I am not at all surprised that my comments on this forum are not well accepted. Before bitcoin came along I was (and still am) one of those people who preaches a literal interpretation of The Bible, against the entire world. It has never been my goal to fit in or make lots of friends. My goal is strictly to tell the truth, no matter how offensive it may be. You can't find the truth if you insist in a literal interpretation of The Bible. The Bible was written by different people who, hearing the word of God, may have misinterpreted or got it wrong, since to err is human. |
|
|
|
Yes, anyone can start using it, but please don't forget that the large majority of the world population getting something between 17-200 (no mistyping that's really seventeen) USD per month. You can find (at least one) such countries even in Europe where 1 BTC at current rate worth more than a monthly average salary. I have some doubts about how these ppl can get into bitcoin.
If Bitcoin becomes the world currency, then there will be people with, for example, 17-200 microbitcoins. I don't see that changing anytime soon, but, by definition, those people will be using Bitcoin as well as everybody else. Some people believe that Bitcoin is the solution to world poverty. I don't know where these people got that idea in the first place. |
|
|
|
...and like it or not, this game is already over.
I don't see what makes you think so. Anyone can start using Bitcoin. There's nothing stopping them, except the fact that they don't know about it. |
|
|
|
and there are a lot of faucet sites out there that are scams....
How does this work? Either you get free bitcoins or you don't... but they never ask you anything in exchange. By definition its a week clicking nonstop with max ~8min intervals for minimum payout But that's not a scam. You know exactly how much you are receiving. There's no lie anywhere. |
|
|
|
Voted for elite only. I don't like this, but this is the reality.
This is why the question in the poll says “should be”, not “is”. |
|
|
|
I would bet that most people on this forum already use an "offchain" solution, in that they do not maintain their own full node.
SPV wallets are not off-chain, yet they don't have a full node. If you're using a website or an app to manage your funds, you won't notice the difference when your transactions aren't individually sent on the blockchain, but instead bundled up with all the other petty transactions and sent at the end of the day/week.
But what if I don't? What if I use an SPV wallet that needs access to the blockchain to work? |
|
|
|
XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!
Go away.
Yes. “Go away” is a perfectly reasonable argument. Considering what it's in response to, yes. Read the text in bold and you will see why there is no more valid an argument than to say "scram!" OK, it seems that I can't use sarcasm here because people take me seriously. “Go away” is NEVER a valid argument. It's just dismissing what the other side is saying without actually discussing the issue. |
|
|
|
XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!
Go away.
Yes. “Go away” is a perfectly reasonable argument. |
|
|
|
and there are a lot of faucet sites out there that are scams....
How does this work? Either you get free bitcoins or you don't... but they never ask you anything in exchange. |
|
|
|
Just like how Bitcoin blocks have, ever since the block size limit was implemented, always remained smaller than the limit.
That's kind of, you know, the point of a limit. No, it's actually because there haven't been enough transactions to reach the limit. |
|
|
|
If, suddenly, one billion people couldn't use Facebook anymore, then it would be because of a literal apocalypse. Facebook can't just disappear overnight.
You lack imagination, if the great firewall of China decides to block Facebook, poof, one billion less users. Overnight. That is, if it's not already blocking it, probably is, thinking about it... North Korea is virtually disconnected from the rest of the world, and there's nothing we can do about it (except maybe start a war?). No innovative cryptocoin with the most powerful proof of algorithm and the fairest distribution of them all will be able to reach them. Also, Bitcoin is different in that, while Facebook severs can be shut down tomorrow (but highly unlikely), it's literally impossible to just “shut down Bitcoin servers” without bringing down the whole Internet in the process.
I argue that allowing the block size to grow is equivalent to making Bitcoin as vulnerable as Facebook currently is. In other words, centralized enough that it becomes vulnerable. Then you should know by now why your argument is wrong. Read all the discussion that has been happening in this thread. |
|
|
|
A friend of mine got affected with a trojan and all his media files in his computer got locked. Now he doesn't know how to recover them because the hackers are asking for a lot of btc to release the password.
Try booting with Ubuntu. Unless the trojan encrypted their files, they should be able to make a backup with no problem. |
|
|
|
|
What are we still doing here? We're going in circles and nobody is reasoning anymore. Why don't we just let this thread die, since it's clear nobody is convincing the other side at all?
|
|
|
|
Most of the people don't have a clue how the Internet actually works (and they don't need to), and that doesn't stop more than a billion people to use Facebook daily.
This actually illustrates the point beautilfully, what would happen if, suddenly, one billion people couldn't use Facebook anymore? The idea that this would make the internet one fifth less useful is fucking ridiculous on its face. If, suddenly, one billion people couldn't use Facebook anymore, then it would be because of a literal apocalypse. Facebook can't just disappear overnight. Even if they were to go bankrupt or banned or anything else, there would be an announcement, letting people leave for other services before they do disappear. Also, Bitcoin is different in that, while Facebook severs can be shut down tomorrow (but highly unlikely), it's literally impossible to just “shut down Bitcoin servers” without bringing down the whole Internet in the process. |
|
|
|
I never said "on an other chain". I said "off-chain".
That's simply because that it is much more efficient. It really makes no sense to try to address all business needs with one single solution.
Why not? Bitcoin is a very expensive technology, it's vastly counterproductive to try and insist that every customer gets addressed the same way.
Actually, it's way cheaper than current banking systems. This comes up a lot in “Bitcoin is wasting energy” threads. The question that comes more frequently is certainly not "will we be able to stay on-chain?", but it is "why do we have to wait 10 minutes to receive our money?".
People who make this question don't understand how transactions work. The solution is educate them, not change the system based on a non-problem. The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
I disagree. The holy blockchain is useless to me if I as an Average Joe don't get to write into it. Do you genuinely think that the level of security provided by the blockchain is absolutely necessary for every single transaction?
Yes, I believe so. My daily expenses are very important to me. If they were insecure and somehow reverted, that would mean I would have to return all the goods I've bought. Nobody wants that. Do you honestly think everyone will be able to educate themselves enough to grasp how bitcoin actually works? and actually use it properly and securely?
Most of the people don't have a clue how the Internet actually works (and they don't need to), and that doesn't stop more than a billion people to use Facebook daily. |
|
|
|
|
Another sexist thread, just after International Women's Day.
|
|
|
|
I don't understand the purpose of this. What does knowing the continent tell you?
Just trivia, maybe |
|
|
|
How is it going to manipulate the population? Doesn't really have any controlling properties.
Exactly. OP has a very active imagination. |
|
|
|
Well, I dont think that the intention of BTC was to be for the whole world to use it as currency, but rather to have it to run on the internet and small shops around the world for the "nerds" and computer geeks using it. AKA us  I'm pretty sure that's NOT what Satoshi envisioned when creating Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not able to handle more than 100 million transactions pr day. So if that was the vision, then it was created the wrong way. Obviously it was made small at first, and then meant to grow. Look at the proposal by Gavin (yes, it's that discussion again). |
|
|
|
Well, I dont think that the intention of BTC was to be for the whole world to use it as currency, but rather to have it to run on the internet and small shops around the world for the "nerds" and computer geeks using it. AKA us I'm pretty sure that's NOT what Satoshi envisioned when creating Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
