The currency is your choice though.  The government only declares what the legal tender is in the system (the fiat currency) but this is not oppressive.  In Northern Ireland, I'm told that the old pound coin is technically out of circulation, but shops routinely accept it - anyone could use anything as a currency.  In fact, if I said "I'll give you some magic beans for that cow" an you accepted the deal, we could equally view magic beans as a currency.

My point is that what the government declares about currency only restricts the free market if trading with anything except the legal tender was illegal.  Even if they restricted the use of Bitcoin or any other specific currency, even that would not affect the free market any more than restricting the sale of currently illegal products does.

Buy low, sell high is simplified but it's still correct.  Buy low doesn't mean buy at any time and wait for it to go up - the phrase clearly means to buy at the bottom and then wait for it to rise.  All you have to do is find a more predictable coin that goes up and down regularly and doesn't completely collapse when it goes down or get too mental a pump when it goes up.  There are several coins like that.

There's also buying low and selling high when a coin has potential (it's a good idea and could have its price rise a lot from demand, or could just be pumped), but that's unrelated to bot trading because bots are mostly based on buying and selling stable coins based on minor variations during the day.

It's only failed in the sense that it hasn't gathered enough support to occur.  It will never objectively fail, just as Classic is still dragging itself along the floor.

It's only a small drop and doesn't properly show that BU has lowered yet.  It might be that it's just significant block variance, or it might show a slight decrease in small miners' support due to the potential for SegWit in Litecoin, but either way it won't topple Bitmain or any major pools so it needs time.


EDIT: Time has passed.  It's definitely significant, but SegWit still hasn't overtaken BU yet.  I blame F2Pool.

Depends what altcoins you're trading.  Some altcoins stay pretty stable up high even if there has been clear manipulation (like ETH).

Even with altcoin trading a lot of analysis can work, such as the background of the coin, developers, the coin's aims, etc.  That's the sort of analysis that most people who trade altcoins need to take part in to avoid losing money.  The great thing about altcoin trading is that most cash going into it is dumb money and you can completely take advantage of that without having enough money for a pump - most newbies don't do this analysis before buying the coin.

Also, with Bitcoin there is never actually a guarantee that the price will rise.  It's a very risky trade in itself, and the price rising for a long time is only because people keep investing in it, when in fact Bitcoin naturally would be inflating due to an increase in supply.

No agreement like this is unanimous, there will still be large amounts of Canadian Bitcoin users who support Bitcoin Unlimited.  Things wouldn't be smooth after a hard fork in this state, but that's why it's a consensus system - if Bitcoin Unlimited received enough support for the hard fork to happen, it would be a lot smoother.  Their views and code are just there for other people to review and consider.

The Bitcoin exchanges views can't be conflated with that Canadian statement either.  Their statement was not necessarily in opposition to a fork (although Coinbase seems to think so, which is why they oppose it) - it was clarifying the status of BTU on their exchanges.  It's reasonable to classify BTU as an altcoin on these exchanges, not because it's the same as other altcoins per se but because it's a new coin which will be separate to the original/previous Bitcoin, BTC.

Your choice of how much you pay for transaction fees is based on how large the transaction is in data (bytes) and is measured in satoshi per byte (one satoshi being the smallest unit of Bitcoin, a hundred millionth).

Unfortunately, that means that if you're sending a small transaction, it's likely to still be large enough in terms of data to have a high fee and there's not a lot you can do about that.  In most cases you'll be sending upwards of $5 and it won't be too significant, hopefully.

It's unstable, but by design it's stable.  As I believe from John Nash's ideal money, a great form of money should have an inflation rate as close to zero as possible without being deflation, which allows the ideal money to be a reference money for value just as a metre is for length and allows people to trust the currency.  The best way to achieve this is by creating a system in which there is natural inflation (introduction of new currency) which contributes to reducing deflation rates as adoption of this currency increases.

After the adoption has occurred, the rate of new currency's introduction should stabilise to zero to prevent future inflation, as Bitcoin's introduction does through halvings.  This way, Bitcoin becomes stable as:

-Adoption has occured

-New money supply is prevented.

