Ok I have been using the nem nano wallet recently and the full NCC and also downlaoded the android.

2 features may I suggest:

1] In the nano, I can not see (and it may be there) if a copy my address button is present, I can only see send, and QR?

I think having receive next to send will help newbs and a copy button next to the address

2] If there was a button that allowed one click back up of encrypted wallet to dropbox, mega or onedrive or some such, and one click retrieval this may be neat.....but I understand the security implications if peoples passwords are not strong enough.

Also perhaps some stenography so it is not a wlt file but hidden a jpg of you choice or something could be a feature, that would make it easy to visually remeber and almost impossible to use as an attacker would not know what to look for.


Generally speaking the speed of nem transfers is very very good, most impressed and the nano wallet has a nice interface.

the rednem link seems to not work/resolve

scv mine more minerals

when I see lisk  I think of Starcraft minerals

I think this a good opportunity for the NEM dev and foundation to set up some serious funding for years to come.

Good we are narrowing your arguments even more::

Your stuck on a solution, and not addressing why you need to bring the rest of segwit with it. You best tested. Ok. but why do you need to bring all of it? You can just excise the quad scaling soln.

You then go onto name calling, which appears to be a stereotypical response for you.

This was not the reason for introducing mimblewimble to the argument. Rather it was you proposition that other coins face worse scaleing than BTC at BTC usage levels. I agree many do. But some don't, NEM and mimblewimble seem to offer better options. Maybe even Dash due to the structure of their insensitive scheme to run nodes

 
[/quote]
its "Mumbo jumbo".

Also comparing tulips a perishable plant, that can't really be deved or forked on github, is at best anachronistic.

Your appear to occupying almost the exact position of anti bit coiners on speculation or FIAT holders on BTC.

I accept that BTC is by far the reserve currency status even if it goes to 30% or something just due to volume, trading pairs and fiat in and out.

the market cap and volume, as well as tech progress even though a lot of it is hype and scamcoins, still paints a largely one way graph, and that is a decline as to trade volume and percentage market cap.

Your objection was must solve the quadratic problem for blocksize increase. Fair enough, I agree. I point out that segwit is not a condition precedent to that part of the code, you counter it is a condition desirable or precedent, I say it could be a road block to BU or other, so why not compromise, and point to flex trans, which offers code that also solves the Quad problem. My point being, using a solution to a issue, you initially pointed, but have not really given a reason why this means all of segwit has to come with it.

My point being I am trying to reaches a compromise that lets us go forward.

we both misstype, as you did earlier "digital cold" you meant "digital gold" I think, I was gracious enough at the time not to harp on it. You would be better served by doing the same.

Yes there are often trade offs, but TPS solutions have market appeal and there are superior ones to the current state of BTC was the contention. You admit mimblewimble has a higher TPS and lower ovehead. My point was there are other algos that provide solutions to scaleing, more efficiently than BTC. I feel BTC is trying to be an everyman, and being squashed between ETH, High TPS, and Backbone solutions, better anonymity. BTC with segwit, LTN, nimblewimble, tubmlebit may solve this.
  
I made the initial proposition that ETC ($300M) was available to your complaint of "not mutable trash like ETH." You did not address this any of your responses.

So this example can not be raised [by you] with any confidence so end of that argument for you

This is exactly the mindset I am talking about one that has hedged any alternative into it must be them and not me at all costs

Anyway at least your narrowing the issues now arguments you have abandoned or I have clarified

[1] The Bitcoin development process and team is by far superior to any other altcoin. <-Pointed out the does not matter if salient changes not included

[2] The developer do not decide anything, thus this statement makes no sense. The developer can merely propose and develop changes.<- clarified by dev I meant development not Devs.

[3] Both XRP and NEM are complete shitcoins. No reasons elaborated.

