PayPal charges fees of about 4% to the merchant.  BTC fees are extremely low compared to PayPal, and it's quite convenient.  If it was implemented properly you'd just scan a QR code, put in the amount and hit send.
They can accept what they want.  There's already a couple of Subway stores that have accepted Bitcoin before, and a few major merchants such as Steam and Overstock already accept it.
Bitcoin is very secure due to how it's already been established.  It also has first mover advantage, and there are only a couple of cryptocurrencies which I regard to be very good relative to BTC currently anyway.
That's centralised bullshit.  It's just a web wallet from which you can spend fiat instead of actually using your coins.

When more than 50 of the last 100 blocks have a version number that Bitcoin Core doesn't expect, it triggers that warning message.

Because miners are now capable of signalling for BIP 91, many have started mining blocks which support it.

This part of SegWitx2 won't cause a chain split though, so it's okay.

Achow101 made a post about this here.

Archived the page.

If you want him to eat his dick on national television in three years, come back to this thread and don't forget to thank me.

I love how he gives loads of vague terms related to "math systems" and doesn't actually explain what they are or why he's using them to suggest that Bitcoin will have a completely ridiculous price.

Maybe he's joking?  

>Bitcoin XT
>Bitcoin Classic
>Bitcoin Unlimited
>Bitcoin ABC
>Bitcoin Cash

Pick one.  It's getting really boring at this point.

Anyway, I'll just hold because I can't be bothered splitting the coins.  

If there's any more forks I might start my own fork, with blackjack and hookers.  Actually, forget the theme parkfork.

This is a terrible way of thinking.  It's almost impossible to gauge what the majority actually wants, unless you're blindly following hash rate.

In elections, do you vote for whichever candidate has the best poll results?  Of course you don't, because you have an opinion of your own, and if you had done this you would have voted for Clinton in the US elections even though Trump ended up winning.

I'm all in favour of agreeing in the end and following consensus, but I'll be waiting at least a couple of weeks before making a judgement on what the consensus already is.  If it's something I strongly disagree with then I would support the smaller chain.
Even if your intentions are genuine, this is unrealistic.  A poll which realistically will not reach a majority of the BTC community will not have any influence over others.

Any wallet from which you can export your private keys is fine.  You can do that with Exodus.

With Ledger, you have a seed.  This is used to generate private keys, and it can be used in other wallets as well.

So either is okay.

No it isn't.  It's a site to give cryptocurrencies a ranking based on their market cap, and after that provide other useful statistics including the volume.

You can see clearly here that the 24 hour volume of cryptocurrencies right now is about 4 billion dollars.  At no point have I seen it surpassing about 6-7 billion dollars.

So how does the market cap drop by $40,000,000,000 in just a few days you ask?  Because market cap is complete and utter bullshit when it comes to cryptocurrencies, and it always will be.  End of story.

I laughed extremely loud when I saw some of the bold claims they make about themselves on their website.
They only seem to have popped up in the last couple of weeks, and they're already claiming to create better code than Bitcoin Core?

You're forgetting the absolutely giant distinction between all libertarian societies pre-capitalism and the kind of libertarian society that you're advocating for now.

The distinction being that even though there was some level of property rights and personal property, these were people living in villages and tribes which didn't communicate with each other well, nor have to encounter the tribes on the other side of the country 24/7.

In a modern society, when anyone can talk to anyone else or go to anywhere else, it changes completely.  Because people think "no, I owned that land first!" and feel a sense of entitlement over the land.  That's why the concept of land ownership, and thus capitalism, has caused shitloads of wars and would continue to do so under "libertarianism".

"Bitcoin XT is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for"
"Bitcoin Classic is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for"
"Bitcoin Unlimited is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for"
"Bitcoin ABC is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for"

The last thing Bitcoin needs right now is even more proposals that only have small distinctions from the previous ones.  More proposals = more FUD about division.

If you're going to support larger blocks and/or a dynamic block size, why not stick with Bitcoin Unlimited, since you supported that anyway?

Checked r/btc.  The claims that it's a scam look something like the one in this thread.
Your argument here very much resembles the argument by assertion section on Rational Wiki:
Unfortunately your logic relies on the "we have proven this many, many times" kind of logic without making it clear where these points actually are.

---

Only SegWitx2 is poorly tested and new.  SegWit itself has been around for ages, and is already implemented on Litecoin.

Property has to be stolen at some point for it to enter the "free" market.  The only reason that you can freely buy property is because someone violently stole the land from native Americans.

While private property is sometimes a necessary practice, it's not the holy grail of freedom that suddenly makes everyone love each other.
Not if people are employed in the public sector, which they already are.  The public sector doesn't have business incentives, so it doesn't ignore the consequences of producing things as cheaply as possible for the consumer.
You could get through hundreds of people poisoning their foods in a private system before people stop using your service, and there would still be people who didn't know that you poisoned your food.  In the public sector, the place just gets shut down as soon as there's evidence of the activity.
It's free at the point of use.  The purpose of taxes is to give responsibility to those who earn more to support people who earn less.  It's not their fault that they get ill, so they need a safety net.
Bullshit.  Rich people also use roads and the public sector.  Everyone does.  Poorer people are not lazy either - companies have the incentive to make a cheap product and the consumer has the incentive to buy a cheap product, so they get labour as cheap as possible.  That means that there are still millions of slaves in the world, and that millions of people are forced into terrible working conditions.  It's lovely for you to think this way with your Western labour rights but outside of America libertarianism is barely supported by anyone.

