When merit was first introduced, I left some 5s on posts that I thought were historically important, but then it occurred to me that, since I'm not a source, I'd soon run out if I kept doing that.

Take this post for instance.  That's a hugely important post in my view, as it recounts a time when crucial things were set in motion that ultimately led to how things are now, but no one else seems to have noticed it.  In general, Cryddit has only received 28 merit and has neutral feedback.  This guy was there at the very inception of Bitcoin, so surely he deserves a little more recognition than this?

//EDIT:  Perhaps this is a topic for a new thread, though.

The reason Bitcoin is secure is because there's a lower resource cost for running a full node with a smaller blockweight than there would be with a larger blockweight.  That's why we're doing what we're doing.  Of all the blockchains that exist today, this one is the most secure.  We're not going to jeopardise that.



The correct analogy would be that those who ordered a dessert get a discount on their meal, whereas you pay the same price you always used to pay before they introduced the dessert menu.  If you don't order the dessert, you can't even see it.  You can continue eating, blissfully unaware of the existence of dessert if that's what you want.  The choice is yours.  



There's no flip flopping, those securing the chain decide what consensus is.  They've decided on SegWit.  That's not tyranny.  Forcing a larger blockweight onto nodes that don't want it is tyranny.  Node operators have the option of running code that supports a larger blockweight.  If or when they decide to do that, fair enough.  We can then have a larger blockweight.  But they aren't doing that now.  So stop being the guy who thinks they get to order for everyone.  You are the lone voice with little-to-no support who, depending on what day it is, wants either EC or a 4mb blockweight that everyone can use.  Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that's not what everyone else wants?  At present, ~0.53% of nodes on this network are running clients that advocate larger blocksize/blockweight.  0.53%.  And your preferred method of getting people to agree with you appears to be attacking developers and coming up with bizarre tin-foil-hat stories about how certain people control the network.  And you wonder why you're not having much success and people think you're being dishonest?  Either come up with a sensible and reasonable case that people might actually take seriously, or just wait patiently for people to decide for themselves when the right time is to run code supporting a larger blockweight.  You've made your choice.  No one is telling you what to run.  Why can't you respect everyone else's decision?

If you went out for a meal with a group of people and you're all eating together, then everyone else decides to order a dessert, but you don't want to, do you then whine about being treated as a "second class" attendee?  Have they "bypassed consensus" for that meal just because you don't want a dessert?  Are you going to hold a petty grudge against that one person who proposed having dessert and blame them for everything else you don't approve of for the rest of forever?  

Congrats on your -ve trust, by the way.  I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner to be honest.

Exactly.  Banks launder money for drug cartels, crime syndicates and terrorists all the time, but funnily enough people still use banks.  It's human nature.  They don't care how much corruption there is, they just want to stick with what they know.  It seems like there's only a "problem" when it's something new that people don't understand yet.  As adoption grows and people start to actually learn something about Bitcoin, they will eventually realise that Bitcoin is less useful for money laundering than cash is.

Again, not if you look at the lowest price instead of the highest one.

The lowest price in 2017 was ~$750 USD
The lowest price in 2018 so far has been ~$4500 USD

How can you call that a bad year?  The floor is clearly much higher now.

It depends how "early" we're talking.  I got in during the 2013 spike, so not that early.   But I'd assume people who adopted Bitcoin right at the start probably don't think of this as a bear market because they paid <$1.00 for their large tranche of coins. 

If you were fortunate enough to be in on the ground floor, there are only varying velocities of bull-run.

For once, we actually agree on something.  I was starting to think that wasn't possible.  China is not a hive-mind and it isn't right for people to portray it as one.



There's nothing wrong with it taking time.  You're the one who keeps gabbering about certain people not using it when you think they ought to be.



Devs can propose rule changes.  They can't enforce them.  Only full nodes and miners securing the network can enforce rules. 

I'm going to call you out on this each and every time you lie about it.  Devs cannot enforce rule changes. 

My thoughts on volatility are ultimately that whether markets are volatile or not, the most important part is that they are free markets.  We shouldn't be trying to "handle" volatility if doing so means we're trying to manipulate the market.  If someone could manage to keep volatility under control, that clearly means someone is controlling the market.  No one should want that.

---

Also, the original post appears to be a mix of phrases from this cointelegraph article and should be credited thus.

