in exchange for a cheque at the end of the month.
The system works as long as there is scope for the "opportunities" discussed above.
This system has fostered inequality, consumerism and is leading to an unsustainable use of resources with a constant focus on "growth" as the buzzword.
When I came across bitcoin and blockchain for the first time, the thing i was most excited about was its ability to allow people to sell and buy services/ goods without borders and without being dependent on a government. You can choose the love of your labor, decide to earn in bitcoin and maybe get all your needs fulfilled with the money that you earn from it, because that is the currency too, right.
Wrong, the governments will never allow this sort of "choice" to the masses. The wealthiest elite, the corporations and governments together create scarcity and the sanctity of money. They tell you what you need, how much you have to earn and we as masses toil day-in and out to buy things we don't need and then pay taxes on them.
We get sick and we are told that its crazy expensive to be better so you need medical insurance.
We need education and we are told its crazy expensive to get it so you pay for it and your parents toil for it ensuring that they spend their lives as cog in the wheels in hopes of a brighter future.
This is what i hate about this present system and truly hope that one way or the other, the masses will someday have the liberty to choose what they work on and how they get paid. Thats what i feel bitcoin and blockchain can do.
The government and the wealthy elite won't need to create wars, social unrest and crime to keep us on our toes. I mean seriously, think about it, with the kind of power and reach that governments have, is it really that difficult to ensure a crime free country?? They could reach out to us in constructive ways and probably solve these problems but do they want to?
|
|
|
|
Now a days bitcoin are widely accepted and it is decentralised currency.
Due to its decentralisation some countries do not accept as the payment system.
Is bitcoin needs some regulation to use widely and accepted by all countries ?
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer currency exchange system. In its simplest form, it is supposed to give two people the freedom to exchange value without depending on a government to "regulate" it. Ideally, it shouldn't matter whether countries "accept" is as a form of payment or not. the problem is that the ground reality is very different from ideal. Normal people are putting their savings and money into bitcoin. This is taking away a lot of "government's money" into a parallel economy that governments seem to have no control over. This is too much power in the hand of the masses for governments to be comfortable with it. Their approach then is to outright ban trading etc. The dilemma is that the system will not have wide acceptance without some sort of legitimacy. A lot of new people care about legitimacy/ regulation because they want to realise their gains in fiat which is natural and understandable. Enabling easy fiat to crypto change will be necessary for wider acceptance but that also opens the possibilities of bitcoin being manipulated. The market manipulations and volatility also confirm that some form of regulations will be necessary. Another dilemma is that while some people want governments to intervene so that new investors don't get burned, governments want to get involved so that they can contain bitcoin and its far-reaching benefits. |
|
|
|
|
The system has been introduced so the spamming accounts cannot upgrade simply by posting nonsense in multiple posts. This had been happening. You can check the posts of some of the shit-posters and see that it will drive any moderator nuts. I think the merit system does a great job at discouraging this behavior.
The spammers cannot now just make 100 accounts and distribute them to their relatives and third cousins to have multiple streams from the Signature campaigns. In the long term, its a very good step for the forum. There was only so much that moderators could have done against the onslaught of spam posts.
Having said that, I have to agree that it does create a problem for those who have joined late. It doesn't change the fact that the senior members who were concerned about the post quality going down would also be the ones who will gradually realize that not all newcomers are shit posters.
It'll also give everyone the motivation to actually know about bitcoin so that they can post sensibly and not just "opinions and critiques" (which is what most of us actually have been doing as there is no incentive to be better from the technical viewpoint).
Your concern about people using bought accounts for their benefit will also find that they will be getting generous negative trust very fast. There will always be some people who will be hell bent on gaming the system. In time, it all comes out.
So don't be disheartened. Just try to make your posts as meaningful and filled with content as possible. For those with good technical knowledge or any other desirable characteristic, the system will eventually work out.