This is about physical cash.  The stuff you hold in your hand.
Yeah, but do they really care?  This is one of those situations where we'll all hear about it but the majority of the public don't understand just how worthless that kind of digital cash is.

If people can still spend cash on everyday items for small things, a lot of people won't notice the cap.  Some of those who do notice it will still believe that bankers' digital money is an innovative new technology or that it's necessary to prevent money laundering.

---

Anyway, moving to a cashless society is just one small step towards the debt-based monetary system collapsing.  It may take hundreds of years until it actually does, but it's got to happen sooner or later.

The point of a bank is convenience.

Originally, Bob would deposit 1 ounce of gold or whatever into the bank, because Bob finds it difficult to carry that gold around with him when buying the goods.  In exchange for that gold, Bob receives a paper note which the public knows represents one ounce of gold, which Bob can then spend or redeem for his physical gold at will.

In the modern system, you deposit your cash notes and receive digital money.  Banks also create digital money when they give loans, and it disappears when loans are paid back.

Bitcoin already is digital money, and because of the blockchain, banks are not needed to provide that convenience.  Bitcoin already has it.

So Bitcoin is a replacement to the banking system, and therefore Bitcoin doesn't have to be used in banks.

---

Anyway I'd better vanish from this topic, because it's rapidly becoming a spamfest.

It's not like BTC has a reputation for having a stable price and that it's suddenly vanishing.  Even this kind of crazy volatility is normal, and the public who know about BTC believe that too.
If they jumped in purely out of speculation from the price rises, and they were never prepared to hold for a long time, good riddance to them.  BTC doesn't need those trigger friendly puppies who don't give a shit about how BTC is actually developing.
They don't care about the fork.  They're either here to try and win credibility points for insulting Bitcoin Unlimited, because they don't understand what the fork actually is (these are the people that sell), or they're here to win credibility points for insulting chain splits in general and feeling like they're the voice of reason and unity.

Side note - SegWitx2 only requires 80% support from hash rate.  The previous threshold of 95% isn't necessary for this.

Do you even know what BTC is?  Do you know what a block explorer is?  Have you ever heard of a distributed ledger?

I guess blockchain.info's URL is confusing to some newbies.  They're just a service which displays information about the blockchain, information which is publicly accessible to you.  As for the price shown on there, it can differ from other places because BTC exchanges often have differences in price.

Still, if you didn't bother to find out what BTC is before (I suspect) investing in it, then I don't give a shit when you lose your money. 

In order to spend your coins from GreenAddress, you need to sign the transaction and they need to sign it as well.

You set limits for how much you can spend from your wallet, and you use 2FA, so that they only sign the transaction if it complies with what you have allowed yourself.  This prevents an attacker from stealing everything in your wallet.

However, last time I checked you can't export the private keys from GreenAddress.  While your funds are quite safe in general, they might not be handled properly during the chain split on August 1st.
If you want security in the scenario that GreenAddress stopped providing their service, yes.
Your forked coins might not be.  Ideally, you would have a wallet that lets you export private keys, and I don't think you can do this with GreenAddress.  As web wallets go though, it's pretty good.

It's all about money.

Who can control the majority of hash rate?  People with money.

Who can control the majority of nodes, if they want to?  People with money.

Who can control which chain wins on August 1st?  People with money, and people who receive or provide services related to money (merchants and exchanges).

Unfortunately, BTC ends up with people who were greedy in the first place having a lot of power.  But the fiat system is worse, and there's nowhere better for me to go for now, so I'm gonna stick with it and see where it's heading.  It still hasn't 100% gone to shit, anyway.

Tether is weird.  It hasn't actually been pegged to USD for ages, and USD isn't pegged to anything either.  There's two layers of screwing you over - Tether themselves, and the US government.  Might as well just go straight to fiat, or into something safer like precious metals for long term.
I don't get what you're talking about.  Having BTC on an exchange is risky because the exchange is holding it for you.  It's likely that the exchange will just give you whichever chain is expected to do better or whichever one you already held, and ignore the other one.  You just need to hold your coins in a wallet where you control your private keys.
Well, it's mainly to do with what you'd be exchanging the fiat back into when you close your position.

If the exchange lists both chains, great - you can deal with both of them.  However, you were probably just shorting the legacy chain, which is where it gets confusing.  You'd really be better off not getting lost and closing your position to withdraw your coins to your own wallet.
Not any more than it would be in another time, as long as you don't have any BTC debts to pay (an open short position).

True.  I'm absolutely all for union rights and job security but when it comes to offering people who work at crypto exchange a stable job it must be difficult, considering that most of the revenue should be coming from static fees on their trades and that the trading volume tends to decrease after crazy rallies like the recent ones.

That said, I'm still skeptical of crypto exchanges' inability to have enough workers.  I mean surely support staff must be quite easy to attain on the Internet.  It seems shocking that Poloniex has been having trading volume of basically a billion dollars on some days, and yet they still can't just respond to tickets or keep their trades online. 

It's activity like that makes me think that many of the exchanges are usually either incompetent or malicious (along with the fact that Cryptsy and Mt. Gox are already gone).
The regulation is the government's decision rather than BTC users' decision.  Sure, regulation pressure from BTC holders would help, but it wouldn't be the deciding factor.