Governments are incapable of keeping this stability because the only way they can stabilise currency is by introducing more - bringing money out of circulation is not at all the same.  Furthermore, when a currency has an amount of adoption which it can't move past without economic advancement, that's when it can stabilise.  Fiat currencies achieve this through their use in nations, whereas Bitcoin does this through its potential global use.

I answered the Big Question a while ago, and just made it clearer.  Please read the new edit, since you haven't read any of my other posts, or maybe I'll consider putting you on ignore.

I refuted it in the post before the one above, by analysing his language - his language was arguing that Core had failed to create consensus, which is true.  There isn't consensus.  You grudgingly admitted that that was the intended meaning by arguing against it in your edit.

Or maybe you just didn't read it, as I clearly said "Please give me an example of an ad hominem used", about Danny Hamilton.  You didn't respond to this, showing that you either didn't read it or didn't care.

Unless you think liar isn't a negative trait, it's definitely attacking his character.  Your word that he's a liar, repeated over and over again now about 15 times, does not make it so and you constantly claim to have proved it with still no proof that I cannot at least argue against (if evidence is clearly arguable, it isn't evidence, it's an argument).
 


In case you didn't read the rest of my post, the Big Question:
I answered that question in my above post:
If you had bothered to read it, you would have seen that.  However it is impossible to answer the question without diversion as the question itself is biased, assuming an implied meaning of Danny Hamilton's post which you had not explained beforehand despite your supposed "proof".

Just a couple of posts ago, Carlton, you said:
Danny clearly addressed it directly by suggesting that you were distorting his wording - suggesting that he was talking about Core when it was addressed at divisive users.

However, you cannot respond to that directly, instead you insult the argument ("semantic sleight of hand") which responds to your attempts to twist the grammar used in his sentence.  You also refer to the colouring, which is used as a sign of frustration at the lack of thought in your post (note, do not call this an ad hominem, I'm insulting your post not you) and also to make it as clear as possible for the reader to comprehend.

A consensus system is based on individuals.  It requires a large majority of users to support a specific version of the network - a large majority of individuals, that is.  You are an individual.  Arguments are being presented to you and other individuals which are believed to frequently harm the debate for other individuals.

Please give an example of an ad hominem used.  I only see attacks on posting and content, not on individuals - the closest to an ad hominem is your "sense of superiority" which in my view you are displaying from your belief that your opinion is "the truth", whereas as Danny Hamilton showed in his previous post, you called him a "liar" and "manipulative" (attacking an individual, regardless of whether or not it's true or you believe it's true) over 10 times.
As with everything that requires a new consensus, the previous one was viewed as insufficient by a significant enough amount of people to result in open argument favouring a new one (which Danny Hamilton did not take part in).  Therefore regardless of whether or not they were right, which I actually generally believe that they were, the beginning of the argument was their inaction.  Danny Hamilton, notably, does not say the argument you suggest he did at any point even though I do.





Edit: You said the following earlier.

censorship
ˈsɛnsəʃɪp/
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

To put it differently, censorship is preventing public information from being viewed by others.  On the contrary, no one has done that.  Danny Hamilton suggested putting you on ignore - which I might do if you direct any ad hominems in your reply (which I have carefully avoided doing to you) but this could not prevent it reaching a wider audience.  This hyperbole does not help for reaching a consensus - it helps for spreading fear, and is divisive in debates.

I know very little about technical aspects of either side, but I know that when a post is centered around hyperbole I can display my understanding of context and interpretation in the English language instead.

Nearly no merchants actually accept Bitcoin, and those that do only get a select few customers who pay in Bitcoin.  You go to big cities, a couple of shops that you searched for happen to accept Bitcoin and then you've decided it has serious adoption when it doesn't.  Altcoins are backed by their potential use, which is the same reason that Bitcoin is backed (plus the "digital gold" thing).

If you sent Bitcoin to the wrong address, I'm afraid you're not getting it back.

There's no definitive "Bitcoin team" - there's the developers, Bitcoin Core, but they can't decide to override a specific transaction as there are no third parties which have power over them (this is a huge part of the reason for Bitcoin's existence).

If you sign a message from an address, anyone can go and search on a block explorer and find the Bitcoin in that address and transactions that have gone to or from that address.  It won't necessarily compromise your security, provided that you're quite sure the address can't be linked to you.  You won't be exposing your private key, so your Bitcoin would still be safe provided that what you use to sign the message also isn't linked to you.

