I've got news for you.... you've gotten all you are going to get.  The Core Dev Team is a failed sham.  They've given you their solution.... Lightening Network/Liquid/Blockstream.  Period.  Under no circumstances will there be any meaningful discussion that includes raising the block size, making it intelligently scalable based on growth.  This way they protect what is important to them.... THEIR CONTROL OVER THEIR ECONOMIC BUSINESS MODEL.

Keyword above is "business".  They have a HUGE conflict of interest in that they are making decisions based on what is good for their business model. 

The biggest SCAM in the entire Bitcoin System is Blockstreams whole "Us vs the Fiat System" headfake.   Blockstream is positioning itself to be the "New Fiat Central Authority".   Seriously, if Bitcoin were to eventually grow to its potential and become the global currency - do you really want this group of special interest frauds to have total control?

I can't believe I am going to say this, It makes me want to VOMIT that I am getting ready to suggest that everyone read Mike Hearn's November letter on this subject.  As much as I hate the current XT release, and think Mike is totally untrustworthy as well, he has totally nailed it in this letter in regards to Blockstream and Core Dev.

https://medium.com/block-chain/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.raipo96xw  <<READ!

Everybody that really doesn't know anything about this should read it.  Because it is the truth.  And this is NOT my support for current XT - but I will say it again, if the Core Dev can't eliminate the biased, conflicted interest comitters - then XT or a Fedcoin may very well surface to effectively kill the current Bitcoin Core.  Leadership is needed fast. 

Hardware wallets that use out-of-band communication (a display and buttons on the wallet itself) are protected against man in the middle. The only 2 examples of which I am aware are the Trezor or the soon-to-be-released Ledger Blue.

I would like to have a go at day trading, I noticed coinbase  have their own trading platform : https://exchange.coinbase.com

It would be nice to have a go at it, I'm not going to spend my 1 BTC now thats being kept, but maybe i could buy a smaller amount of bitcoin to trade with, but it looks very confusing !

My concern is the apparent contradiction.
- I am told that a maxblocksize increase requires a hard fork.
- I am told that the omnibus SegWit proposal contains an increase in the maxblocksize.
- I am told that the omnibus SegWit proposal does not require a hard fork.
Logic tells me that all three cannot be true. Which one is the lie?

The author gives lip service to impartiality, and seems to be trying on this front. However, his taxonomy of advocates labeling smallblockians as "decentralists" belies his inherent bias. In order to consider smallblockians as "Decentralists", one must blinder themselves to the fact that hard limits on blocksize -- below the natural demand of the user base -- necessarily channels transactions through a relatively small number of on- and off-ramps to the blockchain. These on-ramp/off-ramp providers, being smaller in number than the number of users desiring transaction processing, are inherently a dimension of centralization. Period.

The relative merit of mining centralization vs. onramp centralization is something that can be debated. But pretending that onramp centralization is somehow not centralization is disingenuous at best.

One thing that has me scratching my head is the characterization of SegWit as not requiring a hard fork:


Yet my understanding of the omnibus SetWit proposal is that it includes a block size increase. How is it that SegWit can "have its cake and eat it too"?

trezor relies on chrome extensions or using a preinstalled multibit program on same said infected computer..

infact people can make a chrome expension that says "error, please type in seed" and then grab peoples seed..

hardware wallets, in general are better than just using an .exe on your desktop.. but their still not 100% secure against man in middle..
id say 99% better than just having funds on blockchain.info.. and 50% better than using bitcoin-core / multibit alone..

I don't understand why would you wear with you something that's known to have Bitcoin inside. I want something that look like a regular USB pendrive, with built in encryption (upgradeable over time if improvements in the algo are released or whatever), and hidden volume so you can use plausible deniability. Now this is the ultimate device to carry Bitcoin around and don't fear that some punk is going to steal your money. Even if you are a small time holder with not many Bitcoins like me, carrying a Trezor around is too risky, because people may think you are rich or something, when you are just carrying like 100 dollars.

Hi,

I am tired of using blockchain.info payment api and other apis.

They are all unreliable and jump with their naked buggy ass in your face from behind when you are least expecting it.

So I would like to run a full node with my own wallet. My target is to have something as simple to use as blockchain.info or blocktrail.com or blockcypher.com or other payment api's for different applications.

I have plans for different applications on different servers which all will make calls to that one single node, to receive and send payments and query for blockchain data. And of course it all has to be secure.


The problem is, I have very limited knowledge and experience in running a linux server. So the question is:

Are there any good tutorials out there, which will help me set up a full node and wallet on a vps, step by step till the point where I can just send post request to that full node server and will get back all that blockchain data and will be able to generate private keys and addresses and send transactions. So that the full node behaves for me like blockchain.info or blocktrail.com or www.blockcypher.com or whatever API, but with a little more control and reliability.

Or do you think only very linux-experienced people should set up own full nodes with wallets?

Could someone clarify what OpenBazaar is?

If this is truly the case and we are talking about chains splitting because of votes, then BU is worse than XT. Then I'm also starting to grasp the idea behind BU. The question is who hired the supporters?

The video implies that there are 4 challenge characters that must be entered, and that the 4 are different every time.
A really sophisticated key logger could potentially duplicate the security card by collecting the answers over many uses, but that threat is mostly theoretical at this time.

The PIN, however, is typed in the clear when you first connect to the Ledger Nano.

If you want higher security, you'll need to buy a more expensive hardware wallet with a screen and buttons, like the Trezor or the Ledger Blue. These eliminate the key logger threat by providing a direct interface to the user, without going through the vulnerable browser/OS.

hey I want to ask a question, but I want it from you guys, whats the difference between things like the ledger cold wallet USB and regular USB's?

Where do you guys keep your cold storage?

So how can you store Bitcoins as long-term savings or investments?

But trezor is a cold wallet since it is hardware. If you store on there you can put it in your desk and forget about it thus being off the network and to me that is cold storage.
Safest non-cold wallet I have found is MyCelium. Have been using it for a while and haven't encountered any security issues thus far.