Who would Roger Ver want to run his bitcointalk thread for bitcoin cash
Who would roger help in the MTGox Hack
Who would roger help in the big block debate
Who would roger help at Cryptsy, Lucky7coin
Who did Roger know at butterfly Labs Asic miners
Who did Roger know in the Silk Road operations under FBI investiagtion,
Why is Roger at the center of it all


Gotta hide the real blockchain hey Roger

Bitcoin thanks

Wtf, WeChat with a Bitcoin Cash wallet???

https://mobile.twitter.com/kenshishido/status/1016996552684912641


When WhatsApp?

Edit: not native

Es hätte mir voll genügt wenn die mir 2010 den Finanz-Almanach aus 2025 mitgebracht hätten.

Warum lest ihr die Artikel nicht richtig und zieht dann falsche Schlüsse?! Nur weil irgendwo um Grössenordnungen mehr Bitcoin-Derivate gehandelt werden, ändert sich der BTC Kurs nicht direkt. Wenn ein Derivat-Händler den BTC Kurs bewegen möchte, dann muss er tatsächlich BTC handeln - oder aber er bringt durch FUD/Marketing/Presseartikel irgendwelche Dummköpfe dazu, zu seinem Vorteil zu handeln.

Bei den grossen institutionellen Händlern wissen wir, dass diese BTC gar nicht direkt handeln dürf(t)en (keine börsenaufsichtliche Genehmigung). Was bleibt also logischerweise übrig?!

Kurz: Nur wer BTC handelt bestimmt den BTC Kurs.

The reason why the blocks are regulated to 1mb is to make the network scale up. That means the network should keep growing in terms of number of nodes as the hardware becomes cheaper and the bandwidth becomes faster. What many people have failed to know is bandwidth grows slower and slower as the years pass by, and network latency slower still.


You talk like Segwit is very complicated. It is a simple malleability fix. The block size increase is a side effect. Plus you talk of side chains, then why not a 2nd offchain layer?


It is, and Bitcoin's regulated block size to 1mb will scale the network up. A good example of centralization and its network designed scaled down is Ethereum. Their blockchain is 1tb large and increasing, and an increasing number of nodes cannot keep up with the network.

Consider that their miners, who control the gas limit, which also control the block size are playing nice by regulating the blocks.

Even if you were right and that happened internationally, in every single country of the world (which I don't believe will be the case) - storage space is not the main problem.

The problem with a massive blockchain is the immense validation work required by all full nodes. In LN, there is a lot less work as nodes only need to validate transactions where they participate themselves.

I think you refer to the free LN nodes I mentioned earlier. But LN is an "inverse commons", as users are also "producers" - the more people use the system, the more mini-nodes can be used as intermediaries. And mini-nodes do almost not have expenses so they can work for free (like current non-mining full nodes), as I already wrote.

Where are there PoW nodes working for free in current bitcoin? Unprofitiable miners? Don't understand that. Or do you refer to the post-2140 future where only transaction fees will be paid to them?

I don't want to dictate that, and nobody can.

But free market forces would mean: If LN is cheaper for a day-to-day transaction than a "massive block Bitcoin (Cash)", then LN will be the the dominant solution. And if micropayments (=most of the payments that exceed the 1 payment/day per household "threshold" with a 23K tps BTC) are cheaper when carried out with client-server solutions (like Paypal) than when they use LN, these centralized services will continue to exist, but if LN is cheaper, then it most likely will "rule that world".

From all what I heard until now, LN is one of the cheapest solutions, and so it will be most likely very successful - if it works as expected.

Here we agree. LN is not part of the base consensus protocol, so it doesn't affect it.

WOW , I MADE IT... FINALLY A LEGEND HERE 
 

This site is a social scientist's dream.  Ten PhDs could be written on the "bro" investment culture, groupthink, and general simple-mindedness.  95% of the responses to my prediction are "NO - ya gotta have faith!!"; "All markets go up and down"; "Think long-term"; and "We are the strong, and we believe".

The "long-term" heroes actually jumped in to get rich quick.  When that didn't happen, and faced with losing half their money, they are now prophets of HODL.  If the price ever does rise to where they got in, they'll sell, sell, sell.  That's a huge barrier to any advance.

But all that doesn't matter.  Bitcoin is GOING DOWN.  Back to around $400, as it was for so long.  That's apparently the real value to folks making non-standard financial transactions, primarily criminals.

Again, look at the chart in the link.  With what we know now, it's obvious that the price was manipulated, you were cheated, and if you hang on you'll lose more.

I'll be back in 18 months to say "Told ya so".  But I hope you're all out long before then.


EDIT:  For the record, I have no crypto coin.  All my money is in mutual funds.  Still risky but has done well AND you don't get cheated.  Sell your BC and buy something sensible like that.  You can still be a "playah".

But why do these millions transactions per second need to be validated and stored by every full node, forever?

Even if we discarded LN (for whatever reason), I think solutions like sidechains, pegged alt-chains of various types (e.g. the Basecoin style or the BitUSD/Dai style), child chains and sharding do make much more sense than massive, monolithic blocks. All of these solutions are based on the on-chain transaction paradigm and so are not in danger of being restricted by the SEC or other organisms.

(And no, a IoT nanopayment network based on the Bitcoin technology and on-chain transactions is totally crazy. I think 100K to 1 million transactions per second are totally OK for a global currency. 23K/sec already enable to make every household in the world to make 1 transaction per day, which in most cases is sufficient.)