SDUC-compatible nodes could verify it.  Non-SDUC-compatible nodes (i.e. all the current nodes on the network) would not have the functionality to verify it because they won't know of the existence of this new hash, let alone be able to verify it.  The only way it could work in a trustless fashion is if a significant proportion of the network were to adopt it simultaneously.

But you have to admit, it's funny how you never talk about the part where non-mining full nodes and miners are equally culpable in making the network what it is today.  It's almost as though you don't understand how Bitcoin works at all and somehow genuinely believe that devs make all the decisions.  You couldn't possibly be that uneducated, though, surely?  

If or when those securing the chain desire more throughput, then (and only then) will it happen.  Your incessant whining about devs won't expedite it.  Full nodes and miners are the ones who are free to choose what level of burden they are prepared to carry.  It appears as though they're comfortable with what we have now.  There have been an ample number of opportunities for people to run code supporting larger blocks over the years.  But, for the most part, people are sticking with our present route.

But sure, whatever, you keep blaming the people who wrote the code instead of the people who are running it.  It's bound to work one day.    

The training wheels are coming off.  They grow up so fast, heh.   

The timing seems fairly reasonable for it.  Will be interesting to see if users start cautious or immediately begin moving mega-money around.  If I had to guess, it's probably the latter.  There always seems to be that "something to prove" mentality when it comes to new advancements.

If the change results in a contentious fork, which it almost certainly would, participants on the newly-formed network will believe whatever the newly-forked nodes tell them.  There would be ample opportunity for collusion during the execution of a fork.  People have had lots of practice spotting fairly obvious things like premines and changes to the capitalisation that some forks have previously attempted to sneak in, but they may not notice something as subtle as a UTXO change. 

Any positive feature, try to spin it as a negative.  That appears to be the game.  

Still, the best argument remains that no one can prevent people from building this network.  And no one can force others to build every single feature into the base protocol.  Some things are naturally going to be built on top, because it's all permissionless.  As to Lightning's success and longevity (or any other feature built as an additional layer, for that matter), that's entirely up to users.  If it provides them benefit, they'll use it.  If it doesn't, they won't.  So why not just see how it plays out?  Arguing from a theoretical standpoint can only get us so far.  Sometimes you just have to go ahead and do something to find out for sure.

Maybe, but many exchanges and webwallets still can't get it right.  I don't see these other companies being any different.  There still seem to be a few fairly high profile hacks and heists each year.  No one seems to be learning from past mistakes.  Bitcoin is most secure when it's used directly peer-to-peer and isn't exposed to needless intermediary trust.  The more middlemen you introduce to the equation, the less secure it naturally becomes.

Plus, I get the feeling that as smart contracts become more evolved over time, they'll begin to replace certain types of intermediaries anyway.  Seems to be the way things are heading.  This is all stuff that can be built on top of Bitcoin's sturdy foundations in future.

I think the market for those services will only last to the point where the custodians of those bitcoins start losing them.  Which, in my mind, is pretty much guaranteed when these companies inevitably gather a nice big stash of coins in one place and probably don't take security seriously enough.  There's a distinct likelihood some of these companies will have to pay out more in compensation for lost coins than they'll earn with their middleman fees.  Either that, or the insurance costs for the company will be so high that their prices won't be very attractive for customers.

I could be wrong, but as things stand, I just don't see it going well for these businesses.  If you are the custodian of a large number of bitcoins, you are literally painting a target on your back.  The most secure way to use Bitcoin is if everyone holds their own coins, with no vast sums stored in one conveniently hackable place. 

I've got zero sympathy for anyone who had the poor judgement to vote for that farcical caricature you call president.  You're getting everything you deserve.  I also have no sympathy for the ETF vultures.  Go play IOU somewhere else.

For everyone else, now more than ever, you should realise why crypto is designed so that you don't need to rely on government.  If you founded your company with the intent of becoming some sort of middleman to take a cut, meaning you rely on a functioning government and regulation, this is the point where you should start to realise that you're doing it wrong.  Crypto doesn't help middlemen to thrive.  In fact, it does the exact opposite.

Does anyone else think the phrase "cryptoasset industry" sounds like an oxymoron?  It's not an industry if you don't produce anything.  I can't help but think that if people keep trying to recreate traditional finance instruments in crypto, they're going to keep getting burned.  They're going to learn the hard way that it's not a viable business model.