Everybody will just need to read a bit more. And provide credit where they feel its due.
|
|
|
|
Credits AirdropWe are announcing a Credits (CRDS) airdrop! A maximum of 200 users will be accepted for this airdrop. Each application will be reviewed individually and each user that is accepted will be given 250 CRDS. You need to 1) Join our Discord channel: https://discord.gg/Hq7dKhh2) Download the Credits wallet: https://github.com/CRDS/Credits/releases/tag/v1.1.1.03) Create a CRDS address 4) Sign up here: https://goo.gl/forms/8aNjRCiyi3u9Um2E3Not all applications will be accepted. Users with the following have increased probability of acceptance: 1) Being active on Bitcointalk 2) Being involved with masternode coins 3) Being involved with mining This is going to be my first attempt at a masternode. I have installed wallet and starting to mine. Hope to be accepted.. Thanks for the opportunity. |
|
|
|
@amishmanish thanks for clearing some things, I have more questions  Okay I get it I have to open a payment chanel to transact. But what if I don't open a chanell? How are others going to send me via segwit? Will others need to open a chanell with them puting their money and me putting 0btc? One thing, by using these addresses that begins with "3" am I automatically using SegWit? And If I am automatically using SegWit how is channel even being opened when I can simply generate paper wallets with these "3" and receive lots of coins without even going online and contacting any node to open a channel for me or to open one myself. Or I should look at them as ordinary btc addresses that start with "1"? Could you comment on this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g and read first comment there if you have time I think you are getting confusied between SegWit and LN. SegWit was a soft fork that was needed for further improvements. Lightning Network being one of them. You open a channel once with another node and as the network becomes connected enough you can use the funds in the channel to make microtransactions and other people can find you on that network. There is a cool visualization of the LN on mainnet. (its down right now for some reason). Keep in mind that its in testing mode now and only the experts are involved in it. Though, its a golden opportunity to learn for anybody with enough time, computer hardware and a desire to get their hands dirty. For your answers to the new address forma, you can check this reply from Carlton Banks. |
|
|
|
My dear up for sale green friend it seems like the contents of my footer has upset you so you like to keep being rude and attacking me since I debunked you because your facts were incorrect so please have a second go and debunk any of the facts mentioned above  Not interested in your desperate attempts to bump this thread anymore. Please continue your crusade for all I care. Maybe you will save the world. On my part, I'll continue to call your bullshit. And dude, please stop whining about "being rude" and all. |
|
|
|
|
So you basically did all the initial work and were shown the door later as there was no binding agreement. If true, this is really sad and is one of those life lessons that some people learn the hard way.
It sucks that you weren't able to catch onto the train despite being there back in 2013. That must feel heavy. But you are a coder and there is a lot still going on. The bitcoin and crypto scene is still finding its workers and its leaders. There are a lot of learning and earning opportunities right here in the forum too.
I hope you can forget the past and move to the future with zeal and happiness. Forgive but don't forget. And then move on. You are a developer so I am sure you can contribute by giving your opinion on the latest technologies coming up. Good, well-meaning opinions in crypto are hard to come by and valuable.
Its not clear as to what you want to intend from your post. You should share some links to the involved companies/ people as well as some proof to what you are trying to put across. If nothing else, at least people can learn from your experience.
