The address isn't “extended” by no means. You're referring to Electrum's invoice whose expiration can be set by this drop-down:


Addresses can be used anytime and never expire. You should just click on this text; it returns you this, which clarifies the situation:

It's true, just in an extent. It's true that it frees you with the avoidance of trust, otherwise people wouldn't use it.

Yes, these're people. They have different mind sets, different beliefs. Some think happiness comes with more freedom, some others with more regulation. Still, you haven't answered on why the latter should happen.

Of course and rules are required to maintain order, but it is repeatedly proven that those who gain control, sooner or later, abuse it for their own interests. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any, but just less regulation.

There's no point to continue this further as you lack understanding of what's consensus while you're abusing vocabulary at the same time. I quit.

Again, what's irrational and what's not is not down to you to decide.

What if I told you that it's irrational to not care about inflation? What if I told you that I do care if it's minus a “few” percent?

Because you can't. Setting up your own altcoin means you're outside Bitcoin, where everybody agrees. You still haven't acknowledged that Bitcoin is worth so much, because of consensus. You can't comprehend that this is what people evaluate and not numbers in a database.

There are other things in life besides money. How about your family and youth? Also, do you surely have the guts? I don't know if you've realized it, but you're betting your life for Bitcoin's success. I'm convinced it'll worth more in the future, but I'm not going to bet my life for it.

But yet, it's the only product that can be cut into millions of pieces with a click, transferred from one part of the planet to the other in seconds, be easily verified, resistant to censorship and completely durable. So, I assume that if lots of people think same like I do, that it does look like a currency, then I see no reason on not using it likewise. Call it belief.

What's so bad if we want to deal with it?

Good, that's a feature. It's a feature of free market. You still deny that you don't know your future purchasing power whether there are collaterals or not. You've only focused that, on paper, you'll own an amount.

(You used the word “voluntary” vaguely)

Look, I don't know how much money does the PhD cost or how old is your brother, and I neither want to seem pessimistic, but I find it highly unlikely that the equivalent of $100 in BTC are going to help much, even in the long term. Those days when you could have a +10000% within 4 years are long gone. Nevertheless, they'll definitely help.

Also, don't keep them in an exchange as there's no point. You don't teach him anything, you're actually give him the impression he owns something while he doesn't. Setup an open source wallet, withdraw them there. Read the replies above.

None, unless you think what I'm doing is irrational.

I'm very sure I don't ignore your point. I've understood what you're trying to say and I'm explaining you that there's another way to see things in life.

This is just your opinion.

I'm protected by the collaterals, but who's gonna protect me from inflation?

Wrong. I don't believe people will ever give me things voluntarily. I'll have to pay them in our agreed currency.

I never said that, you made it up. All I said is that it's a hedge to inflation and I like it as a concept. It fits my character.

Exchanging stuff using Bitcoin does create new value, as it contributes to division of labour. (Which in continuance, creates value)

But, Bitcoin is not such scheme, because:

---

But, cost has nothing to do with the utility. Just because there's a cost in the procedure of extracting something from the ground doesn't make it useful.

Banks supposedly consider both the same, whether it's a bank note or a promise of a bank note. When you own a $100 bill, you can redeem it for a $100 worth liability. So, I'd say that you can actually “buy” other people's debt with cash, again if we consider that banks consider both the same. Therefore, you're indirectly owed if you hold their money.

No need to comment the example you've given... No one's gonna redo the work for the last 510,000 blocks. Ever heard of the $5 wrench attack?

Even if that's the case, the grain of sand gains market value if hundreds of millions of people find it utilizable. You can't deny that a group of people actually use Bitcoin, whether they're irrational or not.

So, it just became meaningful, you're wrong and case's closed.

That's a lie. Emphasis mine;


And yet, you keep making the same kind of witless questions.

First, this is solely your opinion, diamonds are scarce, but we don't need them to live, and second, I can live with Bitcoin.

But, it ain't just a number. I can't create bitcoins by drawing numbers in a paper. You're becoming a laughing stock.

