"Scalability isn't important until it suddenly is. Decentralization isn't important until it suddenly is. Privacy isn't important until it suddenly is." — Some random Twitter guy.

There are two scenarios. One's that privacy suddenly becomes important, people dislike this situation that comes from these strict regulations and educate themselves. Peer-to-peer trading increases, centralized exchanging decreases and so fourth. The second is that nothing happens. People simply choke this down and move on their lives, in a more regulated manner, which sounds much more probable.

This ignorance of the latter reminds me of how significant it is to have privacy on a protocol level.

Sure, but look what's the difference. Having Bitcoin is not the same as using Bitcoin. The former is like a "revolution from the sofa" while the latter is what's resistance needed for. And, even if it sounds pessimistic, I don't believe that people will rebel for their privacy. Yet, most don't even rebel for their debt-based money.

There's no downside.

If you use option A, you can spend all the inputs at once, which will reduce the fee by a lot, especially if you used a different transaction for each input. If you use option B, you can choose to either sacrifice your privacy and spend all the inputs at once, or retain it with a higher cost.

Anyhow, option B is better, because it leaves you choose to either do it a la option A or even better privacy-wise.

Search my history, go ahead, I wonder where will that get you. Yeah, I've said that Bitcoin won't establish a global adoption, but there are reasons other than the block size, such as:

However, the block size is, indeed, another reason. Maybe increasing it a little bit won't harm, but it'll only blunt the scalability issue. It won't fix the problem entirely unless there's great percentage of decentralization sacrificed, which is why I propose second layer solutions. No need to start this debate, we all know how obnoxious you become when you talk to Lightning "fangirls".

Clearly their fault. He was willing to play with everyone, but they weren't eager to follow his rules.

Dude, you're definitely not alone. But, there's this thing you've probably misunderstood called "consensus". Support Bitcoin Cash if you want big blocks, no problem. That's the beauty of forks after all. But, please, leave this community alone as the overwhelming majority doesn't agree with you. Dictating does not work in these systems.

One week. Just one week and I'll have it removed, I promise!

Why don't you scale it? Take the damn code, make your edits and convince people to use it. Bitcoin Cash-ers did it, switch to it to avoid all this hustle and bustle. No... You'll stay, because there's something keeping you. Something unique, that you can't find it elsewhere.

To avoid any misunderstandings: I don't say that changing the block size is necessarily a bad decision; we may have to, in the far future. Understand that it's the imposing way you want to implement your proposal, that I disagree with.

The main reason is the first one, IMO. If they cordially approved it, it'd probably knock the rough edges off the rest of the problems.

There's nothing completely anonymous in the internet. Only levels of anonymity. Even though Bitcoin does provide a decent level of anonymity (if used properly) it's still not used in criminal activity as much as the media say. Studies[1] show that nearly 1% of the total transactions can be linked to anything illicit. There's also no studies which show that the ban of cryptocurrencies reduced criminality.

[1] https://cryptoforinnovation.org/resources/Analysis_of_Bitcoin_in_Illicit_Finance.pdf (page 4)

Yes, franky. The reason why it's not worldwide adopted is the block size. Sure, franky.

Can't you do the same with a non-custodial wallet that supports coin selection? (Such as Electrum)

There's no need to trust a third party app. You only need an HD wallet that derives new addresses each time it's queried.

---

Your text is a little bit confusing. In case I haven't understood it correctly, could you elaborate?

No, it's not.

The foundations of cryptocurrency, as an idea, are very strong. It is well known that peer-to-peer, decentralized networks are unstoppable. Of course and they can be regulated, but there's a limit. If you deposit your coins to big, centralized exchanges you fall back on the central point of failure. Don't. Use a DEX. You'll always be able to move them across pockets without anyone's permission.

I know no fundamentals that include the transition from crypto to fiat currency. This is what's going to get harder to do.

Thanks for the fun and keep up with that enthusiastic spirit!

Nah. It wouldn't last long 'til few smarty-pants sold the answers. After all, we already have a crypto knowledge meter: Merits. Those with the knowledge vote those who are knowledgeable with their sMerits.

Of that I'm agreed, though. 

Here are few reasons off the top of my head.

• They'll make tons of money from the media.
• They're curious to know how they are.
• They want to know if they're still alive. (And has still access to their money)

Generally, for those who make this kind of researches it's probably the former. 

But, the environmental damage of mining bitcoins is pretty much convincing, I'd say, for someone who's no idea about it. If they don't even know that Bitcoin is a currency, it's very easy to conduct propaganda against this energy waste for a "non-tangible thing".

It's not. School focuses mostly on the vocational training and much less on critical thinking. It pushes you to study exact sciences, but not sociology and economics as they're "secondary".

And, unfortunately, that makes perfect sense as it doesn't favor those in power. They'll brainwash you to death to feel you need them. At some point, even ideas worth spending which will attack this broken system, will be rejected biasedly. Take Bitcoin for example. This Morhpeus quote takes the cake:

Hm, it suits me. I may keep it for another day.

It's not a dilemma. It's just the well-known shitposting technique.
Seriously now, I'm impressed by how some people have the time and willingness to clean up this mess voluntarily by reading and reporting every kind of shitpost. Congrats and thanks, but I find it masochistic.

Wow. You're really, really stupid. I now have my doubts that login captcha works properly.

If you want more suggestions,

• Chain size.
• Blocks until next difficulty.
• Blocks until next halving.
• Hash rate.

Proud to be a Bitcoin geek.

Just by running a Bitcoin full node, no. However, you can earn few sats by running a full node along with a Lightning node that has a few channels opened.

Just to add that you don't necessarily get paid if you run a node, even in PoS coins. For instance, in Cardano[1] there are the core nodes, the edge nodes and the relay nodes while only the core nodes participate in the consensus mechanism.

[1] https://files.ifi.uzh.ch/CSG/staff/Rafati/Kursat_IS.pdf (page 8)

Twelve phrases? Perhaps you mean twelve words?

Let me get this straight. You want a program that has a seed phrase as input, it checks lots of children's addresses of one of its master public keys and if it ever finds one that's included in addresses.txt, it'll write that address and its private key to found.txt. Is that correct?

This must have happened on purpose. I guess it implies that intelligence isn't equal with passion. Right?

My IQ is higher than that unless the word that refers to a specialized type of building in a garden that is used for the growing of citrus trees isn't "Orangery".

It's an application.