Move on and keep walking brother. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is awesome. This forum is terrific. Despite all the spam, shit-postings and other stuff, the sheer depth of information and bitcoin related avenues available here are unmatched. Every person who gets serious about bitcoin comes here for once. This is a kind of rite of passage. Lately, bitcoin has been seeing constant attacks and lot of questions because of problems of its own and those created by others. There's the scaling and fee issue. There's Roger Ver and his supporters droning on about "Bcash is the real bitcoin", celebratory posts on r/btc about bitcoin.org changing its website, troll and spam posts at the forum about "LN is a bank" etc. etc. There's scammers and spammers in ICOs, ANN threads giving the forum and crypto a bad name. I have been to both Reddits r/btc and r/bitcoin but this forum was my main gateway to the narrative. I found myself leaning more and more towards SegWit and LN as the solutions and causes to back rather than a simple block size increase.I would like to share the reasons I feel I leaned towards this: 1.) A block size increase would be a slide down a path to losing independent, user-run full nodes. 2.) Bitcoin has shown resilience in terms of security for almost 8 years now and I don't see how anybody could attempt a contentious hard- fork without implementing and widely testing the other major scaling proposals. 3.) Independent, user-run full nodes are important, no matter how pragmatic Bcash shills want to sound when they say that full nodes are not needed and Satoshi never intended them to. (Though, Here in this message, Satoshi says that most users will be SPV nodes and only miners will run full nodes. I doubt he had accounted for ASIC based specialized mining. It was supposed to be 1CPU = 1vote right, Not 1 Antminer = 1 Vote) 4.) Engineers/DIY people/Hacker culture thrive in complexity. I find SegWit and LN attempts to address scaling way more elegant than a hard-forking block size increase. This also ensures that the innovations in the field have a long term impact in terms of taking technology farther. 5. A solution like SegWit infact increases block size too but puts the onus to use those benefits on the community of users, by adopting it. Use Segwit! Here's how to
do it for an Electrum wallet.6. I don't like the idea that only miners should run full-nodes while users remain on SPV wallets. That leaves the power to validate tranactions and form consensus rules in the hands of miners only. As users, we are then supposed to trust miners to act in their self- interest which will be aligned with the public's interest, just as in a capitalist society, theoretically. They'll know whats good for you. 7.) Maybe I have had some confirmation bias because I've seen most members at BCT supporting the SegWit narrative. This last point not withstanding, I still feel I have formed an independent viewpoint that SegWit, LN and such improvements are a better alternative than a simplistic block size increase. Which of the above reasons resonate with you or you agree with them (or not)? Please share. P.S.: Must say these fellas had some role in helping me get to that opinion: Gotta Thank Jihan Wu and Roger Ver The thought-train that prompted me to share these reasons started after I saw a post complaining about the high fees for a Copper member upgrade. There has been a lot of talk about increased fees and everybody agrees that SegWit adoption and LN are possible solutions to this. Now LN is still in testing phase but SegWit can still give some positive effect if we start using the addresses more often. As an example, We can start by changing the donation address for BCT to one of the backward compatible SegWit addresses with prefix '3'. Secondly, My understanding with LN is that it'll need people to open up channels with well-connected nodes. There are so many people doing business here at BCT that are the natural choices to be some of these nodes. For example, The respectable campaign managers, Trusted Escrows and old members. If possible, we could have a separate thread for coordinating LN adoption among these members. Some of these are just ideas. I will try to do my bit to help them take some form and put updates here. |
|
|
|
Sorry for that post above. As you know the bitcoin code has been constantly updated with several improvements over the years as an open source project. There was a general agreement that scaling had to be achieved somehow. One side wanted a simple solution by increasing the block size. The other side was in opposition because the block size increase has a direct effect on the requirements to run a full-node. A full-node can validate the block-chain and accept or reject transactions depending on their validity. THIS "VALIDITY" is determined by the set of rules that transactions are following. When you do a fork (Soft or Hard), you are making changes to these rules. The difference is subtle but very important. In a soft-fork, Its not mandatory for EVERYONE to upgrade immediately. Because blocks produced under new rules will still be valid on old systems. In a Hard-fork, It is mandatory for all systems to upgrade, otherwise the blocks produced under new rules will be invalid on old systems. This essentially creates two chains and opens up several possibilities discussed here. That I think is reason enough for the core developers to not want a block size and a hard fork. You are right, in a perfect world, everybody would have agreed that a hard-fork is risky and that solutions like SegWit and LN should be implemented first. The block size increase could wait until the ecosystem was mature enough to form consensus. (On what is the safe limit for block size to keep the network decentralised enough and whether everyone is ready for a hard fork). When such a consensus would be available, a size increase could've been incorporated. What has happened now instead is that a few powerful individuals (2 i think) have colluded to co-opt the bitcoin and scream to the whole world that they are the original. What Roger Ver is as a person is quite clear from his "Ï am a self made millionaire", "Whats your gross annual revenue" outbursts.. He is a egoist with a lot of money and one talented but disgruntled developer to support him. He just decided to benefit from the disgruntlement amongst the bitcoin developers and launch his own coin. That was really sad. If SegWit and LN in general is more to "like a bank system" why do we have it even? These new addresses that starts with "3" and "bc1" what about them?? Are they not "on chain" and everything with them is done off chain?? SegWit is a soft-fork that solved many issues so that future improvements can be implemented. SegWit solves transaction malleability by segregating the signatures and implementing an increased blocksize limit of 4 MB. But remember that this is a soft-fork and it has to continue supporting old nodes. The old nodes will effectively not see the signature data leaving more space for transactions. This results in an effective increase in capacity depending on adoption. This is where the distibuted nature of the bitcoin project as a project of the people comes to fore. If people agree that it is worth succeeding, they will adopt SegWit. Unfortunately, the biggest exchanges and merchants have seen that there is still money to be made from the blocksize debate. If they all adopt SegWit, the fees and transaction speeds will improve drastically but seeing the divide in the community, they know there is space for other things to get pumped. Thats a net positive for them. So they have been slow to adopt it.
