Mourdoukoutas' analysis hinges on a single unspoken assumption: that Bitcoin does not have the power to unseat the monetary incumbents of this world. He is wrong.

And so his analysis would make sense if Bitcoin was simply a beanie babies style fad asset, as he constantly implies.

But Bitcoin has now crossed that psychological hinterland into the public consciousness: even people that don't understand, like or own Bitcoin know it's a form of money. The rest, will be history

Vote with your money

If amazon.com don't want your BTC, don't give it to them, get the same items from a business that does

Looks like some more of the Bitcoin hashrate is signalling BIP141 (aka the original Segwit 4MB soft fork).


Could it be that all the uncertainty created by the chain-fork threat of BIPs 148, 149, Barrycoin and BitmainCoin are making the miners nervous, and they are now in search of stability and certainty? I would understand if that were the case.

***STOP PRESS***

POST-MANHATTAN PROJECT: ISAAC NEWTON STATES
EINSTEIN'S GEN. RELATIVITY "STILL IN PROOF OF CONCEPT"

Maybe you should? It wasn't long ago that you told me you had no idea why a certain account was in the default trust group. And you can't seriously believe that the ranking system hasn't suffered the forum software equivalent of a sybil attack, not to mention the high rankers that just sell their accounts.

So, tell us again Lauda about how high quality and meaningful the information is going to get collected using this great poll thread idea

"officer,
officer, officer, officer officer officer overseer
You need a little clarity, check the similarity"

Oversee yourself ya big baby, it's your fault the overseers want to fuck with your life, not anyone else's.

File under "not sufficiently responsible/mature to use grown-up stuff" IMO, what next, are you going to shoot yourself in the foot then campaign for a handgun ban?

You are both ignoring the trade-off with 3rd party processors like Bitpay or Coinbase: they are powerful corporate entities that meddle in Bitcoin's development to suit their own avaricious/dominance driven agendas, which is a pernicious force in a system that is supposed to have a decentralised balance of power.


And @gentlemand, what makes you so confident that a bank will ever discover a commercial customer using BTC <-> BTC or BTC <-> cash transactions? Small businesses to business-to-business cash trading all the time, it's a good way to avoid the deposit fees that banks charge to small customers.

And what makes you think that a bank will not close the account of a small business that used a Bitpay account? Under those circumstances, the information that the business is using Bitcoin as a part of their business is readily available to the bank, unlike when the business manage the BTC themselves. You've got the whole assessment entirely backwards, the perfect opposite of what you say is true.

Better question:

What is Ethereum actually getting used for?

wow, I don't even know where to start here. That's the most confabulated complex of lies, misdirection and mental gymnastics I've seen for a long time, trust a cocaine addled psychopathic banker to come up with such cordon bleu BS

Think so? That would be a possibility.

Can you guess what my vote's going to be?

How many times :shakes head:


Blocksize increases are not the objective.


Transaction rate increase is the objective.

---

Blocksize increases are not magic, they come with trade-offs.


It is possible to increase the transaction rate independently of increasing the blocksize. This is the sensible, conservative, engineering driven approach.



tl;dr (lol)

please stop playing amateur armchair software engineering with everyone else's money  

What makes you think that allowing positive trust and/or high ranked members is going to produce useful information?


What makes you think that JihanCoin and EC are the same thing? It's not anything I posted, your comment is strange

re: bolded; in other words, it's a terrible idea



are you ok? someone bring back the real lauda, both are equally off-the-charts heinous

Bear in mind that all the staff need to be trained to know how to:

• Check whether the customer's transaction fees are sufficient
• Check whether the customer's transaction has been sent with RBF option exercised

Both represent a risk as to whether you get paid or not. Bitpay will handle that for you, but they're a problem in their own right, as they frequently get involved in the politics of the Bitcoin Network's future direction, strangely enough in a way that puts them more in control of it.

The best option for bricks and mortar merchants is the Lightning Network, which is actually not an option right now because of the political squabbles. It would remove the 2 issues presented above, and so the staff wouldn't all have to be quite so well trained.

I understand BarryCoin is having the same problem

Still a Barrycoin supporter, ck?

@bbc reporter

Yes. But the fluctuations at the $10,000 price point will simply be commensurately larger ($1000-2000, say), or at least that's what has always happened.


This is the "new normal", or more accurately, the "old normal".

Prior to the 20th century (when commodities markets were entirely monopolised by financial corporatism), prices of goods were incredibly variable, even within relatively small geographic areas. This is partly because of the information gap that existed, but is also a reflection of the relative freedom that existed for individuals to set their own prices. Centralised commodities markets completely changed that, and are, in essence, an unspoken worldwide system of communist economics.

Centralised commodities markets are the real reason for so-called "price stability" in any asset. What's really happening is that the rich and powerful are rigging an otherwise free floating price. Sure, the supply-demand dynamics are all changing for real in the background, but the powers that be keep prices propped up (or held down) artificially for as long as is convenient to their various causes, then they allow them to drop or rise spectacularly, and label the artificial price phenomenon they created "boom and bust".


Bitcoin cannot be controlled easily on the supply side. That's the real reason for Bitcoin's wild swings IMO: this is actually real market dynamics, not the carefully orchestrated fakery that we have come to accept as genuine market dynamics.

hmmm, projecting onto your own rhetoric though.

Yes, we all know you can write several paragraphs under the theme of "reasons why not BIP148", very good, 5 stars

But as I said, you're not in control, we are. So it's pretty hollow and meaningless stuff, I'm sure you can identify with that.

I'm not the biggest fan of 148, 149 is probably better, and I would prefer 141 most of all.

But maybe you should quit your "impartial voice of reason" routine, as you're showing pretty obvious bias to be suggesting that BIP148 activation would be equivalent to an altcoin launch. It's not necessarily "the actual Bitcoin" either, but if you were really as impartial as you paint yourself as, you would be saying it's really a subjective matter, and not the black and white unnuanced "altcoin" you're decreeing it as, it's more complicated than your simplistic presentation.

You can't affect what becomes the "Bitcoin chain" either now or in the future, it's for the users as a whole to decide. So, I know the air is a little thin up there in the clouds amongst the other gods, but take some advice: come back down to earth with the rest of the mortals. You're drunk on the lack of oxygen getting to your brain

Will there be any significant economic usage of Ripple when or if that happens though? There is no such transaction volume existing in either Ripple or Ethereum now, I fail to see how a change in price is going to change the utility of these so-called assets, the market price of Ripple and Ethereum are arguably attributable to speculation only.

Or to put it another way, the Monero blockchain almost certainly sees far greater transaction volume backed by real economic activity than Ripple or Ethereum likely ever will, based on the fact that Monero is an inherently useful (not to mention valuable) coin. And yet Monero languishes in something like 10th place in the "market caps" leaderboard. Go figure.

Violence-backed (aka "fiat") currencies fluctuate too, but consistently downwards.

It's curious how Morgan Stanley fail to mention this contrast (fiat loses purchasing power while Bitcoin gains purchasing power), but it's not like Morgan Stanley are in biased position of being in the business of issuing newly created fiat currency in the form of credit loans.... oh no, wait, they are in that biased position, my bad