Of course, that gambling is not a sin. It would be a sin if you couldn't be able to put food in the table for your sons to eat because you spent your money in gambling.
Gambling is a sin in a lot of religions. Actually I don't know how many, but I imagine it's a common "sinful" thing to do in a ton of them. The biggest one i can think of is the Muslim one. Muslims CAN'T gamble anything. They can't gamble 1 satoshi, and they can't gamble with all of their life savings, it would still be the same sin. |
|
|
|
Not sure if you have noticed but the node count has actually increased over the last year, disproving your theories of node centralization. Recording all transactions on a single ledger is part of what defines Bitcoin, it had its critics even when Satoshi was still around. Many of the people within Core do not believe in this original vision, the people behind Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited still do. Bitcoin can scale, regardless of what you say, and if Bitcoin does not scale, what can I say but be prepared for Bitcoin to become the myspace of cryptocurrency. Since most of the alternative cryptocurrencies already have far greater transactional capacity compared to Bitcoin today.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306Again, total node raised due fake Bitcoin Classic nodes, actual nodes have decreased, mainly because people no longer are forced to run Core to have a wallet, there's tons of other options now, and most people can't be bothered to download the entire blockchain, so the last thing we need is alienate people even more to run nodes by making it more heavy. Of course Bitcoin can scale on-chain, if you centralize the nodes... pick one, you can't have both. We'll never compete with any centralized solutions all on-chain, this is a fact, I mean who doesn't understand this yet? If Bitcoin doesn't scale to pay coffees with it for whatever reason, then it still will be a very valuable "Gold 2.0" solution. I would gladly pay a good fee for a technology that guarantees im on a decentralized network backed by the biggest amount of computing power on earth. I don't need this level of security to pay a damn coffee, so I would use whatever it's out there. Hopefully LN, because it will be infinitely times better than anything we have now. All those altcoins are irrelevant, they would run under the same problems eventually, and they would need to either start centralizing the network, or start applying layers. |
|
|
|
It is almost as if the very idea of a settlement layer might even be antithetical to a world where cryptocurrency becomes the dominant form of currency, rendered obsolete like many of the other functions that banks carry out today.
Everyone keeps talking about it yet nobody mentions the differences between P2P Cash and a settlement layer. Cash is money for the people, a currency that everyone can use cheaply, directly, easily and quickly. A settlement layer is what large financial institutions use to settle balances between them. It is exclusive, elitist and reinforces or recreates the power structures we have today. Settlement networks would become obsolete if people chose to use cryptocurrencies on mass as currency. By attempting to turn Bitcoin into a settlement layer you are turning it into the very financial systems Bitcoin was meant to counter. I find the entire idea to be unrealistic however, the large banks and financial institutions would be much better off if they designed their own systems for this purpose, even Ripple is a better settlement network then Bitcoin, I do not think these large financial institutions would even adopt Bitcoin because it is not in their interests to do so, the only way I see that happening is because they are "forced" to do so in order to stay relevant, and that could only happen because of mass adoption of Bitcoin as a currency. Not increasing the blocksize undermines Bitcoins ability to be a currency as was always intended, the whitepaper even describes this in its title, Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System. Increasing the blocksize goes against the idea of decentralized peer to peer cash because it centralizes the nodes, so we need additinal layers like LN. If the core of Bitcoin is centralized (and it's impossible to not end up with massive centralization if you want to scale everything on chain) we will end up a paypal 2.0 (not cash) Increasing the blocksize by hard forking every now and then because the blocks keep getting full is the dumbest thing I've heard. We need additional layers like LN, the sooner you understand this reality the better. The blocksize limit can be increased as our technology increases, using off chain solutions to scaling Bitcoin is not a solution to scaling Bitcoin directly at all. If Bitcoin does not scale its blockchain directly then it will simply just be out competed by alternative cryptocurrencies that can and are willing to scale. Using off chain solutions also adds another layer of abstraction that is not good for the user experiance compared to just transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain directly. Furthermore decentralized off chain solutions do not even exists, so far we only have federated side chains and the lighting network does not have a decentralized solution to routing yet. To