[4]Then go complain to your pool/miners which are holding the network hostage. Segwit will activate, with or without the miners <- pointed out I am not arguing in specific pools or even segwit etc but towards the implication in general stagnation

[5] There is no such thing as the "Flippening". That is complete bullshit made up by r/btc fanatics who are actually deeply invested in altcoins <--All terms are made up terms. You have no credible argument here. It has a meaning that many could attribute to it as to when BTC becomes less important in all aspects that an ALT and cannot recover.

[6] Using gox as malleability as an argument for anything on chain because we don't know what happened.

[7] ETH is cancer <--does not provide substantive arguments, excepting mutability does not address ETC on point

There are other solutions, I am using quadratic as a place holder for that issue, if you want another why not FLEXTRANS solution to meet your initial objection / comment.

I did, by giving and example of an algo that is massively more efficient than BTC, niblewimble

ETH is cancer, Q.E.D.

You and others may appreciate how that does not quite constitute a proof, though it may make for the shortest white paper ever.

No substantive argument, not even a search term, they even have a let me google that for you if you want:: please let me
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=seach+terms+how+to+use+google


Yes you did make a false comparison to the point I initially raised, we both agree on this.


Mt.Gox was on-chain, due to TX malleability (or the claim of). That's the closest you get in Bitcoin to the DAO disaster.
Well Karples may have us believe that...if so I accept I am wrong on that point. I hope you will forgive me If I don't quite believe Karples version of events.


People don't make concerted  argument without reason, and self interest does not always make the reason bad, in fact it make be a manifestation of the importance of that reason. It's all part of the the conversation in the search for truth, I aim to be untouched by the deleterious emotive feelings that can hinder moving on or not accepting evolution to an improved idea. I take no position on BU or Segwit beyond something has to be done, and what is happening now is at best tragic. I want BTC to succeed and see every reason why it should.

Ad hominem, also why do you need he segregate witness part, you originally only insisted on quadratic.



No substantive argument:: ignores the differing algo's another would be nimblewimble;

[/quote]
Orthogonal argument, talking about hedging by value with very little cost to BTC position is not EQ to X algo is cancer.

Apparently has a rebuttal but refuses to enlighten us.

Also note for clarity while could, I chose not to use "ad hominem" in my next exposition of the point just to close the gate on any possibility of that argument sounding again.



Your right it is irrelevant to what you have written because what you wrote is orthogonal to my points  being ETC is available to you and satisfies your criteria, You have agreed your own written words are irrelevant to my point made. I agree to that as well.


No substantive attack, Mt. Gox occurred off chain....again orthogonal argument.

I must say, your the most entertaining witness to have on cross Lauda

Japan being now BTC legal, I wonder, I just wonder if the Japan Postal Bank might diversify a fraction of their  2T holdings into BTC to seek some better returns than zero.

lets say 99% or Alts are scams

We have over 1000 alts which mean at least 1~10 will not be scams, 1~10 are legit.

Same again for ETH ICO's. it take a 1000 failures or more to get a good one.

I think we are forced to hedge into some of the more *legitimate* alts just as insurance against BTC problems

No, It forks, and that fork obtains tech, ethos to prevent that happening again, and the market ascribes value, see ETC for a $600M case study

Yes I am not that bothered if I loose $2 or get filmed at starbucks buying a cofee.

But I am really upset if my $2 is glued my hand or have to pay an indestructible robot $4 to take my $2 and give it to the cashier.

I want my coin to be able to do both.

So if BTC is high value only, and it maybe I expect coins designed to do that to win out like *PPC*, which is actually designed to be a backbone currency in a way BTC is not.

I am convinced alot of bitcoiners and people in the crypto space have little idea where the actual value in transactions occur, and its not at muh, amazon, muh coffee shop. Its in high value swaps, balancing the nightly, money/futures markets. Buying and selling 100,000's of Houses a day

It sort of funny when you think about it the real 51% attack comes in the form of lost of market cap, and through impotent development
implementation.

This was a very unexpected attack vector.

