Here are the reasons why this can't happen, at least at the moment.

• Volatility. You can't realistically make a living by using a currency that does +-5% a week.
• Few accept it. There's a significant adoption done this in the last 5 years, but it's just a tiny fraction when it comes to all the available stores.
• Propaganda. (Climate change, criminal usage, pyramid scheme or bubble etc.)

This free service is back in action. 

Added: Exchange rate.

No, this is not what I meant. I just said that the minimum value of Bitcoin isn't constant, because the cost to produce it constantly changes.

Again, the cost of producing Bitcoin isn't strictly connected with the value. There's a demand and a supply. Whether the energy rises to the top or falls to the bottom, the only thing that will change is the cost of producing Bitcoin. (ceteris paribus)

Energy can't worth $0. If we assume that the price of all kind of energy sources fell by 50%, then it'd suddenly become much more profitable to mine bitcoins. That would mean more computational power willing to be used. As a result, difficulty would skyrocket.

That it may function falsely. Welcome to software engineering.

You can't know you have a bug until you do something you'd never done before which appeared an unexpected result. The only way to lower your chances is to do structured programming which makes your code easier to read and develop further by third parties. It also takes less time to build things that way.

From my experience, when I start over-complicating my code for some reason, it's usually when I know I'll have trouble.

Start reading: https://www.ptsecurity.com/ww-en/analytics/vulnerabilities-rbo-2019/

I'll skip the mining efficiency proposal. You've got a perfect, summarized answer from odolvlobo.

Come on, seriously? That's an even worse answer than franky's, who believes that the main reasons are the block size and the low income. The main obstacles for adoption are clearly political. The problem is outside Bitcoin, cryptography, computer science.

Two are the main reasons; the volatility and the government's brainwashing, which includes misconceptions about the energy waste. Most people have got a false idea of what's Bitcoin, because the media have misinformed them so. They can't understand the benefits they can gain if they do this collectively. Most don't even know how money works.

It doesn't sound familiar to me. It may sound to you, though, who doesn't like any second layers and who can't comprehend that blockchain is inefficient.

The fact that you're comparing Lightning with an implementation of this meaningless concept is just underwhelming. It has already a solution on the first layer, no need to extend this further. Lightning is for micro-transacting, which can't be done efficiently otherwise.

But, keep trying. Everyone's ignoring you.

This is not true. First of all, it's not the reason they own your money that diminishes your privacy. It's the fact that the know which are the outputs you own. If by decentralized mixers we mean coinjoin, there's still a party that knows what you own.

Secondly, decentralized mixers aren't more private, that's the problem. If only they were. There's no case, I know, of a person who got traced after they mixed in ChipMixer, which is the most trustworthy and well-known. On the other hand, you can find lots of cases where a coinjoin was just not enough.

There's no purpose to create another useless token for this reason. If you want to ensure you'll own coins in X years, just follow the steps below:

• Create a new seed phrase and derive an address.
• Sign a transaction where you send all of your coins to that address and make it valid after a certain block.
• Lose access to your coins. (Delete the wallet file, destroy the old seed phrase etc.)

Now you have no coins until the block you chose is mined. Needless to say how not recommended this is.

It's used along with the public key, to verify the ownership.

It can't, because in each transaction you need to include the input, which is the id of another transaction (and many other values[1]). Each transaction is unique due to this identifier, which is the id (AKA TXID or transaction hash). You can't have the same signature, because you need to sign an entirely different message each time.

[1] https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/transaction-data

Okay, fortunately I turned out wrong. I guess case's closed now.

And what do you want from me? My soul? It's none of our business what you're doing with your money. What do you expect us? To give you investment advices?

Can you access the external drive from Fedora? If yes, have you tried using the datadir parameter?

It should be some sort of /mnt/tmp.

Edit: (datadir can also be set in the configuration file as rightly said above)

Dude, you make no sense. I've tried to concentrate and read this utter nonsense, but it's like a smash in the keyboard. Why do you have to keep appearing here when there's a drop in price? Stop torturing us, please. For God's sake.

We don't disagree, I'm just pointing you out that it's not the same with Bitcoin, because those sudden drops in either the price or the required computational power can redefine the cost.

If 1 BTC is valuated at $40,000, but there's a sudden Chinese black out which affects lots of Chinese pools that contribute by owning a significant percentage of the network's hash rate, the cost of producing 1 BTC will decrease once the difficulty re-targets. But, the price has no reason to change, because the supply has remained the same (it's inflating by 6.25 BTC every ~10 minutes) and so is the demand.

Another example, but with change in demand: If there's a intensive trend of selling, which essentially causes drop in the demand, the equilibrium price will decrease. This, as a consequence, might discourage some miners, temporarily, to continue mining, because their income might have dropped by a lot. It is reasonable to assume that the cost of production remains the same, but it's not. In the next difficulty epoch, difficulty will lower which will decrease the cost.

Sure, cost does affect the market value. All I'm saying is that the value of a product comes from the fact that it satisfies one's needs. The production of it does have a cost which is added in the price, but that's true until there's one who's willing to buy it. If nobody wants gold, no matter how expensive it is to mine it, the valuation won't be greater or equal with the cost.

Take oil barrels as an example. In 20th of April 2020, crude oil prices went negative. The cost was much greater than the market valuation, because the demand suddenly dropped.

You've got your answers, I just want to add you my two cents regarding the way you'll make your purchase. I recently wrote a post where I discourage newbies to use centralized exchanges such as Binance, KuCoin, Coinbase etc. Do me a favor and read it.

You won't keep them on the exchange, I know, you've got perfect answers either way. However, there's no reason to hand out your personal information to such party neither.

3:35: "But, there was also a concern about climate change". Yea, tell that to the bankers.

I expect to see Bitcoin recognition if it ever happens. I can't look forward to using Bitcoin, knowing the torment I'm avoiding. Especially when cash, which is yet the most private way to transact, is replaced by such nonsense.

All the black economy will move into cryptos, lol.

Also,

No, the costs are the costs. The value comes from the fact that there's a demand. If there's no demand for gold, it doesn't matter how much it costs you to extract it from the ground: It's simply valueless.

However, in Bitcoin there's something different. The costs are somewhat connected with the valuation, because of the difficulty, which is a parameter that does not exist in any other asset. If the demand rises by a lot, it brings more competition into mining which makes it, in consequence, more expensive to mine 1 BTC. Oppositely if the demand drops by a lot.

The canon is the canon, though. If there's no demand, there's no market value, despite of the costs.

I'm bumping this. Also, Ratimov, could you please include one of my recent threads[1] to the encyclopedia? Thanks!

[1] Newbies: Don't use centralized exchanges!