Raising blocksize or making blocks faster+decreasing reward should be okay solution I guess. Look at ethereum it holds much harder load in terms of speed of blockchain growth and faster blcoks etc. and I don't particulary see that theres not any problem, of course ether has some problems regarding transactions here and there.
Well, we all are divided on this. Big blockers will say things like "Hard disks and memories are cheap enough now", "Users don't need to run full nodes, only miners can do that". This second assumption is dangerous. If normal users, small businesses become unable to run nodes, we no longer have the power to stop a miner consensus from becoming a natural consensus. Its full nodes that implement the rules. If all the users use are SPV and full nodes are run only by the miners, then there won't be any more hard forks. The miners decide to upgrade to new rules and those become the new rules because you no longer have independent, full-nodes running to invalidate those changes. This is centralization and big-business interests. Could you explain why is LN like urgently needed? To my understanding people saw that scaling debate was going nowhere , you had litecoin activating SegWit??? which may pushed people towards LN even more, and said enough and they opted for SegWit while other rich dudes went for BCH. But why is LN that much advanced.
The bitcoin fees and transaction speeds are suffering because the blocks are full. LN is attempting to spread the need for on-chain transactions over multiple off-chain transactions between parties. A payment channel is just a multisig, time-locked contract between two parties that keep updating the ledger amongst them. Finally, they can settle transactions on-chain when they mutually agree or when the time expires. Its urgently needed to ensure that micro transactions can move to LN so that there is decongestion. Again, people are saying things like LN will result in banking hubs. What nobody wants to accept is that LN is the best way possible with very low effect on centralization in the short term and no effect on the long term. Its centralizing tendency, if any, will be much lower than that of increased block sizes that will neutralize independent user-run nodes. There is no centralization because users are free to choose nodes with which they want to establish channels. These nodes don't hold your funds hostage and they cannot lose them like normal banks. This will evolve as more and more people connect to the network and honest, secure nodes are rewarded. [/quote] |
|
|
|
You forgot something: Segwit addresses are banks. And the old style addresses, banks, all of them!!! You have been debunked and now want to act like a child instead of admitting it like a man Nobody and nothing has been debunked except in your imagination. Its just that nobody likes to engage trolls for too long. Goodbye! |
|
|
|
Hi Forum Hoping you can educate me a bit here. I wasn't heavily into crypto at the time this all took place. When the whole scaling debates began basically two solutions were proposed, which as we know lead to the creation of BCH. Why did we not move BTC to 2MB blocks while work on the layer 2 scaling was being finalized? As I understand LN right now when a channel is closed the transactions in it get processed by the main chain, thus a bit of extra blocksize would help scale LN even more. To me, I personally like the idea of layer 2 scaling more because of all the features it would add to BTC and new things it would make possible. I see some merit in both solutions though. Is there a good reason apart from politics that we couldn't have just done both? It would have carried us for now until new scaling solutions are done and fully tested. The BTC vs BCH has really split the community, yea there's some funny memes around this and all, but its not good that we are all fighting each other and getting super opinionated around this. I hope we don't see more separation in the community in the future. P.S. lets not turn this into a BTC vs BCH argument here, make love not war  Sorry for that post above. As you know the bitcoin code has been constantly updated with several improvements over the years as an open source project. There was a general agreement that scaling had to be achieved somehow. One side wanted a simple solution by increasing the block size. The other side was in opposition because the block size increase has a direct effect on the requirements to run a full-node. A full-node can validate the block-chain and accept or reject transactions depending on their validity. THIS "VALIDITY" is determined by the set of rules that transactions are following. When you do a fork (Soft or Hard), you are making changes to these rules. The difference