Are you sure that you're capable of reading three paragraphs?

---

It's not a good idea to treat cryptocurrencies as a good asset solely because they went up in value.  If you're trying to argue that they're a good asset, you have to provide genuine reasoning for it.

The more people that have your attitude, the less people there are that would regard it as a good asset when the value decreases.

Considering how easy it is to convert between BTC and other cryptocurrrencies, it shouldn't make much of a difference how new it is as long as you can send it reasonably easily.  Might as well just go with a coin that attempts to be ASIC-resistant (most of the newer ones), if you're desperate to mine with a GPU.

---

IMO it's fine to have choice.  BCH still exists so if people want to mine it they can go ahead and do so.  Considering that you can mine it with BTC hardware it makes sense to have an easy way to switch.

Let's do a fact check on this from a neutral (we're all biased, but less annoying at least) perspective.

1.  Vote manipulation - no proof.
2.  Astroturfing - no proof.
3.  Bought accounts to push agenda - no link to Roger Ver, but could be true (seems likely).  You should switch it to "an account" and "bought or hacked" as this is one account and becoming active after a long time suggests that it could have been hacked.  Also be tentative here, because this is reasoning rather than evidence.
4.  MemoryDealers.com founder Roger Ver abuses admin access at Blockchain.info - yep.  Ver stepped out of line here.
5.  Roger buying likes on twitter - you would have thought that with his thousands of BTC, he would have done a better job of it.  Especially considering that the vast majority of top comments on his posts are negative.  I can see how this is potentially shady, but still not really proof.
6.  Antpool was tagged and they responded to it.  I don't see the connection.  There's nothing wrong with them knowing ViaBTC's policy.

Overall, I don't see any particularly good evidence.

You'll have to rely on Poloniex's customer support, which means you have to rely on nothing.

It's good really though - it means that you can make the good decision not to trade on their shit exchange and go to somewhere like Bittrex that acts normally most of the time.
Based on their current trading volume of $400,000,000 in the last 24 hours, they would be raking in $800,000 per day in revenue from their 0.2% fees (400000000 x 0.002 = 800000).

Before they become so terrible that many people moved to Bittrex, they had a trading volume of over a billion dollars per day.  You would have thought that pulling in over a million dollars per day for several months would lead them to start hiring just a few customer support staff, but no.  It's either about the worst incompetence in the world or it's a means of keeping their customers' money before they get verified to withdraw it (so that they can manipulate the market).

Based on this thread, I'm guessing that you're a spammer who was kicked out of one of Lutpin's signature campaigns and then started an account dedicated to discrediting anyone who is against spam.

The Pharmacist believes that signature campaigns are responsible for problems on the forum:



That would easily explain your personal vendetta against The Pharmacist.

You don't know what activation is.
You don't know what locking in is.
scam
skam/Submit
nouninformal
1.
a dishonest scheme; a fraud.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ - please point out what Bitcoin Core said here which was objectively a lie that they were aware of at the time.

Basically what I'm saying is that you don't know what a scam is.

---

It's this kind of misunderstanding of what proposals are supposed to achieve that results in all this FUD happening now.  SegWit is not supposed to make everything 100% perfect overnight.

Well I hope the BTC TV channels are as good as the "fiat TV" channels.

I suppose people are going to spend most of their day discussing the implications of nodes/hashrate/pools/forks?

Also, I don't think there are actually 50 trillion dollars in circulation, so it would require hyperinflation of the dollar over the next year for this to happen.

This is confusing as hell.  If they're not going to mine SegWit transactions, why would they signal for SegWit and join in with the New York Agreement?

Either it means that they want to make the November block size increase appear more necessary, or that they are categorically opposed to SegWit as a soft fork at all.  It could be some innocent mistake, but it doesn't seem likely.

For now, mempools are still large and Antpool needs to stop ignoring people's transactions.

We've already seen the first block over 1MB mined by Bitfury.  However, Antpool has been mining a lot of empty and small blocks.

Considering that they're supposed to be in favour of larger blocks, it doesn't really make sense, but it's certainly not being helpful.

Looks like the Ledger and TREZOR wallets are integrating SegWit very soon, after which I will be sending and receiving cheaper transactions.

I don't see why that's true.  Seems like it would just mean that some company produces the most efficient GPU instead of most efficient ASIC miner and then there can be centralisation of that instead.  Sure, small miners could get involved but they would still be mining at big pools.

Pools would be pretty much the same as well I imagine.  

A solution would be changing the block time to LTC's 2.5 minutes or so (then of course adjusting the block size, difficulty adjustment time, block reward etc to make this work).  Then hopefully miners would feel more comfortable using smaller pools because there would be less variance in their income.  I suppose if you did this you could simultaneously switch to a GPU-friendly algorithm as well.

According to Wikipedia the drug is illegal in a lot of countries and is a "Schedule 1 Controlled Substance" in the US.  Looks like the OP is selling an illegal drug.