---

You can't comprehend that money is beyond debt. You only want to prove us all wrong, because a “number in a database” sounds too moron to be traded with fiat currency. Well, guess what: It's not. People like you, who are conservative and not creative enough, can't see what's Bitcoin. Please allow the others to think otherwise, thanks.

As for irrationality, you're the most irrational and obtuse person in this room, as far as I can tell.

Yes, that's what we mean by hard forking. It's entirely possible to have a distinguish between amounts prior the change and after the change. For instance, the transactions with the extra decimals could contain some sort of prefix to avoid your problem.

I think we've taken a completely hypothetical scenario. However, if it ever became extremely expensive, it's a reasonable question that requires some discussion, you can't just deny that Bitcoin must remain the same. Every time it changed, it was for the better.

The grain of sand example again. This discussion has got to the point where it restarts. It's a loop. You call irrational people who evaluate differently than you do, because they may have a different treatment.

Welcome to my troll list.

Why don't you do it? Why do you want our responses if you think it's a good idea? Dave told you that it's pointless as Bitcoin promotes immutability, but you disagree. No problem, that's why forks exist.

Fork the code and start modifying it. Do what you believe that it's better for the community and if it gets recognition, you will have made it. However, this will not be true:
And it'll never be true, because the moment you, either individually or collectively, start censoring what's Bitcoin and what's not, that very moment, you will have harmed the principles. And I know that when people put their privileges above their principles, they soon lose both.

The following remain purposely unanswered.

This doesn't work to me, but instead of 127.0.0.1 I enter 192.168.X.X.

Not sure if that's recommended unless your internet provider can't track your router's info down.

I just tried and nope. It's not unless you modify the source code as said above. (Check NeuroticFish's response)

You might want to check this: https://raspibolt.org/electrs.html

Once they pay their loans, the debt is repaid, but the money supply remains the same. Isn't it? Anyway, I think we're missing the point here. You're asking me why wouldn't I want the dollar, I'm telling you that it's constantly inflated from the near-zero limit of required reserve. You then ask me why would I want a currency that is used by anonymous people, I'm telling you that it's a hedge to inflation.

You asked why would a person buy Bitcoin; you've already gathered a lot of answers. Why can't you admit there are valid?

Their definition would definitely contain the following: Is there a law which will enforce you to use it? That's capital.

Hey, hey, hey, I saw what you did there. It's an unfair comparison due to different GDP's. In 10 years, it'll be far easier for a company to reach $1T market cap (I suspect) than it is currently.

Consider quote a part of my message and not the entire message. It'd be less annoying.

Which is regulated by the regime. I can't setup a federal reserve system as that'd be illegal. It's legal for the banks, because the government says so.

I'm taking an example where they haven't borrowed anything. I own every cent of all the banks and I'm ready to lend to anyone who'll ask for new loans. This is what you're doing too with the BTC.

Neither is Bitcoin intended to be observed in your screen. Also, both are capital if two individuals say so.

I think I was clear enough when I implied that I don't trust the banking system for living. That I trust something which promotes principles proportional to my character, such as free speech, freedom of choice and free markets. Understand that people may have different socio-political beliefs.

Let's assume you're the owner of a number $40,000,000,000. But, no one wants those anymore, because the socio-political regime is overthrown. What can you do with $40,000,000,000, which can be inflated anytime by the way in contrast with your 19,000,000 BTC.

If we're going to take completely hypothetical scenarios, be my guest.

It's advisable to mention that there are many kinds of value, e.g., personal value, intrinsic value, market value. Value should not be unconsciously translated to price.

They can neither eat the shares. There has to be a supposed agreement between the parties, whether that's legally enforced or not. You don't like that. You've invested your time to create these videos that you've become biased. You keep thinking of Bitcoin as a number in a database, but you don't comprehend that it helps some people's lives.

Maybe that's the problem with you. You don't believe that people can live all by themselves. You remind me of this: