Probably just a bot trading with itself, plus some FOMO from day tards seeing the volume spike.  

Initial distribution is by air drop.  Think golden shower but greenish brown. 

Amir has been tied up in some dodgy stuff in the past.


This sounds as much the makings of a cult as Bitcoin development.

FTFY

Of course the concern you raise would be valid in the BCH context where there are no full nodes to patrol the actions of the miners.  

As Roger loves to say, full nodes only get in the way. Darn tooting they get in the way of fraudulent miners.

An address from 2012 ?

Incorrect.

Segwit was a soft fork.

Segwit transactions are valid under the old rules.

It would take a hard fork to make Segwit transactions invalid.  

That doesn’t stop a miner from blacklisting Segwit addresses.  But they can blacklist anything they like now, that’s got nothing to do with Segwit.  They  can also blacklist legacy addresses or can mine completely empty blocks should they choose.

Blocksize is a security parameter.

Go look at the sharding clusterfuck at ETH if you want to see where decentralised block size increases leads you.  

Segwit signatures are still on chain they are just in a different spot.  Segwit moves the signature out of the input script and stores it in another part of the transaction on chain.

Speculating about future hard forks that might compromise Bitcoin security is pointless because any hard fork could compromise security in any number of ways.  And be rejected.  That’s what full nodes are for.  

It’s still a hard fork which would be opposed by the vast majority of economic weight and users.   Go ahead and make your Bitcoin Plus Plus or whatever you want to call it. No one cares.

That’s why Bitcoin relies on consensus.  USAF taught us that miners don’t mean shit in Bitcoin.

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well. 

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

If you mean Potts Point and Toorak then yes.  There’s still an ass load of koalas round my part of town.

I know of a lot of Aussies who have gone for a walk under eucalyptus trees.  

Have you ever smelt koala droppings?


Edit:  Maybe this should be our next poll.  

My money is on Ecuador post 29 March 2019.

Well let that be a warning to you sir. 

I heard all the trains stopped running because it hit 25C over the weekend.

More the point, their opsec is good enough that it doesn’t matter if the computer they use to browse the web is compromised.

Actually security tokens need to be taken quite seriously.  

It is a pathway towards disintermediating traditional stock exchanges.  Issuers don’t particularly care where the money comes from, so long as they can access it.  They certainly don’t feel the need to pay the NYSE listing fees plus book building fees to BAML, GS or JPM if they don’t have to.  

If issuers can issue security tokens to a global audience of investors direct, they should save 10% or more of the raise that gets chewed up in by financial intermediaries.  It is far more efficient to just run an ICO.

Obviously there are security law barriers in place, but people are working on overcoming those.  And securities regulators are being surprisingly facilitative.

What does this mean for Bitcoin you ask?  Well you have to pay for the security tokens using a cryptocurrenxy. Right now ETH has the inside running as the premier fund raising platform.  But the lack of transparency around ETH’s monetary supply means it represents a poor store of value.  

This leaves Bitcoin as a significant winner from tokenisation for the payment of dividends and purchase of securities.  Even more so if we can get RSK happening and create security tokens as a Bitcoin side chain.