|
Damn I wish segwit could bribe miners like roger does.
|
|
|
|
|
You can go back to school, get a higher degree and experience the payoff with hard work. Or put it all on red and watch the roulette spin.
|
|
|
|
|
I think its a big gamble , but it might pay off. I love bitcoin and I love the S&P500. Deciding how much goes in each is my problem.
|
|
|
|
|
As the market becomes bigger it becomes less manipulated or possible to cause such an attack. MUST HAVE LIQUIDITY.
|
|
|
|
|
If only. The scaling debate is far from over and a solution is far out of reach for the time being.
|
|
|
|
I have been a big fan of Andreas he's been a great spokesman for Bitcoin.
And he seemed to be most passionate about helping the world's
unbanked...empowering them...getting them sound money, etc.
So, now we have the core developers promoting a new
economic policy for Bitcoin which is essentially based
on Bitcoin being a settlement layer. The most vocal
proponents of Core's roadmap embrace their economics
and say "well, Bitcoin can't be all things to all people.
Bitcoin was never supposed to be coffee money.
You should do things like off-chain, on the LN."
(Which btw was never an economic policy of
Gavin or Satoshi, but that's another story).
So what does this mean for the world's unbanked?
Best case scenario, in the future there will
be zero friction and fees will still be relatively cheap.
But so far, the reality today is that core's
economic policy has caused a substantial
increase in fees and slower confirmations.
In the future, if transactions are forced
off the main chain, it will quite likely
become more expensive to use Bitcoin
due to LN solutions charging fees as well
as increased fees for settlement.
The unbanked have limited cash flow,
and less ability to wait for 'settlement',
and if there are AML/KYC hurdles to
register with a LN provider/hub, then
that is additional friction.
Meanwhile, LN isn't here yet and may not be for
at least a year or more.
The big question is why hasn't
Mr. Antonopoulos said anything
about this?
there's only a few possibilities:
A) the core roadmap will still support cheap micropayments (explain why)
B) the roadmap won't do so, but its ok (explain why)
C) the roadmap won't do so, and its not ok
D) say nothing and remain neutral.
So, Andreas seems to be choosing D and while
that might be acceptable for some people
in Bitcoin, it seems too timid for
someone who previously championed the unbanked.
I say, speak your mind!
Andreas, we've always admired you for having courage and speaking
your mind. I know you are trying to remain neutral and diplomatic,
but you can't remain silent about this point... and to do so
makes you just look like a politician towing the line.
Even the unbanked can use it as a settlement layer, nothing is stopping them from doing so. The morte people on lightning networks the less load in the actual protocol but segwit doubles or triples capacity, so I dont see a problem. The only reason you dont want to pass segwit is because it gives up your leverage on getting a hard fork done. Well you might as well fork because core is never going to do it. |
|
|
|
|
I think Craig was probably friendly with or knows who satoshi is. That being said I dont think that he himself is satoshi.
|
|
|
|
|
Just to put this into perspective, when roger was asked about the eth fork he literally said "yay free money" . If hes an economist im santa clause.
|
|
|
|
|
>change.org
Oh god. I mean its interesting , but India is probably not going to endorse a currency that directly threatens theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
I dont think that bitcoin will just one day die, imo if it was going to happen it would be a slow descent into irrelevance or into a very niche area only used by a handful of people like in the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
Storing bitcoin in your prison wallet is really the only solution. Right up the butt past the third sphincter.
|
|
|
|
I can shill if you want me to. Baby ill be anything you want  |
|
|
|
|
Most people were surprised about this news , but I was not at all. Amir is a certain kind of brilliant and crazy. This is not that out of character imo.
|
|
|
|
|
Miners mostly operate on immediate incentives. They arent storing massive amounts of coins for specualtion, they are making money here and now, paying bills and doing what is best for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Why force them to do anything ? If they dont want to use it, they dont need to. Most people who dont like it are in the first world and really dont have any problems that bitcoin can immediately solve for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Why the fuck would he be worth 10Billion ? The whole market cap is only 14B
|
|
|
|
|
altcoins are the best testnets. Changing the bitcoin code base needs to be conservative with a lot of testing, while altcoins do not. That being said I dont think we need a million with no use cases.
|
|
|
|
What if the Core developers make a compromise of having dynamic block sizes but with a limit of up to 4mb and have Segwit activated at the same time? I am sure there would be a need for a block size increase both with and without an off chain transaction layer.
Core does not want to hard fork period. This idea has been proposed before and shut down by them. |
|
|
|
Why cant people's opinions change over time? Bitcoin is a completely different beast than it was in 2011 with a much more complex and fragile codebase. If we needed to fork in 2011 it would have been fine, but now theres 14 billion dollars worth of peoples money on the line if something gets fucked up. Why choose risky methods like a hardfork when a soft fork gets the job done? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
