Bitcoin isn't even fungible and all transactions are traced for fucks sake.
Then why has no one been caught for all these high profile thefts / hacks? Everyone is always like, "Oh you can trace coinz," but I've never seen anything tangible come from it. Apparently applying block chain tracing methods is more difficult in practice than in theory. Like I said before, government is going to create a fixed address alias system wrapper that goes around bitcoin and force you to use it or be considered a launderer. You're a moron if you think I'm going to install some government version of Bitcoin or abide by any fixed address program. Give me a break. They can outlaw PMs just as easily as they can outlaw Bitcoin, but I know which one is far easier for me to hide from them (especially if I need to move from one location to another). Good luck carrying your life savings to another country when it's literally weighed down in AG. |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't need to be terminated, it just needs to self-fund (along with every other government program).
|
|
|
|
|
If any of you pirates are interested in sharing a file with me, I'm looking for a specific one.
It's called "wallet.dat".
Don't worry, no harm will come to you as you will still have your copy! It only contains some random strings of numbers and letters anyway.
Thanks and yarrrrrr!
|
|
|
|
But what of this article? Number of Bitcoin Unlimited Nodes Surpasses The 700 MarkThe ongoing “competition” between Unlimited and Core nodes remains quite intriguing to keep an eye on. Over the past few days, the number of Unlimited compatible nodes has increased to 736. Quite a significant number, even though it includes some nodes that other platforms may not see as “compatible”. It is evident the Bitcoin Unlimited support continues to grow. More progress is needed to address bitcoin’s scalability in the near future. http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/02/15/number-bitcoin-unlimited-nodes-surpasses-700-mark/ They are toting coming upto more nodes available then bitcoin core. So what does it offer to the network in terms of benefits?  |
|
|
|
Looks like honey badger doesn't give a damn.  You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop giving a shit. I'm honestly shocked they've been able to influence the market as many times as they have. |
|
|
|
No more fractional reserve for them, no more fake coins to be playing with. A bubble is a bubble and they have probably created it.
Let's run with your assertions. Fractional reserve of bitcoins would depress the price (you have more to sell, since you are only keeping a fraction of your reserves), not inflate it. Maybe you could walk us through the steps where fractional reserve leads to a bubble? |
|
|
|
|
Spend two weeks reading as much as you can (in your free time) to educate yourself about Bitcoin, how it works, how to secure your private keys, etc., before you actually acquire any bitcoins.
If you do that well, you won't need to ask for any more advice.
The most important "rule" in my opinion: If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.
When you are confident that you can explain the above "rule", in detail, to someone else, then you might consider buying some bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
Transactions are almost instant. Confirmations depend on the competition to be included in the next block. That competition is what is going to have to secure the network moving forward. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better.
The days of free and ridiculously inexpensive Bitcoin transactions are slowly coming to an end. Many early adopters have turned into spoiled brats thanks to the early days of large block subsidies.
Bitcoin's unique properties allow censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. There is going to be heavy competition to access these unique properties as authorities around the world continue the war on cash and proceed to implement increasingly strict capital controls.
People are going to have to compete to have their transaction included in the global decentralized immutable ledger. That is a good thing for everyone (as it will pay for network security) except those crybabies who think Bitcoin was designed for fast, cheap micro-payments.
Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists. Pay for your coffee with something else.
|
|
|
|
One thing that is clear though is that the future demand curve will be greater if bitcoin has more users then than if it has fewer.
If Bitcoin does not retain it's unique properties in an attempt to accommodate "mainstream" usage, it's just a cumbersome PayPal, and no one is willing to use that. Politics aside, what is wrong with a payment layer built on top of the Bitcoin network? The possibilities for Bitcoin has become wider if there was a LN type network layer that could handle unlimited transactions and say could also become a bridge between blockchains. Real anonymous transactions could also be implemented. Why stop it just because "it does not retain its unique properties"? It is still there, you can still do transactions onchain. Where did I suggest that a layer could not be built on top of Bitcoin? Quite the opposite, keeping the underlying protocol and network lean and robust while scaling via additional layers (which could be peeled away if necessary) is probably the only solution which will allow Bitcoin to retain those unique properties. My comment was clearly directed towards the idea that on-chain scaling via a massive block size increase is a viable solution. |
|
|
|
I'm signalling to miners that I'm ready for bigger blocks by running a node which permits up to 16 MB today.
Good lord, you must pay a small fortune for internet service. |
|
|
|
You're a Nazi when you disagree with a liberal.
/thread LOL. |
|
|
|
One thing that is clear though is that the future demand curve will be greater if bitcoin has more users then than if it has fewer.
If Bitcoin does not retain it's unique properties in an attempt to accommodate "mainstream" usage, it's just a cumbersome PayPal, and no one is willing to use that. |
|
|
|
|
Transactions are almost instant. Confirmations depend on the competition to be included in the next block. That competition is what is going to have to secure the network moving forward. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better.
The days of free and ridiculously inexpensive Bitcoin transactions are slowly coming to an end. Many early adopters have turned into spoiled brats thanks to the early days of large block subsidies.
Bitcoin's unique properties allow censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. There is going to be heavy competition to access these unique properties as authorities around the world continue the war on cash and proceed to implement increasingly strict capital controls.
People are going to have to compete to have their transaction included in the global decentralized immutable ledger. That is a good thing for everyone (as it will pay for network security) except those crybabies who think Bitcoin was designed for fast, cheap micro-payments.
Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists. Pay for your coffee with something else.
|
|
|
|
And would it matter if the 5 BTC in the moment of fork was on my private adress/wallet, OR if it was on some agregated BTC adress/wallet (like on an exchange like bitstamp for example)...? Even in this case i would still own 5 BTC on BOTH chains?
Of course it matters. If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins. If your coins are held by an exchange, you have IOUs, not bitcoins. In that case, if a contentious hard fork occurs and two chains survive the split, the exchange decides which coins you receive. They may let you withdraw your coins on both chains, or they may choose one for you and keep the coins on the other chain for themselves. This is just one of many reasons why no one should ever use an exchange as a wallet. If you want to trade, fine, but when you are finished, withdraw your coins to an address that is exclusively under your control (or risk the various shenanigans which tend to occur at exchanges / central wallets). |
|
|
|
On-chain scaling doesn't seem that popular among users. Seems odd, considering how many new threads are made about this topic every week. Granted, the same actors (vocal minority?) are the ones making all those threads. |
|
|
|
|
If you can pull off a 51% attack, you don't need LN to steal money by rewriting the block chain...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
