In my opinion, the problem started a few years ago when signature campaigns started up. I'm sure there were worthless posts before that, but they weren't a problem at the time. Now it has gotten better with the merit system, but there are still people posting whatever nonsense that spills out of their brains in order to make money from their signature.

Signature campaigns remain the source of the problem and the forum would be a much better place if they didn't exist. You would have people reading more and posting less.

That is a common misconception. While the Church believed that the Earth is the center of the solar system and the Universe, it did not claim that the Earth is flat. The Ptolemaic model that the Church endorsed included a globular Earth. It is interesting to note that Ptolemy did not put the Earth at the exact center and that this slight discrepancy was generally ignored.

I'm not convinced. There has been only one 4-year cycle. The others were shorter.

Peak-to-peak cycles:

Period	Length	Changes
2011-06-07 to 2013-04-09	2 years	Fell 90%, then rose 85x
2013-04-09 to 2013-12-03	8 months	Fell 66%, then rose 17x
2013-12-03 to 2017-12-18	4 years	Fell 82%, then rose 86x

It works by sending your coins to another person's destination and another person's coins go to yours. You can't do it without other people. However, you can use the Lightning Network instead of a service. It is an effective mixer because transactions are done off-chain and go through other people.

I disagree with your reasoning:

1. "demand will ... get high because miners will ... not sell"

That's a common misconception. Lack of supply does not create demand.

2. "miners will surely not sell their mined Bitcoin's at a lower price."

That's wishful thinking. People sell at a loss all the time. There is no reason to believe that miners won't. Miners must sell bitcoins to pay bills. They can't simply hold if they are losing money.

Yes, it is the usual CoinIdol clickbait.

The fact that you were able to find this convinces me that any passphrase that can be memorized is not safe.

There is no "the Bitcoin price". Every market reports its own last price and they are all different. Every trade has its own price and they are all different.


Not sure about what you mean here. You need exchanges for orders. If an "OTC platform" takes orders, it is an exchange.

It means it is a scam.

I don't think they are closely related. UAIF is basically a communication protocol. I feel that the only similarity with Bitcoin is the use of a distributed object system.

BTW, Bitcoin did not invent the concept of a distributed database. In fact, many blockchain-based projects would actually be better off if they used a standard distributed database instead.

Can you please explain the purpose and benefit of your proposal?

As @pooya87 explained, an output doesn't have an address. It has a script. There are scripts with no addresses (for example, a pay-to-any transaction), and there can be scripts with multiple addresses. It is all up to the script contained in the output.

The most common type of Bitcoin transaction is called pay-to-pubkey-hash (P2PKH), which is a transaction that sends bitcoins to an address. The script contains an address (in the form of a "pubkey hash") and a block explorer extracts it from the script and displays it as the destination address.

None of Tom Lee's predictions have been correct. At some point, he may get one right but there is no reason to believe it will be this one.

Coin Idol is a worthless media site. Why are they writing articles promoting cloud mining?

Sounds like BS to me.

Thanks for your answers, but there are some things that I don't understand.

If the aether has a kinetic force then it must have mass. Is that right? Is that possible?

Secondly, if the aether causes things to fall as it rises due to lower density, wouldn't the aether drift shown by Knodel's experiment cause things to move sideways?

I'm curious about density vs. gravity. I have only heard about this recently. There appears to be a force that pulls objects down, and it is called "gravity". What is the issue? Is the non-existence of gravity a central tenet of FE?

What is the force that causes objects to rise or fall according to their density?

If denser substances get pushed down by the lighter substance moving up, then why do objects fall in a vacuum when there is no lighter substance moving up?

I would appreciate your thoughts.

Finally, sorry to contradict your beliefs, but it seems to me that gravity is behind the effects of density that we observe. Given two equal volumes, the one with more mass sinks and the one with less mass rises, so mass is the key factor, just as in gravity. Doesn't this imply that gravity could be behind the effects of density that we observe?

Freedom is Bitcoin's most important quality. It is not possible for everyone to agree or be happy. Ensuring agreement and happiness is counter to the concept of freedom.


There is no way to enforce the kind of consensus you are describing other than through mining power and forking. Any other proposed system of governance is wishful thinking or anti-freedom.

The purpose of a soft fork has nothing to do with governance or consensus. Its purpose is to make a fork more convenient and less disruptive.



A person running a node is free to do whatever they want to do, including connecting to a node or banning it. Beyond fraud or harming other people, morality has nothing to do with it. If the node runs software that you object to, you are free to modify that software (or get somebody else to modify it for you) so that it will work the way you want it to.


I don't keep a close watch, but I try to be aware of things like the time luke-jr modified the version of Bitcoin installed with Gentoo to blacklist certain addresses.


I don't believe that any person or group has complete control, but I feel that Bitcoin Core does exert the greatest amount of influence. Of course, Bitcoin Core itself is not a cohesive group of people, but they are controlled to some extent by an oligarchy.

I believe that having several alternate clients would be ideal, despite the engineering and coordination problems that might create.
[/list]

It should work. There is a risk that an engraver might make a mistake if it is not verifiable before shipping.

I'm curious about the " The solution brought by COINPLUS (global patent pending) is to divide the secrets ..." because using a proprietary solution is not as good as using a well-known well-tested solution (e.g. Shamir's Secret Sharing algorithm).