Unless you're a speculator, you don't need to pay any attention to ETFs.  The average Bitcoin user (the people who actually send and receive transactions) will have literally no use for ETFs and will probably see no benefit from them.  It's just a bunch of made-up contracts for derivatives traders and hedge fund managers to gamble with. 

Hold some actual bitcoin in a wallet where you control the private keys.  That way you gain all the benefits that Bitcoin provides.

Don't waste your time swapping some IOUs that represent the market value of some bitcoins that aren't even yours.  You'll just be food for the traditional finance whales.

If it can be implemented with zero potential for hackers to redirect users to an infected or otherwise malicious download, then I suppose the option is okay.  But, personally, I'd rather just encourage users to take responsibility and make their own decision on which version they should be using.

A notable factor is "network effects".  For altcoins with a small userbase, it has less use or application because there are fewer participants to transact with.  The more people that use Bitcoin, the more utility it then has.

Just for the sake of clarity, what difference does it make?  According to suchmoon:


So there's no "farming", as such, if that's the case.

Insubstantial or low quality posts are not related to trust.  I get that we're still finding our way with the new DT system, but some of this stuff is fairly self-explanatory:

Breaking forum rules = report to mod

Dishonest conduct = trust

If you want to give them some pointers on their posting habits, a private message would be best.  They're more likely to see it that way.

As far as I recall, referral links are permitted in the signature area.  I don't think users should be tagged for that.  Perhaps this is something forum staff could clarify? 

Categorically no referral links in the body of posts, but that's arguably something better suited to being dealt with via the 'report to moderator' button.  Trust doesn't really come into it unless the site they're linking to is a ponzi scheme or something else malicious.

What about wallets on smartphones and other portable devices?  I wouldn't want to see people forced into using custodial webwallets because there was no option to utilise SPV.  Even a testnet is unlikely to convince me that's a viable concept.  At least until technology progresses to the point where even people in developing nations had mobile devices capable of being pruned nodes, anyway.  That feels like a fairly long way off at present.

At this stage I honestly can't tell if we're taking activity too seriously or not seriously enough, heh.  

Just use common sense.  If a user has been inactive for a period you are not comfortable with, take appropriate action.  It shouldn't be this big of a controversy, should it?

If you're certain that's the logic, why not take this user up on their generous offer?  You're getting something for nothing then, right?

Actually, it sounds like you're the one who wants a tighter system of control.  The community itself can now act as judge, jury and executioner.  It's quite liberal when you consider the hierarchical alternatives.  I'm sorry if that doesn't suit your preferences.  

Meta is now where the community are coming together to decide how it's going to be and this topic is a part of that decision, so I suggest you rethink your current antagonistic approach and engage in a more civil discourse if you want to have any kind of positive influence here.  It's still early days and things may yet change.



I can see how it's a big deal from your perspective.  We're not refuting that.  The question is how it's viewed by others.  It's now an ongoing decision for everyone else in the community to decide if your treatment was justified or not.  If the community are not happy with the conduct of those who have red-tagged you, they will change their trust lists accordingly.  Or those who have tagged you might be pressured to change those tags if the community deem their actions contrary to (the still evolving) community standards.  Alternatively, you'll need to find a way to come to terms with the community's decision if people don't change their trust lists and the tags against you are deemed appropriate.  But I can assure you that you aren't doing yourself any favours with your constant rage-posting about this matter.  We get it, you're quite indignant about this.  Message received.  Loud and clear.  Now, for your own sake, just simmer down a bit.

You don't need collateral to have an overdraft.  New fiat digits are always on hand to appear out of nowhere if they're needed.  Any excuse will do.  And it has become wholly reckless.

You can claim it's all based on the ownership of "debt certificates", but in the grand scheme of things, the system can't cope with the entire debt being paid back.  If that happened, there wouldn't be enough "money" (read: debt) left in the economy for it to function.  What's the sense in having ownership of a debt that can never be repaid without destroying the economy?  Hence the need to create ever-increasing quantities of "money" (debt) from nothing.  You can describe it a loan contract to make it appear as something rational, but it's still ridiculous in practice.  If the average person had even the slightest idea about how the banking system really worked, they'd be far more skeptical of it.

Bitcoin solves this insanity.  It proves beyond doubt that you don't need debt for an economy to function.  Debt may have some advantages, but it has enough disadvantages that people would naturally want an alternative.  And that's precisely what Bitcoin gives them, along with numerous other benefits like privacy and freedom.  Call it "nothing" all you like.  It's everything to some people.

Except that's precisely how the money in your bank account works.  The entire global economy is built on something appearing from nothing.  Try again.