restrict the growth of Bitcoin because you think we should use these other off chain solutions instead, which do not even exist yet is crippling Bitcoin. If this continues I would expect Bitcoin to lose its dominant positions to cryptocurrencies that are willing to implement Satoshi's original vision. You should question your rhetoric a bit here, increasing the blocksize to two megabyte would not turn Bitcoin into paypal 2.0, that is a completely unqualified statement, such propaganda is not helping your case. It might scare people that do not know better, but if you have access to any decent computer equipment and internet connections you should know that two megabyte blocks are not a big deal and most people in the developed world will still be able to run full nodes out of their homes. Not to mention that the node count has been rising over the last year disproving some of the theories around node centralization. You are delusional by thinking just because Moore's law say that X technology will be cheaper by X year, we can indefinitely be hard forking all the time. You also don't realize that it's not about the total count of nodes, but how widespread they are across the globe. There's a lot of people struggling to run nodes on their countries, if you double the blockchain size now it's over for them, this will increasingly centralize nodes. The node count has decreased, most of those nodes that raise the total count are the fake VPS Classic nodes. You can't have security encryption backed by tons of power (the biggest network on the planet) in a decentralized way if you want to scale everything on-chain and pretend to ever compete against centralized solutions like VISA The end user will not have any problems, this can be easily solved with a good and clear layout. Dealing with banks it's way more complex than Bitcoin will ever be ( 1 opening up a bank account, 2 signing up into a website, 3 typing user and password, 4 typing the code in your physical card that the bank gave to you (and typing it by clicking on a virtual keyboard, and this code changes every time) 5 do the former again quickly enough because your login session was automatically closed for security measures 6 waiting for the transaction to be processed...) This is bullshit compared to what we'll have with Bitcoin. LN will be more decentralized, cheaper and faster than any other alternatives. If you are waiting for a coin to ever have the level of encryption Bitcoin has, backed by the hashing power Bitcoin network has, have the transactions per second VISA has, and have nodes decentralized... take a seat and keep waiting, because that just means you don't understand physics. |
|
|
|
21 Bitcoins is a desirable amount because of the 21 million Bitcoins that will be issued? To be honest I am seeing people who gamble 20-30 btc a bet on Bitcoin sportsbooks and Dice sites so this elite status is nothing more than people with cash buying Bitcoins to hold or dispose of.
And 21 Bitcoins at current market price is approx. $8505 which in a first world country with a good salary and a normal full-time job can be earned in 1-2 months worth of work. It's another story if you are trying to earn the same amount here with the pittance which the sig campaigns are offering to you.
Those people are millionaires, so that's the elite playing around. In the grand scheme of things, most people will never even own 1 BTC... get some perspective and you will realize 21 BTC will be impossible for most people to ever own, and I agree with everyone saying that 21 BTC is a perfect number to have because of the 21 million BTC total. |
|
|
|
Segwit makes further blocksize increases problematic after it is implemented, you should stop pretending that you want Bitcoin to scale directly, or at the very least acknowledge that this is not Core's intention over the long run, they have made this very clear now.
It doesn't. There is no such thing as "Core's" intention. Core is not a company, nor a centralized group with leadership. This seems to be a ridiculous statement, Core does have an intention and vision for Bitcoin as they should, it is a vision I fundamentally disagree with though, you denying that they even have a plan and vision for Bitcoin is not helping your case. Segwit is far to complex and its implementation is being rushed, this is dangerous. Increasing the blocksize is a much simpler change while it also increases transactional capacity more then Segwit does.
Logic presented:"I'm lacking knowledge and since I can barely grasp this concept it must be far to complex.". I though fallacies were your thing (hint: personal incredulity). There isn't still a valid reason to opt in for the blocksize limit increase over Segwit, all I see is rambling about complexity. Complexity should be avoided, one of the things Bitcoin has going for it over the alt coins is simplicity, Bitcoin needs to be able to be understood by everyday people, adding complexity does not help this case. It is revealing that you do see the value in keeping Bitcoin as simple as possible to understand. It is good to also keep in mind that using the soft fork method for deploying Segwit any changes can be made, including increasing the blocksize or the supply of Bitcoin itself, turning full nodes into non validating nodes whenever such changes are made.