is subtle but very important. In a soft-fork, Its not mandatory for EVERYONE to upgrade immediately. Because blocks produced under new rules will still be valid on old systems. In a Hard-fork, It is mandatory for all systems to upgrade, otherwise the blocks produced under new rules will be invalid on old systems. This essentially creates two chains and opens up several possibilities discussed here. That I think is reason enough for the core developers to not want a block size and a hard fork. You are right, in a perfect world, everybody would have agreed that a hard-fork is risky and that solutions like SegWit and LN should be implemented first. The block size increase could wait until the ecosystem was mature enough to form consensus. (On what is the safe limit for block size to keep the network decentralised enough and whether everyone is ready for a hard fork). When such a consensus would be available, a size increase could've been incorporated. What has happened now instead is that a few powerful individuals (2 i think) have colluded to co-opt the bitcoin and scream to the whole world that they are the original. What Roger Ver is as a person is quite clear from his "Ï am a self made millionaire", "Whats your gross annual revenue" outbursts.. He is a egoist with a lot of money and one talented but disgruntled developer to support him. He just decided to benefit from the disgruntlement amongst the bitcoin developers and launch his own coin. That was really sad. |
|
|
|
You forgot something: Segwit addresses are banks. And the old style addresses, banks, all of them!!! And when LN comes then Bob will have no coffee at end of month for he will pay half his money to the grocery shop' for 30$ transaction fee and this is so because i am telling you so and i know everything infact i know so much about banks and all the bitcoin code to be put in decentralized computing hardware with multiple configurations to be done easily on blockchain and i am so fast that i cannot use punctuations. That does not mean I cannot change the paragraph and start talking about something else for a while to make me sound like i know the shit i am typing. because if old steam engine run then why get new engine let us first put all money into the bank where it will run our engine and engine engine bank bank LN SegWit Bank Core blockstream bank segwit bank ERROR CODE: 404 BOT UNRESPONSIVE |
|
|
|
Quite simply your arrogance is off-putting and even if you did have valid arguments, your “superior intellect” failed to understand that this is, after all, a forum dedicated to bitcoin occupied by lots of people who are invested in it, so doomsayers like yourself will naturally be treated with scepticism, since most of their “arguments” are rooted in the fact that they themselves have failed to ride the wave (and for some reason, still refuse to grab opportunies) and so (fueled by envy?) don’t want to see bitcoin do well.
I appreciate your input but like I said above, will treat it with scepticism.
Its not just their envy. Some of them even have an agenda to fulfill by creating FUD about bitcoin's innovations. These same people were spreading lies about SegWit and now they have a new drum to beat. I just replied to this thread so that the FUD doesn't go unchallenged. It is a fact that understanding SegWit, LN, heck even Bitcoin is not easy for newcomers. We are all learning on the go. It takes a bit of effort and encouragement.This forum is supposed to provide that encouragement to explore how bitcoin gives you control of your money and has helped me a lot. Lot of good work is being done for Bitcoin scaling and its an ongoing community project. Good info on the roadmap can be seen here. |
|
|
|
|
Its a dilemma for the Modi governemnt. A lot of the HNI's that they were supposed to be targeting with their demonetisation step may actually have bought bitcoin with the cash and have now ten times the money than they held in the first place.
There had been a campaign of BTC exchange for cash in several Tier-2 cities as I witnessed first hand. Suddenly doctors, lawyers with private practice have 100- 200 bitcoins and people were talking about them. Now everybody says, "Oh but I sold already", which they didn't.
They'd like to see them brought to justice somehow but due to the untraceable nature of these transactions, its going to be difficult.
They cannot simply outlaw it as they are the "Digital India" govt.
By the way, the time for easy money via bitcoin is long gone now. Its starting to get crowded in here! Time for some stabilization
|
|
|
|
|
Jio is amongst the largest telecom providers in India now so they have no dearth of bandwidth or data centres. I'd be surprised if some of them don't already have mining units running full scale.
