Nothing x1000

Binance coin I do not know if it will be x100, because it already made x10 last month, but it will do at least another x10 by the end of the year.

Bitbost and Redpulse x100 ------- next ico in september

Yeah also it requires less human input and work but gold is what makes fiat valuable and fiat makes Bitcoin valuable.It's a chain.In old times people used gold to trade and now we are using fiat but you can still sell your gold and get fiat.Bitcoin will be the same.There won't be a domination of a single currency.

McGregor is not even an Olympian level boxer....He's just a brawler.  Mayweather will pick this guy apart ---> easily.  Mayweather is not a brawler so he wouldn't stand a chance in the octagon, but its his fight, on his terms, in the ring, so it's his fight.  And, Mayweather's age is probably an asset in the ring as opposed to a liability, but his age would be a clear disadvantage in the octagon ----> experience and wisdom carry a lot of weight in the ring, not so much in the octagon.

Most of the fights i watched with McGregor ,every time i see it as a lucky punch at first and then after carefully viewing then we would know that he is looking for that punch,what if the reflex is not that great with age with Mayweather,can he be tagged and if so,will that be a lucky punch in regard to his age. I have boxed as an amateur but the level of Mayweather is another planet when it comes to pure boxing skills and if this fight was in both their primes then there is no way McGregor could catch him in any way shape or form.

51% hashing power, or even 90%, means nothing if clients collectively refuse to accept and relay your blocks.

It is simple, provable engineering fact that storing data in transaction outputs makes block validation, double-spend checks and other critical consensus operations more expensive. More RAM is used on average. In general, it burdens the entire network. UTXO is our most critical resource currently.

Bitcoin is only zero trust, if you can verify the entire transaction history.

Do not premine, or other scamcoin traits.

They are attempting to ride the coattails of the Bitcoin brand

Further, you cannot handwave away the problem that, if transactions is infinitesimally cheap, people will abuse the system by sending non-currency data messages. Lots of them. Gigabytes worth, as other alt-chain field experience has proven. To the point that bitcoin-the-currency transactions are impacted. "I want a system that can process infinite amounts of traffic" is in the land of unicorns. The accusation of dev laziness is particularly rich, given that SatoshiDICE abused the blockchain in this way, by sending informational messages (IM "You lost a bet") via the blockchain. If you want an infinite amount of transactions per 10 minutes, you have just reinvented the Internet... over the blockchain. Poorly.

one cannot ignore a key attribute conferring by a limit like the 1MB limit: it encourages engineering efficiencies to be sought. Programmers have an incentive to actively seek ways to reduce the number of transactions, or reduce transaction size, when faced with a limited resource. Some business models simply don't care about that part of the equation. It's not a conspiracy by Gavin and the Bitcoin Foundation funders, it is simply one facet of some bitcoin businesses. They make money with increased transaction volume. That's fine, but a key economic counter-point is that these businesses are not bearing the costs of the mining/blockchain impact of a million-TX-per-day policy.

It's open source. Fork away. Though the consequence is that you remain at a higher, hardcoded fee level, and people will still dump megabytes worth of non-currency data into the blockchain (wikileaks cables etc.).

More to the point, zero-conf transactions have been double-spent already. It is proven they are not safe today, ignoring any proposed changes.

There have been chains of hashes and chains of digital signatures before. What makes bitcoin different is that it is timestamping these digital messages, and protecting those timestamps against being reversed. The currency aspect of bitcoin is simply a layer on top of the distributed timestamping service

Satoshi also intended the subsidy-free, fee-only future to support bitcoin. He did not describe fancy assurance contracts and infinite block sizes; he cleared indicated that fees would be driven in part by competition for space in the next block.

Any miner that increases MAX_BLOCK_SIZE beyond 1MB will self-select themselves away from the network, because all other validating nodes would ignore that change. Just like if a miner decides to issue themselves 100 BTC per block. All other validating nodes consider that invalid data, and do not relay or process it further.

If the users are not voting (validating), then it is trivial for miners to rewrite the rules. If the users are fully validating, then a miner decision to have each block produce 50 BTC again would be instantly rejected.

In an unfunded open source project, arguing all day about the lack of full-engineering-team rigor is entirely wasted energy. Blame the dev team if that is your favorite target, that will not magically create extra time in the day or extra manpower to accomplish these extra tasks being demanded by non-contributors. The time spent whining about what an unfunded effort fails to do could be better spent, say, creating a test network of full nodes running all known bitcoind versions, 0.3 through present. And test, test, test changes through that.

It is always entertaining to watch non-contributors opine about completely obvious solutions that the devs are silly to have overlooked.

A hard fork is a significant event that knocks legitimate users off the network, makes coins unspendable, or potentially makes the same coins spendable in two different locations, depending on whether or not you're talking to an updated node. It is, to pick a dramatic term, an Extinction Level Event. If done poorly, a hard fork could make it impossible for reasonable merchants to trust the bitcoins they receive, the very foundation of their economic value. Furthermore, a hard fork is akin to a Constitutional Convention: a hard fork implies the ability to rewrite the ground rules of bitcoin, be it block size, 21M limit, SHA256 hash, or other hard-baked behavior. Thus, there is always the risk of unpredictable miners, users and devs changing more than just the block size precisely because it makes the most engineering sense to change other hard-to-change features at the time of hard-fork. It is a nuclear option with widespread economic consequences for all bitcoin users.

