Their digital tokens will be represented in USD and Euros primarily. For the time being these provide relatively stable forms of currency with low volatility(although the euro was more volatile than bitcoin week to week for the first 2.5 months 15' when it radically dropped in value) but just make sure you spend those currencies quickly as they aren't stable long term stores of value.

Well it is up to you if you really want to wait for one or more confirmations. It should not be needed with a high enough fee. Of course only when you look at the real blockchain, preferably on your own computer or smartphone. Not looking at a blockchain the other party is showing you.

Maybe bitcoiners should handle ans communicate this topic more. I mean bitcoiners mostly speak about waiting for confirmations though it should not be really needed for most amounts. That might give the impression of bitcoin being slow. While in fact it is only MORE safe with one transaction. And like with banks, you only need higher security with higher amounts of money.

Not all business is bad for bitcoin. I just thought of a great one:
1. Buy an old vending machine. Any kind will do, 'long as it accepts foldin' money.
2. Print up paper wallets with $5 - $50 worth of BTC.
3. Stick them into whatever packaging your used vending machine was designed for -- empty soda cans if Coke machine (throw a handful of sand into empty cans along with BTC. Weight is important for flawless operation), wrap wallet (along with small twig) in tissue paper if candy bar/general purpose machine, etc., etc.
4. ? ? ?
5. PROFIT!

Businesses abandoning BTC is actually good for Bitcoin.
More Bitcoin businesses only lead to more bitcoin spending, -- the exact opposite of Bitcoin hodling, which is what gives Bitcoin value and  what everyone should do.

Chris Odom really nailed it in his presentation at the Bitcoin Investors Conference.

"Everyone is still building 20th century financial institutions with the words "bit" and "chain" and "coin" in their name. And they are going to get disrupted by the very technology they were supposed to be spearheading."

Even better.

Irrelevant. But you don't get it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12379135;topicseen#msg12379135
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12955016;topicseen#msg12955016

It's amazing to see what uncontroversial technical consensus looks like:

BIP65 a week release of supporting version



Now compare BIP101/XT after 3 months


source: https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/block_version/5y?c=block_version&r=week&t=a

The market will force the centralized dev team to raise the limit. That is my prediction. If you decide to prolong the stalemate ("which is the preferred outcome of bitcoin core" according to your cheearleader iCEBREAKER, the ad hominem warrior), your influence will be marginalized. The market will not be forced to follow the devs of one company any longer. The tide is turning.

No, xapo did it before. Those are the market players who will enforce big blocks next year. Zero chance for the steam blocking trolls.

Is anyone else struggling to remember the above? Not saying it didn't happen, bett, but you're possibly being a little too hard on yourself 

I want to apologise to Ice and Berg and anyone one else that I may have had a pop at on this or other threads.

I still remain of the opinion that block size increase (sooner rather than later) should happen. Circular arguments for and against by either side have been done to death, so lets agree to disagree.

What I wanted to apologise for though, is that in previous discussion I have assumed bad faith from those who may hold a different view to me. The one thing we all share is a desire for bitcoin to succeed. Despite 'bitcoin succeeding' meaning different things to different people. When one feels passionate about something it can be hard to not let emotions cloud your thinking. My passion go the better of me, I got caught up in the squabble. I realised it wasn't helping so I took time out to reflect and think about what really matters. That's why now I am posting again.

I think the argument is stupid and pointless, the animosity it generates amongst those on this forum is of no benefit to anyone, this is not a criticism of one side, its criticism of everyone involved including myself.

Furthermore I don't think the kind of discussion going on here or in any other thread is an accurate representation of the reality of what is going on amongst the people that actually matter (devs), regardless of how much one side may try to vilify those devs on the opposing side, or pick over posts to try and mischaracterise their position. I think the truth is probably far more mundane, and that the internet's "drama amplification unit" is in full effect.

I think what will be will be. I think we'll get bigger blocks and I think we'll get sidechains. I think they are both necessary and most certainly not mutually exclusive, in fact I think they are symbiotic in nature, and both crucial to the 'success' of bitcoin whatever that may be defined as. I think you need them both whether bitcoin is a settlement layer, or is used for buying your coffee.

I think I have been just as bad as everyone else. I am human, fallible, sometimes driven by emotion and that they got the better of me. Crucially I hope I have the strength to learn from this and not get caught up in it again.

So, flame on, warriors!

for a core dev like Todd to say this, "Indeed, which suggests Bitcoin is poorly designed" is truly outrageous and suggests he should resign.

and the 2 DevCore video presentations by Corrallo and gmax had the same attitude; Bitcoin is fragile and flawed. gmax said Bitcoin is controlled by 3 ppl. imagine that. what a jerk not to mention poor steward of the code. i'm outraged at these idiots.

Just intuitively, if I were to guess what elements in the space were agents tasked to disrupt, the top of my list would be Peter Todd, Btcdrak, and John Dillon. I.e., Todd and two obnoxious anonymous randos that regurgitate his talking points nonstop.

They can see their vision for btc slipping away from them.

Seriously, I now see losing gmax & ptodd (and adam didn't contribute any code anyways) and their certainly valuable contributions in the past as much less of a problem as their toxic demeanor of being the arrogant and centralized self-elected 'Bitcoin wizards'

Yep, the Blockstream core devs have got to go. They've betrayed all of our trust.

750kb is the limit of a 1MB block. We are already at the limit.

Silly arguments by meme carry no weight. Even though this is not a new development it is an aspect of centralization due to small blocksize. I have always argued that centralization pressures exist when the blocks start to fill up.

Small blocks will lead to fee market!

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

lol NOPE.

In your post you appear to be blaming other people for the failure gain adoption for the Bitcoin XT agenda. Success or lack thereof on this matter is your responsibility not anyone else. You've already gone way over the top on the deceptive and hostile rhetoric, making low and outright misleading arguments, constant appeals to the press after almost universally the technical community analyzed and rejected your extreme positions, all to little effect-- while for the most part we've just quietly endured the defamation and insults. Against dozens of press articles and blog posts you've written attacking me, the developers of Bitcoin core, the many people at my company, etc.-- you will find nothing like that from me (just some arguments with you 1:1 in Reddit threads and mailing lists). You are not going to bludgeon or badger people into performing changes they believe are harmful in their own software; not by yourself and not through any number of violent threat-issuing sockmasters that your passionate blog posts reliably stir up. You are already free to copy changes made to Bitcoin Core, please stop acting like that gives you license to dictate what goes into it and how we spend our time. At this point I don't think anything more productive than this can be said: If you don't like it, then I beg of you please don't use it just as you have been insisting to others that they shouldn't.

Many are missing that Bitcoin can be useful to many people and entities while it is decentralized.

So it can even be useful also to banks.

There is just one entity on the entire Bitcoin system that gains from its current centralisation.

BS. A BankCoin is no competition to a permissionless p2p coin.

Laugh all you like, I would like to contribute to Bitcoin unlimited if I can. We need more alternative implementations for people to choose from. Bitcoin unlimited aligns better with my beliefs then Core presently does.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-ideas-arguments-and-proposals.123/#post-2903