Whatever Mukesh Ambani touches become legitimate so if the Jiocoin turns out to be true, I think India may well become the next hotspot for bitcoin trading. I just hope they don't come up with some closed, masternode kind of system. CPU/GPU based PoW would be exciting.
All that has been speculated till now is the formation of a team under the young Ambani scion. What must he been thinking? Ambanis have always ridden on the shoulders of the retail investors so pretty sure they'll throw open an ICO sometime.
It will be most exciting to see the way Hindi news channels cover this
ab ambani aapke laptop par aapka bank la rahe hain!!
|
|
|
|
Hello Everyone
This is to inform everyone according to current INR withdrawal halt from Koinex its an indication that they are going to run away but they still claim that they are leader in digital assets trading in India, They played very smart by offering very less fees instant deposits and withdrawals but now they have very good volume to run away or force high fees on users.
They mentioned INR Withdrawals will be resumed at 30-12-2017 but they always lied everyday they changed the date to next day , But now on their Facebook page they have mentioned INR withdrawals are halted until further notice as communicated by our payments partner.
HENCE I SUGGEST EVERYONE TO WITHDRAW THE CRYPTO ASSETS AND BE SAFE BEFORE THEY HALT THE CRYPTO WITHDRAWALS AS WELL.
Don't create FOMO without any details. You are a newbie that why you are saying such details. Do your research how many people are suffering because of Koinex on top of that I am not newbie I have been with bitcoins since the beginning when you may not have heard it , I have mined 4067 Bitcoins since the birth of bitcoin. So mind your tongue Haha..Dude..Seriously, You don't give a rebuttal on internet saying I have mined ~4K bitcoins. You'll soon have hackers to defend from. How many did you sell off at 12$ then?? Anyways, none of my business. Just saw your profile and wanted to say that please use SegWit wallet. That way you help the network and your BTC has a better chance of growing in value. Here's a link to make a backward compatible segwit wallet with Electrum: https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/7llnll/here_is_how_to_create_segwit_bip49_wallets_and/ |
|
|
|
There seems a sign that central bank are currently interested in the blockchain. So what will be the effect on current cryptocurrency if central bank release their own coins? will it be a good news?  A lot of banking/financial institutions are interested in blockchain. This shouldn't necessarily mean that they intend to launch their own form of crytpocurrencies. Even if they do, most people won't use it. At least most who understand the concept of crytpo. Can we expect to see a central bank starting an open source project in a Github repository anytime soon?? Banks maybe interested in other capabilities of blockchains like implementing smart-contracts. That too may only be implemented in the form of some products with customers. For example, giving you a bond over their blockchain that you can verify and see on a blockexplorer. Something of a novelty to their old, crazy-rich elites. But there is no chance in hell that they are going to start transacting over a transparent blockchain for everyone to see the movement of funds. Making that movement transparent amongst the biggest banks is what bitcoin is meant to do in a plausible future. |
|
|
|
To answer your exact question (bolded) I think if Satoshi Nakamoto suddenly showed up and asked everybody to increase the Supply Limit, it might happen.
Not that it's a good idea or a bad idea.
Could he even prove who he was any more? Moving coins from the appropriate blocks only proves that person has control over those private keys and nothing else. And I'm sure a large proportion of Bitcoin fans would take great pleasure in ignoring the opinion of one person just to prove a point. As for the original question, a hard fork with overwhelming consensus would be required to raise the supply. It would take a truly epic PR campaign and probable mass hypnosis to get it through. Sorry this post has got nothing with the original post but I HAVE to comment. These are the words of some tired, old man who has seen a battles too many. He is gazing at the sunset, leaning on his stick and wondering "Ohh, Was it all worth it??" A lot of people must bet tired of the constant flux and the pettiness of human nature on display. Like, why did Satoshi ever think that us semi-apes could ever arrive on consensus..LOL..Sorry again, meant no disrespect to anybody. This post just triggered a few emotions. To ends this rant: Í dub thee unforgiven!!"A tired man they see no longer cares The old man then prepares To die regretfully That old man here is me" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