I think its needs some sort term coined for it....as a cautionary tale to future coins....

I shall call it a

Devexed [Attack]

when the failure dev implementation causes your coin go below 51% of the market share or similar. This causes a coin to go into a death spiral as to market and use despite high demand. There is also an usual pathology where the proponents of conflicting development solutions are incapable of seeing the other side of the argument or reaching any compromise and even attack any suggestion that their position is deleterious to their eventual goal.

I know I know it blows my mind....how is it they are not seeing this .... how are they so entrenched in their positions while their house burns down they say .... we both need the tap turned on more, I want to use the wrench I want to use the shifter and they fail to agree, worse still its almost as if they in habit the same body and one hand is against the other.

The tragedy is watching this all unfold, when everything is in hand to solve it.

I see the miners will have paper weights, and I would hate to be a miner that owes money, as you wll likely have some very interesting people visiting you and core, will be left without anything to core about and drift of to LTC et.al, while loosing most of their BTC value.

In the context of BTC is all about consensus, the cannot get achieve this.

Matthew 10:36

Your changeing the goal posts here and not including why.

First it was fixing quadratic, now you want segwit (the rest of it as well). You need to set out more precisely enumerate up front the list of non negotiable's in your mind and why to properly elucidiate and do justice to your position.

Many scale better, or have solutions now, LTC, NEM much better TPS, possibly Byteball, IOTA. 3~4 TPS just is not sufficient for the usage we see wanting to use the BlockChain.

The USE case can be divided in to the current use case and the inchoate use case, which envisage what may be dealt with by say LTC + segwit, ETH or NEM. Indeed the promise of BTC is the inchoate use case as against FIAT which is probally its largest current driver. So your argument seems a little too temporally bound to the here and now .






All terms are made up terms. You have no credible argument here. It has a meaning that many could attribute to it as to when BTC becomes less important in all aspects that an ALT and cannot recover.

You don't have to switch to eth, you can have both I am not sure why you think its a binary out come for the investor. Say you have 100 BTC, you take out 0.25 btc for the ETH ICO, and you have the same % of ETH and you have of BTC.

It does not effect you value in BTC much at all, but you have secured a roughly equivalent percentage stake in ETH. This mean those who do not diversify risk being left behind, those that do judiciously become agnostic and safe either way.

Why are you stuck/persist in this binary mindset?



You are attacking the character of the coins NEM and XRP, by name calling them. You are not setting out a bundle of reasons for your objections. Rather just use an expletive. Maybe that expletive is justified, but you gave no reasons as to why, excepting now we have extracted a few, as in use case,


Even if your right, ETC is available to anyone that does not like ETH/DOA, which you did not address, and is orthognal to any of your issues raised.

In the alternative, your not right because the code base allowed something to occur in eth that cannot occur now via the DOA or DOA like attacks. The is by class similar to what happened to BTC. In fact in the BTC case, new coins were created, in the ETH/DOA case it was a reallocation of existing coins.

a usb, or charge card, that Joe can load up BTC too, and they can beep across a scanner.

If they loose the USD / Charge card they have lost the BTC, If you find one you can use it.

So just like cash.

Theres no such thing as spam, if you can get a transaction included and pay for it its legit.

What is the critical market cap / event(s)  / non-event (eg failure to adapt) that will see a terminal decline or marginalization of btc and over what time scale?

I feel an alt, say eth having a larger cap and volume than BTC for about 2 months will be hard for BTC to recover from.

If BTC moves to Number 3 or 4 by market cap even harder.

I know market cap is massively misleading,  but its populist nature is alot of its power.

If BTC does not scale within 2 years is my time frame.

I wonder what the miners will be doing with all their paper weights at that point, particularly the highly leveraged ones?

When compared to where it could be and in terms of market share, and versus say ETH, LTC, and NEM.

I know it may look health but step back, see where we could be.

We are what 200$~300 more than 2013?