Source? This is an ugly hack, hard forks are far more elegant and represent the cornerstone of the very governance mechanism of Bitcoin.
No matter how many times you repeat such idiotic statements, it won't make them true ("elegant"). Yeah as if "let's just raise the blocksize, fuck centralization of nodes" wasn't a huge complex problem. Every guy that wants bigger blocks is delusional and thinks you can scale protocols by running everything on the core.. its nonsense. The sooner we stop this idea of hardforking to pay sighlty less fees for a small amount of time on the chain, the sooner people will realize this is a stupid practice, specially once we have LN. It's time to accept reality: Bitcoin can never scale anywhere with on-chain transactions, so let's work on additional layers and leave the core as decentralized as possible, because if you centralize the core by making running nodes increasingly difficult for average joes at home, then that will be the end of BTC. Also I don't undestand your point of "complexity should be avoided because people has to understand that..." What the fuck dude. People don't give a damn about how Bitcoin works, they just want to send and receive transactions. Only geeks and technological people will care about the inner workings. How many people you know that knows how the banking tech works? Exactly 0. |
|
|
|
It is almost as if the very idea of a settlement layer might even be antithetical to a world where cryptocurrency becomes the dominant form of currency, rendered obsolete like many of the other functions that banks carry out today.
Everyone keeps talking about it yet nobody mentions the differences between P2P Cash and a settlement layer. Cash is money for the people, a currency that everyone can use cheaply, directly, easily and quickly. A settlement layer is what large financial institutions use to settle balances between them. It is exclusive, elitist and reinforces or recreates the power structures we have today. Settlement networks would become obsolete if people chose to use cryptocurrencies on mass as currency. By attempting to turn Bitcoin into a settlement layer you are turning it into the very financial systems Bitcoin was meant to counter. I find the entire idea to be unrealistic however, the large banks and financial institutions would be much better off if they designed their own systems for this purpose, even Ripple is a better settlement network then Bitcoin, I do not think these large financial institutions would even adopt Bitcoin because it is not in their interests to do so, the only way I see that happening is because they are "forced" to do so in order to stay relevant, and that could only happen because of mass adoption of Bitcoin as a currency. Not increasing the blocksize undermines Bitcoins ability to be a currency as was always intended, the whitepaper even describes this in its title, Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System. Increasing the blocksize goes against the idea of decentralized peer to peer cash because it centralizes the nodes, so we need additinal layers like LN. If the core of Bitcoin is centralized (and it's impossible to not end up with massive centralization if you want to scale everything on chain) we will end up a paypal 2.0 (not cash) Increasing the blocksize by hard forking every now and then because the blocks keep getting full is the dumbest thing I've heard. We need additional layers like LN, the sooner you understand this reality the better. |
|
|
|
I think he made a couple of very good points:
1) Logically the devs should have very little power over the direction of BItcoin, and the users (as a whole) should have a lot of power over the direction of Bitcoin
2) The maximum block size needs to be increased immediately
3) Major Bitcoin related companies (AntPool included) need to carefully consider their position and cannot make any rash decisions
4) That the blockstream core devs seems to have a severe bias when looking at evidence and information
5) The the moderation policies of r/bitcoin and bitcointalk do not reflect the ideals of freedom of expression and the free flow of information that is believed in by much of the bitcoin related community
The evidence and information says that increasing the blocksize now is a bad idea, and potentially ever. We can't live off constant hard forks to temporarily pay less fees for onchain transactions because that's as stupid as it gets, that's why we must focus on additional layers to scale a protocol just like it has always been done. Bitcoin is not a democracy, thats why it has survived this long. Idiots that have no deep knowledge in how to scale a protocol have 0 say on this. In any case, run nodes for whatever you want to support (as long as they aren't fake nodes like most of the Classic ones). |
|
|
|
|
But is it normal that it takes hours to go from "4 days ago" to the current one? I mean its just only 4 days, how many mb can be that? As far as I know they have made Bitcoin verify the blocks faster with this update, but it's still as slow as ever for me.