Being the person who actually posted a faux-patch increasing the block size limit, it is important to understand why I disagree with that now... it was erroneously assuming that the block size was the whole-picture, and not a simple, lower layer solution in a bigger picture. The block size is an intentionally limited economic resource, just like the 21,000,000-bitcoin limit.

Boy that's a shortsighted analysis. Bitcoin will grow layers above the base layer -- the blockchain -- that will enable instant transactions, microtransactions, and other scalable issues. Do not think that the blockchain is the only way to transfer bitcoins. Larger aggregators will easily compensate for current maximum block size in a scalable manner. All nation-state/fiat currencies are multi-layer. Too many people look at what bitcoin does now, and assume that those are the only currency services that will ever exist.

Transactions will not always be free. Any time there are a lot of transactions being sent, free transactions get the lowest priority and might have to wait to make it into a block. If blocks are often full, you will need to pay a transaction fee to get priority.

It is not as good when obviously-still-learning people are billing their project as the "future of bitcoin" and misleading people into thinking they are a bitcoin expert, and are misleading people into thinking they are producing high quality, proven code (and potentially taking thousands of dollars for it). Those who are not coders lack the skills to judge this sort of thing, and only have hype from this thread to go on.

Miners only select (or ignore) transactions provided to them. The bitcoin client you run chooses what transactions and blocks to validate and relay. Miners cannot change the rules without bitcoin user agreement.

I think users with older clients, holders of older bitcoins quite appreciate the struggle to maintain backwards compat. Nobody wants to wake up in the morning, to discover that their money is unspendable outside of a required upgrade.

obviously you're talking out of your ass.  8mb is still a tiny amount of data.  It takes me about 1.3 seconds to download 8MB.

Except full 8MB blocks Bitcoin current exists and works just fine, kinda defeats his argument right there. I run an abc node for BCash, my node works just fine, why should I be pissed off again?

Bro just take a look at Floyd Mayweather Jr. He supported the stox and said that he could earn a lot from it. If you are not believing it try to search it he has a post on instagram I think that he is into cryptocurrency earning and already earning from his investment. Will you look at him you can't see on his face that he is a bitcoiner just like us.

Me too!! GayWeather is known for his defense when he is  boxing low-key boxers like Manny.Gregor ain't no joke,UFC wrestlers  are more brutal towards punches and knockouts.Little does GayWeather know about the rules anyway.

Doesn't really matter.You put a Lion in the cage with a leather hunter master or silver chain master,he's still the Lion in the ring.

https://degenbet.com/3-reasons-8oz-gloves-might-not-think-mayweather-vs-mc-gregor/

Three reasons why 8oz gloves might not be what you think

Most Copycats failed woefully trying to replicate this forum... Those that suceeded abit failed to attract good numbers of loyal members. The forums, no matter how beautiful, are boring and depressing

The possible reason for this Forum success maybe be due to the success of Bitcoin  & the niche it creates for the forum.
So rather than getting greedy & looking for means to become rich from forum ad revenue, focus more on carving out "a niche forum" other businesses/companies cannot exist without or better still create a forum the existence of other Altcoins would depend on

To be frank, I think only Ethereum founder could successfully replicate this forum due to the number of Altcoins that depend on Ethereum.
The Founder could easily unite these Altcoins under a Forum, . where they can come together to share ideas, softwares, products and services. He could go as far as making the forum impossible to avoid.. by making it mandatory for Altcoins that depend on Ethereum Network .  In the end, a giant business environment where Ethereum fans and job seekers can work & earn Ethereum & Bitcoin will be created.

So,  maybe focus on a business/product other companies would depend on to suceed then build a forum & gather the companies to exchange ideas, products and services.

absolutely its possible in future. bch once reach an amazing value but drop so far. i believe bch still not stable right now. yet its still a good coin to invest thoyght.

If you just want to talk in Gayweather's favour ,please do but don't come up with irrelevant logic to support your opinions.Attack has never been Gayweather's game so regardless of the gloves,he's still going to run around like a rat.On the brighter side,McGregor is known to punch non-stop until the target is down.I can't wait to see him taking this rat down.

Agree, the forums search is not good. Use Google instead and search the forum by adding site:bitcointalk.org <search term> . It works like a charme.


Its just not true. IOTA spend less on marketing. The coin was completely under the surface before it hit Bitfinex the exchange eight weeks ago. But it already had a lot of followers and interesting people on the official slack channel. Nearly all communication was done there. IOTA got early attention by companies like Microsoft ( if I am right, it was the first coin in alpha state that was added to Azure platform ) and some others like a German energy company. This was not a result by marketing, but by the great tech. The money they got from the ICO are peanuts compared to the most ICOs today. The ICO was in the end of 2015 and the collected Bitcoins were worth $600k at this time. Not much space for marketing.

I think you could just use a DirectTV satellite dish. There are tons of those on buildings around where I live, and a lot of them probably aren't in use.

It is currently receive only because transmitting to the satellite requires a lot of power and extra stuff that most people won't be able to get. The satellite is best for those who have a poor internet connection; they can't download the blockchain because it is too big, but they can still broadcast transactions as those are tiny. The satellite allows those people to also be able to get the blockchain (well part of it, only new blocks right now)

Recieve only. But for wallet use w/cell phone likely cheap and untraceable in a corrupt
Country with cell phone prepaid. Comes to mind anyway.

You think one day we'll see more boxing match from UFC vs IBF/WBO?

I remember he commented about real men fight upright but it would be an interesting to see a rematch going to be on octagon too. FLoyd will train himself with jujitso and ground fights.