It is indeed user's luck to get such hefty fees back. As far as I've seen most of the publicly known cases of fee errors have got their coins back, which I think is a very good behaviour from pools... I'd too try to get those fees back to users just like pools have been doing.

Regarding morals and such, we all have our own. Fortunately for us, pools seem to have pretty good morals regarding this subject.

That person would use the recover password functionality that exists in many places. If you were questioning what happens if the owner's identity cannot be proven, that probably depends from provider to provider (maybe you can find it in their TOS, or something like that).

In general, funds would probably remain stuck until the wallet services shut down. At which point, yes, they would probably be lost for good.

Unlimited somehow caught up in pool support, but blocks mined with it are still way lower than SegWit. %'s seem to be really close, sometimes SegWit on top, sometimes Unlimited. This data mostly means nothing, at least up until now, but it's still interesting to follow...

Both look the same, but are they the same? And how factual is that? How is that compared to a few years back? That was the end goal of my post, make readers think.

Too early to tell who will win when most seem to want nothing and 2 groups seem to not want what the "other group" wants.

Food for thought


I was unaware of this...

The exchange value of Bitcoin and whatever all of us combined are earning and/or profiting somehow with Bitcoin is a really, really tiny drop in the ocean compared to the scaling issue. If we don't scale today, we don't "earn" tomorrow (and I mean this in multiple ways, and profiting is what least concerns me).


So according to Bitcointalk and other discussion boards, "Core=Few Chinese controlling majority of hash" and "BU=Few Chinese controlling majority of hash".

Time to have a "break it down" post regarding this like some posts we had regarding Core/SegWit and other ideas/implementations?

Hundreds of posts from many users over the last few months have been pretty well summed here. Unfortunately many people don't understand that you don't need to make others smaller in order to be heard or have a message go through. And especially that some types of behavior do not encourage actually finding solutions.


Besides that, it is an off chain payment network. We have a few of these already.


Let's hope this happens. I think we've been further away from that.

I get your point, but I don't entirely agree... If the coin resulted in a viable and working economic system, then it employs the best tech available for the purpose to which it was created. Sometimes "best possible" isn't a synonym for "most advanced" Other coins with better parameters is questionable.

Yesterday's best tech needs an urgent (scale) upgrade now...

I think it's pretty obvious that the low is the fact that we've been discussing scaling for ages, the discussion's tone has risen up once again for the 2nd or 3rd time and we're almost as close to a solution as we were when we started (unfortunately due to many people's stubbornness, from both sides)

So it seems. Looks like when mainstream media outlets share dubious news and facts about Bitcoin and generally spreading that it only serves illegal purposes, sad to see similar tactics being employed to push the fear of a deadly fork... Sad to see Bitcoin users spreading this, they only lose by doing so (maybe they're affiliated with some altcoin that they believe it could profit with Bitcoin's decline?)

I agree with the title of thread but not with what the first post says... The chain isn't stopped so it can always get worse

Jokes aside, we are indeed reaching a new low, so it can only go up from here, I guess...

I'm not getting it, where is this "BTU" coming from? Second time I see it on the forums today... Not sure if I should do a report to have this moved to the alt-coin section...

People are taking this way too far. Unfortunately it's starting to sound like people want a "little Bitcoin" to play with to see if they can do as well or better as early Bitcoin adopters in a way shorter amount of time and then just have the coins converted to their fiat currency of preference. Articles overseeing every detail that can occur in case of a fork (that creates an altcoin or a pseudo altcoin, or "BTU", or whatever anyone wants to call it) aren't encouraging and not an incentive to move forward.

This and other similar mix of BIP's has been suggested... If it scales, I'm down for it or pretty much anything else.


Very interesting post. The other issue I see here is that such code doesn't exist, thus isn't tested, so it can't be deployed anytime soon.

1st question has already been answered, do as you wish.

2nd question... Recommended steps are the same as Bitcoin: compile from source or at least verify binaries before running. There are no risks associated as long as you agree with whatever consensus rules your clients "defends".

If they did remove Bitcoin due to high fees, then there we have the result of our indecision... This would happen sooner or later. Let's see if anyone else does similar. Pretty sad to see it happening.

This will definitely be an interesting thread, but not for this section...

Yes, apparently it is possible. You should read this.

OP, sorry for somewhat "hijacking" the thread, but posts here made me think... Where do we really draw the line regarding BU or SegWit being or not being altcoins?

This is not true. There are no vehicles complying with NHTSA's Level 4 Autonomous Vehicle classification. These are indeed in a testing phase, and in a quite early phase: these cars just left the garage for private roads... There isn't even any Level 3 vehicle (although Tesla's can, in some routes, perform like a Level 3 Autonomous Vehicle).


Yes, they are quite expensive, hence why they're building Model 3. However, as things are now, probably only Tesla could do some kind of blockchain integration in feasible time without having to overhaul their software.


If the car registered erratic human intervention (high speed and/or wreckless driving) it could upload wallet information and destroy the wallet or simply stall and turn off the car. In case of tampering, the vehicle could destroy its information too. I think this won't be a major problem, unless there's a wallet exploit that a hacker could execute in just a few minutes inside the car.


This is why we need things like these to be developed...


This is indeed questionable. Even more questionable if the hashrate keeps rising, as this won't be implemented soon anywhere, really... Will it be even slightly feasible to double spend in the future in cases like these? My bet is that it won't be feasible or at least highly impractical. It probably won't be worth it for bad guys

Funny thing here is that Bitcoin is still more useful as it allows you to store the funds yourself. But yes, I get OP's point... And here we go again with the scaling talk


Yes, there is a possibility for moves like this... Outside Bitcoin. Whatever you create that adds identity information or chargebacks to "Bitcoin" transactions won't be Bitcoin anymore.