Japan is known for innovative technology as much as Europe is.  I think you're just being racist towards Asians.

China will continue to be the world leader in mining and some other reasonably stable businesses which can be ran with Bitcoin.  However, this is not inherently a problem to decentralisation - the problem only occurs when this business is concentrated in the hands of just a few people.  Unfortunately, mining is concentrated in the hands of a few people, but this is nothing to do with "China" per se, as if it is one single entity.

So in that sense, no one will be a world leader because the only people that have control are the miners (which can be anyone and Chinese monopolies can be dethroned at any point by businesses) and the developers (as well as those holding Bitcoin).

The reason that Bitcoin hasn't failed is a mixture of two things:

-Even less consensus from altcoins (they all have different intentions)

-Loads of people HODLing and not giving up for any logical reason.

The problem is that on the forum we have you favouring Litecoin (arguably the most logical standpoint, since it's well-established and SegWit is a possibility), loads of people favouring Ethereum, some potentially misled people favouring DASH, some people favouring the even less scalable Monero, et cetera, et cetera.  Even though the end goal is slightly less definitive, this should be viewed as a lack of consensus just like Bitcoin is struggling from.  Even if Syscoin has activated SegWit and Litecoin might activate it, there will be people flocking to coins left and right.

There are as many good methods to earn Bitcoin as there are to earn fiat currency, you just have to actually participate in things and offer your services to people who are willing to pay.  You can always earn fiat currency and convert it to Bitcoin, and even if you don't do that you can just offer something on the Services section of the marketplace and be successful.

As for obvious ways, there's signature campaigns like mine (but don't treat them like a job) mining (but it's expensive / hard) and trading altcoins (don't jump on pumps).

If you have a decent starting capital, you can always put your money into investments - among the best of them are casino bankrolls.

Bitcoin isn't 100% public and USD isn't 100% anonymous.  Bitcoin transactions are public from the blockchain but they're pseudonymous as addresses are hard to link to individuals.  While Bitcoin isn't anonymous and those who don't take very careful precautions can be caught, it's a lot more anonymous than digital fiat (e.g. bank transfer) so if you're doing anything online, Bitcoin is the best choice since a lot of criminals already accept it.

Even cash USD, while having separate purposes to Bitcoin, isn't 100% anonymous.  Also, if you think that USD is accepted everywhere, you're pretty arrogant about how national currencies work.

If you are looking for Japan based exchanges, Bitflyer is the biggest.  That'll let you buy up to 250,000 yen worth of Bitcoin (at time of writing about $2,250) each month with only a phone number or Facebook account.  After verification you can buy more.

If you really want to be safe with your Bitcoin though, I would try LocalBitcoins.  It's anonymous and lets you do cash transfers, so you could buy large amounts of money from a trusted seller.  Unfortunately some people sell LocalBitcoin accounts with high trust sometimes, so the best thing to do is choose more than one account each quarter and exchange with cash since it's not reversible, which would make you anonymous and mean that you're not dealing with an exchange.

Yeah, it's margin trading.  A lot of exchanges have it.

Pretty much all lending services are going to be pretty risky, so the important thing is not to loan all your money at once, but the problem is that you can't make a lot of profit from a small loan so you have to have a pretty large starting capital.

The problem is that the chance of defaulting on these loans is huge because if you do a long term loan they'll have to pay back the loan plus the hugely increased price of Bitcoin, which makes them very likely to fail even if they're not trying to scam you.  On Bitbond, loans are usually denominated in USD, which means that with 13% interest rates per year you're going to fall way behind the Bitcoin price rises in earnings, which makes your loans meaningless and potentially they could dig into the profit you would have made from HODLing.

Paying a low fee is not being "selfish" or "greedy" it's just sending a transaction which miners can just not confirm for a long time.  The fee market is part of what makes the choice practical - you want a quick transaction, you pay a high fee.  The price rising is not what results in a higher fee, it's just that Bitcoin isn't scalable.  Litecoin, on the other hand, is more likely to scale (and this might help Bitcoin, really).

I wasn't here in 2013, but maybe people were just going too fast, if they were really hyped up.  Nostalgia is a terrible thing though, because it makes you see everything through rose-tinted glasses.  I doubt 2013 was quite as perfect as you remember.