Bitcoin is mentioned fairly frequently on TV.  I think it will soon reach the stage where it won't really warrant a new topic every time it happens.  I could understand if they dedicated an entire segment on the show about it, but a brief namedrop isn't really substantial enough these days.

Also, Jimmy Fallon is terrible.  I don't know how people find his "comedy" funny.  Here it is if anyone wants to judge for themselves.  I didn't laugh once through the whole 5 minute clip.

Salient point.  If 2019's lowest point ends up being higher than 2018's lowest point, that means it has still been a pretty good year.  Regardless of how far it may have fallen from the ATH.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"

It's okay as theories go, but there's no way of accurately predicting what's going to happen.  2019 might be another fairly stable year or we could see some extremely volatile movements.  It's anyone's guess.

Also, price topics generally go in the Speculation board.  Cheers to whoever moved it.

We can't say with 100% certainty that they are excluding SegWit transactions just by looking at the size of blocks.  We can definitely conclude that blocks larger than 1mb in size have to have some SegWit usage included, but it's entirely feasible to have a block smaller than 1mb that still includes some SegWit transactions.  Perhaps it's just a coincidence?  I saw two antpool blocks yesterday over 1mb.

Create a new key for what?  There isn't an alert system anymore.  No alert system = no need for a new key.

The fact that your claim was immediately proven wrong but you still keep talking shit escapes you.  Sometimes miners prioritise the block reward over the fees and don't include many (or any) transactions in their block.  It's hardly a new phenomenon.  And when they do include a small number of transactions, they naturally choose the ones with the highest fees (i.e. not the SegWit ones).  So thank you for once again demonstrating that users generally pay lower fees when they use SegWit.  It's nice of you to show your support in this way.  The more you highlight the advantages, the more users are likely to adopt SegWit and start saving money.

Except that around two hours ago, AntPool mined this block which, at 1026.434 KB, must include at least some SegWit transactions.  

And around 18 hours ago, AntPool also mined this block which, at 1157.285 KB, must also include at least some SegWit transactions.

It's really not hard to actually verify this stuff.  It's all there in the open to see.  Any more Redditard drivel you'd like us to debunk?

It's reassuring to see that even though the media don't seem to understand the difference, most people here do.  I'll lock this one down now since there's probably now much else to discuss.  I just thought it odd lots of places online were suddenly saying Bitcoin is 10 years old when it isn't quite there yet.

I suppose weak minds like yours need all the help they can get.  



Other car manufacturers don't go to fordmodelatalk.org to advertise their cars.  They can stand on their own.  They have a significant advertising budget to independently market their products to potential customers.  They don't need to leech off Ford's success in order to be recognised.  

If you don't need Bitcoin, by all means leave and go to another forum to advertise your crapcoin.  That, or admit you're here to leech off Bitcoin's success because no one would pay your crapcoin the slightest hint of attention otherwise.  You can't stand on your own.  You don't have a significant advertising budget.

Very few altcoins are successful enough to market themselves to the public without resorting to their developers spamming here on the forums in a desperate and pathetic attempt to appear relevant.  You'd do well to remember that.  You need Bitcoin more than anyone.  It's the only way anyone could ever notice you and your crapcoin even exist.

Now are we done here?  Or did you need it in a blue font to comprehend it?

Depending on who you ask, Bitcoin is either 9 or 10 years old right now.  It seems like we can't collectively decide which date is the right one to recognise as the official "birthday".  Which date do you think is most the appropriate one to celebrate?  Or do we celebrate all three equally?  

• The bitcoin.org domain name was registered on 18th August 2008.
• Satoshi's whitepaper was published on 31st October 2008.
• The Genesis Block was mined on 3rd January 2009.

I'd appreciate it if people didn't just post a date in response, but to actually justify their reasoning for it.  This is a self-moderated topic and I'll be deleting low-quality posts.  If all you can do is pick a date, use the poll and don't bother replying with a post.

User: JohnJohnston Nuked

Copy:  

Original:

Taking people who live in New York as one of the more obvious examples, anyone there can use the Bitcoin network itself totally unhindered to send and receive bitcoin transactions to anyone in the world.  But as soon as they try to register for third party services, they may find they can't do that in some cases.  Many businesses are now blacklisting New York residents over regulatory concerns.  These people, through no fault of their own, are now restricted in their options of the companies and retailers they can do business with.  The result becomes a payment network where you can't necessarily send payments to everyone you might want to.  It's a tricky one.