What I noticed is it's a lot faster when you open it, but now then synchronizing.
|
|
|
|
|
I think in 2016 if you are still worrying about if gambling is or isn't a sin you have a lot of thinking to do. Bitcoin is built in something that is basically gambling (mining and hoping you get a reward is basically a lotery) so it would be pretty stupid that you use Bitcoin but say you are against gambling when the very system of Bitcoin mining rewards is basically gambling.
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Mir hasn't been very active lately but never count the guy off, the guy is a beast and should be able to put on a decent fight. I have not yet decided if I event want to bet on this fight because im still thinking what is the most reasonable bet: to go with the bigger odds fighter or try to bet for the upset.
|
|
|
|
|
If we had more serious jobs with Bitcoin i could make a living with Bitcoin, but the only money that I have been able to get "for a job" is due signature campaigns, so no, I couldn't make a living on Bitcoin alone so I have to keep working on my regular job for fiat then get the Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Im tired of hearing by dumb FUDsters how Bitcoin can't scale and thats why it's "doomed". Also tired of the people saying Blockstream are an evil team that want to centralize Bitcoin, when they are doing exactly the contrary.
So many clueless FUDsters in the community. I hope that they at least get paid for their time.
|
|
|
|
|
Its not clear to me that raising the blocksize wouldn't cause massive amounts of node centralization. If right now running a node can be a problem for a lot of people, if you make the blockchain grow at twice the speed, I think it's going to be really hard to run a node. We need data before doing this, and the research done so far points at centralization of nodes.
|
|
|
|
|
We need to scale it to a global level so it can be used in a cheap, and fast way: Lightning Network already taking care of that.
We need to make it easier to use, we need to get rid of the address system and be able to have some sort of email-like system (readable names) so it feels more casual
With time we will get there. But Bitcoin will be very valuable mainstream or not.
|
|
|
|
As you see on this pic:  my download of the blockchain gets interrupted all the time. It downloads in small chuncks. It takes me hours to download 3 or 4 last days (I usually open my node every 3 or 4 days because my computer is crap to leave it open all the time) and it takes just so much to download the thing. As you can see for some reason, it downloads for a while, then it stops for a while, then it downloads a little bit, stops again... it takes ages. |
|
|
|
|
The debate of how to incentive running nodes is a long one, it has been considered for ages. I think it's a very tricky subject, it may seem like common sense to give some money to people running nodes but apparently there are some serious tradeoffs. If you search on the subject in developers like nullc in reddit you may find some valuable information on this.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think ETH is a very viable currency to do gambling.. its blockchain is very heavy so they would need to come up with a better system. And at the end of the day you already got Bitcoin to gamble with which is the biggest coin by far, so I don't see any casinos bothering with enabling another currency that does the same.
|
|
|
|
because gambling is easy to make money instantly, so people addicted to become rich in a short time from gambling,.
Yes everyone is addicted to instant gratification, that's what everyone is doing in this society, just wanting to get a lot of money really quick out of luck. Don't get me wrong, to make al to of money you must need luck, but luck is not everything, you gotta put some effort, otherwise its just a gamble, and thats why some people are addicted to it. |
|
|
|
|
I like to buy whenever I get my salary paid on my ban account. Every month is buying month, and just hold and hold long term. If you buy and hold long enough it's impossible to not increase your wealth in the long term, but most people are here for instant satisfaction that's why few ill make it into the riches.
|
|
|
|
|
Classics shills grasping at straws. After they see no one is supporting their nodes and no one with money invested in actual Bitcoin and not their business (like the Winklevoss which actually own a lot of Bitcoin and aren't just making USD of a Bitcoin business) are supporting the best (Core) devs.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
