it's OK tho, when LN comes out fee will go right back to 1cent, because it will relieve a lot of pressure from the blockchain
LN is designed to improve scaling. Fee reductions are just a consequence of being able to conduct more transactions. Remember how the US$ got bootstrapped? the Gold Standard? Gold standard's long gone. People still use LN USD  LN doesn't have legal tender laws to force people to use it. If it's not backed by Bitcoin (or something) the market will probably reject it in favor of something better. You're missing my point (or, rather, I'm just not being clear) Most people don't know or care what the $ is backed by. As long as I get my stuff when I hand over the $$$, everything's cool. Don't care what Visa is backed by, 'long as when I hand over the card, I get goodies. Same with LN. If people start using LN, and it becomes accepted, they're using LN, *NOT BITCOIN*. Just like when people started using $$$, they started using $$$, *NOT GOLD*. Saying that LN solves Bitcoin's tx problem is like saying USD solved gold's portability/divisibility/ease of use problem -- it's nonsense. clueless ... every LN channel necessarily begins and end with a TX on the bitcoin network, for ever and ever, there is no LN without bitcoin. |
|
|
|
More BS: " Thankfully we at Blockstream are given the freedom to speak and act as individuals on this matter. Even Adam is attending as an individual, his signature not carrying the weight of representing Blockstream in this instance.
I cautioned against going and was not in the room (I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely) so I only know second hand like you what was or was not said. But regarding the "consensus" document that was posted on medium, no I am not on board with that outcome."~ maaku7 https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqici guess the whole "blockstream conspiracy" is shown to be the total bull it always was ... |
|
|
|
 I have a suspicion that there is quite a bit of stolen/extorted BTC lying around as well as money that needs to be laundered for other purposes in addition to BTC holdings that just want to remain anonymous through mixing. Blocks are filling up fast, which means mixing may get prohibitively expensive soon, so knowledge that blocks are filling up is actually making blocks fill up faster. mix -'em if you got 'em. the best mixing these days takes 1 or 2 tx at most .... coinjoin is a thing and there is market where you actually earn interest on your coins while they are 'mixed/joined' http://joinmarket.io/https://www.reddit.com/r/joinmarket/ |
|
|
|
Lol, even bitcoiners have actually no clue about ETH. Imagine when they start jumping ship for real. Then wait until it hits mainstream news...ETH price could be $100 in the next upcoming months easily if you ask me. Not without some bumps on the road first of course.
or wait until vitalik loses his mind and dumps all those premine ether ... or the PoS block-signing blows up spectacularly |
|
|
|
My target of ~410 reached. And back up. Enjoy. My bets are on a continuation of the uptrend after retracing to ~410 maybe?
you've been calling the swings like a pro ... what are you taking?! |
|
|
|
 signs of war in the heavens ... or is it the blockapocalypse? |
|
|
|
|
looks like the blunderer, bargainbin billyjoeallen platoon is on patrol again with the usual boring shit-storm of FUD and BS ... yawn, i'll come back when the shit-stirrers lay down their green berets
|
|
|
|
In a way I agree with him. So, if devs and big companies in the space can decide to change the core code won't that be the same as central banks control over currency?
No. They can't force their code to the participants of the network. It also has to have great support from the miners who obviously won't risk changes without consensus. This is not really comparable to 'control over a currency'. That's akin to saying the US government and Fed can't force the dollar on the citizens. It is true, US citizens can trade in whatever they want. However, that doesn't mitigate the fact that the dollar is centrally controlled by the US government and Fed. Similarly, bitcoin is controlled by a small group of Chinese miners and core devs, as the recent meeting where a complete fork of the blockchain was determined clearly shows. A small group of people centrally control the entire thing. The fact that bitcoin is centrally controlled is actually a good thing for bitcoin. There exists a group that can determine what changes to make going forward. If a hard limit on the number of bitcoins isn't workable because it doesn't make enough for the miners, the cap could be lifted. If mining inflation is too low, it could be increased, etc. Any changes to the spec that needs to be made can be made, regardless of user consensus. The fact that the vast majority of mining power is comprised of Chinese companies and the fact that China's government is completely corrupt is not a good thing. Tomorrow, each of those Chinese bitcoin miners could disappear and a state controlled operator could silently appear in their place. It happens all the time. People are being overly concerned and paranoid about "too many" chinese mining operations. In 5-10 years concentrated mining in china will be a distant memory, another interesting quirk from bitcoin's mining development history like the video gamers and their GPUS of 2011. |
|
|
|
I don't know when exactly we all turned into a bunch of paranoid loons. But it isn't helping.