We're on the clearnet on an unrelated forum so there's no way we should be giving advice on how to sell that.  

If you want OP, you could go on the Dream Market subreddit or if you want to discuss illegal information you should try going on the darknet.  Alpha Bay and Hansa Market are closed down so I suppose Dream Market is your main option.

They treat this like it's some shocking new revelation which has just been discovered.

Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about and gets even the most basic details of sending BTC transactions understands that BTC was never 100% anonymous, nor will it ever be.

If you're clever you can get around blockchain analysis though.  I highly doubt that the authorities caught the most privacy-centric darknet users, even when they seized Alpha Bay and Hansa Market.  They can catch some, but the Alpha Bay guy that they caught was caught for using his personal email in the past - nothing to do with BTC at all.

A large amount of people here are only involved in BTC for two reasons.

Either they're disillusioned with the banking system in general and debt-based fiat currencies, or they're moderately dumb in that they just look at high returns and assume that they will continue exponentially until they're rich. 

The latter is a self-fulfilling prophecy which gets weeded out in each bear market and then builds up in each bull market.  The former is a somewhat reasonable thought, but is often uttered by people who are otherwise irrational about similar topics or believe too strongly in modern conspiracy theories.

Personally I view the situation in a similar way to you, but I think that other people can get petty about it.

A large and important reason for Bitcoin's creation is the freedom from bank-controlled fiat currency.  If a bank wants to increase the supply in a cryptocurrency, they would have to hard fork and update software each time, which the public would not be able to follow, nor would they want to.

So if the bank wanted to create a cryptocurrency, they would have to either:

-Create a centralised coin which crypto enthusiasts decide not to use because of their original reasons for using BTC
-Create a decentralised coin which they don't have much control over, which is pointless as they wouldn't have any more power than they can have in BTC.

Since we knew SegWit was going to happen for the last two weeks, we could only expect to see price changes once SegWit actually starts having an effect.

Since most people are still sending legacy transactions, nothing has really changed since two weeks ago.  SegWit's success will rely on people starting to use it, which they hopefully will do over the next few weeks.  If they don't, it could be bearish in the short term because of people's high expectations.

Don't forget that the (potentially) bearish event of SegWitx2 and the (potentially) bullish event of LN being used on mainnet are coming up.

Looks like a shill thread.  I've seen these tactics plenty of times before.

Most pump-and-dump Telegram groups attempt to trick people into joining so that the owners can dump their coin on people while announcing a supposed pump.  It's a reasonably clever scam tactic.

I have no sympathy for anyone who joins that stupid group, because participating in pump-and-dumps is borderline scamming anyway.

This is about a change in consensus rules.  If you want to use that chain but don't like contributors to what we expect to be a SegWitx2 reference client, just run a different client which enforces those rules.

If you have any explanation for why the change in consensus rules results in "fiat corporations gathering and taking over the protocol", I'd love to hear it.  Right now it looks like you're talking out of your arse. 

Especially since ShapeShift doesn't even involve fiat in any way.
If you actually understood how Bitcoin works, you'd understand that you can continue running old clients and enforcing the old consensus rules for as long as you like, so no one has forced you to do anything nor "changed" Bitcoin at all.

We can all insult the IRS as much as we want, but it doesn't change their goals.  It should have been common sense that the IRS were trying something like this.

Any intelligent tax cheat or privacy-centric person would know that BTC is not anonymous and that if they want to keep their identity from the authorities it will be hard. 

The only solutions are to take steps to anonymise your coins such as using Tails, mixing coins and creating separate wallets or to use more anonymous coins (namely Monero). 

Simple.  A third party payment gateway converts it to fiat currency and automatically deposits it to the company's bank account.  Actually it's very convenient for merchants to do it and it also has lower fees to the merchant than most other payment systems.

The payment gateway BitPay (which handles Steam and many other merchants) allows a merchant to accept the fiat value of the BTC they receive with only a 1% fee.  By comparison, PayPal charges 2.9% + $0.25 to the merchant when the transaction involves goods and services.

Alternatively, the merchant can just receive BTC and hold it to hedge against fiat inflation.  Overstock say that they keep 50% of the BTC they receive.
A good time to invest was mid 2015.  Hindsight is 20/20.

You could use cost averaging to buy when you accumulate fiat if you want to.

It's kind of boring to keep explaining how consensus works since you don't seem to get it, but I guess I'd better do it again.

Jeff Garzik is not coding the client that follows new consensus rules.  He is coding a client that follows new consensus rules.  No shift in power, because Garzik and other contributors do not have power over which client users decide to run.  So users could decide to run a client which follows the same consensus rules as the SegWitx2 client we're talking about but is unrelated to it. 
If Core control the consensus rules, how come only 6047 out of 9167 listening nodes are running Core software?

Also, how come they can't actually change the consensus rules without everyone agreeing to run their new client?