That's one of the tactics used by whoever is doing this. I've made a thread about a good article. I read the article and it seemed to prove my point. Now everybody thinks everybody else is a sock pushing an agenda. alpaca sock puppets as far as the eye can see. |
|
|
|
...
you are just plain wrong, likely mis-informed by the company you keep. The necessary LN bitcoin TXs that open and close channels will be immediately identifiable by the bitcoin miners who can demand as high fees as they feel necessary to provide their precious adjudication services for the LN. ... Interesting point. I wonder why they choose not to up their fees now? You should let them in on this cool thing you've just discovered, they might cut you in on teh profitz  I could have copyrighted the use of "satoshi" for the smallest unit when I standardised/named it, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3574.msg50647#msg50647that might have been profitable ... but Satoshi deserves all the kudos. |
|
|
|
Looks like Hearns rage quit has failed. Im guessing another FUD attempt will ocure soon to try and keep price below $500.
These media propaganda stunts (and other arguable creative efforts of spreading BTC FUD) seem to becoming less and less effective... because overall the word is getting out regarding bitcoin's underlying value... even though you are likely correct that there are going to be continuous attempts at such FUD spreading, and likely for years to come (whether prices are being kept below $500 or below $10K) I'm going to speculate that they are now starting to work in reverse. At some point a good nerd rage war is going to drag in other nerd and geeks who would not have considered getting involved in bitcoin but can't resist a juicy intellectual stoush, passive-aggressiveness, handbag throwing, it's got it all They are over-egging the FUD pudding. Any publicity is good publicity is the oxygen bitcoin thrives on ... drug markets, ransomware, volatility, central-bank bitching, infighting, etc, etc haven't stopped the crazy train yet. |
|
|
|
|
I'm gonna start partying on June 21 and keep going as long as it takes ...
|
|
|
|
You should start preparing Bitcoin users for these "bitcoin miners who can demand as high fees as they feel necessary" to write to the limited blocchain. ... don't have too, the big block camp are doing an admirable job of warning everybody about the coming higher fees, (their FUD has been remarkably effective ) ... and so they should to, after mis-informing them for years that bitcoin would be "free" to use. |
|
|
|
EDIT: actually, maybe LN might have some effect on money velocity in the future, by allowing (especially by machines) much more and faster transactions. ding, ding, its taken a while but finally some are starting to "get it" ... LN will supercharge bitcoin monetary velocity, instant TX ... MV = PQ that's not bitcoin velocity that's LN venosity, you can back LN with any system it dosn't need to be Bitcoin, the fees that get paid to LN, don't go to miners who secure the network, they fo to the LN node operators. you are just plain wrong, likely mis-informed by the company you keep. The necessary LN bitcoin TXs that open and close channels will be immediately identifiable by the bitcoin miners who can demand as high fees as they feel necessary to provide their precious adjudication services for the LN. There is most likely no problem with fees leaving bitcoin for LN, it just some more FUD you are spreading like "the LN routing problem" bull made up shit stories. Just stop it if you don't know what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
EDIT: actually, maybe LN might have some effect on money velocity in the future, by allowing (especially by machines) much more and faster transactions. ding, ding, its taken a while but finally some are starting to "get it" ... LN will supercharge bitcoin monetary velocity, instant TX ... MV = PQ |
|
|
|
ONE more time for good luck
Sounds great until the whole July 2017 (maybe, pinky promise) just in time for one year later than the halving, part. I suspect another player will soon jump in and steal away all their best devs. Blockstream will go bankrupt by years end. Not a chance. They just sold their original roadmap as a compromise... and the miners bought it, completely. If anything, they all deserve bonuses, big ones. ... or assuming good faith, they just figured out through an intensive analysis session by a group of the technically most-qualified adversarial minds bashing together, the most likely best-practice, secure and expedient way to increase transaction capacity of the bitcoin system for the foreseeable future. But spin it how you like, you have with everything else. |
|
|
|
 We've been getting full blocks all day. Armstrong may be right that a HF in 2017 is too little too late. wheres brg444 when you need him full blocks != end of the world I agree, but it could = the end of this rally. Or every rally from here on out. so long as the full blocks are temporary so is this effect and speculation that it's only temporary should further reduce this effect. the blocks are full, full of crap ... or else fees would be rising, crap doesn't crap for fees. blocksize will go up when the technology allows for it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
