Isn't a similar thing happening in NY and NJ? They're regulating the 3rd parties built around cryptocurrencies, not the cryptocurrencies themselves(As that's likely "impossible").
Yes it's impossible that they can regulate Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency as it is, specially Monero. How are they going to control transactions that don't show in any sort of ledger? good look with that lol. |
|
|
|
Most of the people know nothing about Bitcoin and just say random stuff.. then other people just repeat like parrots. But that happens in everything, not only in Bitcoin.
I think people here get paid to post confusing FUD to create even more confusion, they are probably hired by the NSA to try to crash the price (okay, i need to stop watching Infowars) |
|
|
|
You cannot predict the future of Bitcoin, why bother to keep trying? Everyone predicted it would be 10k a coin by now
Not everyone, I always said we would be stuck with a long term low price of 200 ish if not lower, before a mega pump happens. Let's see where we are at in 2 years. |
|
|
|
I think we an agree that the blocksize does need to be increased, the question is more how we can go about doing that without having sidechains and massive problems with mining and people not updating.
I would be for increasing to 20mb, might as well largely future proof things. I don't see the number of transactions increasing more than 2000% anytime soon.
If the fork happens when it should (90% of people already using XT) then the problem of people not updating is not actually a problem. |
|
|
|
Why? Look at Nxt. It is clearly the next Generation of Crypto Currency. Where does this leading position come from? Definitly someone, who is involved in Crypto-Dev for a long time. Someone for whom Bitcoin is from yesterday. Nxt is Ethereum..right now   Nxt isn't ground breaking enough to be called "next generation of cryto". PoW is still better than PoS, if you weight in all the pros and cons.. dont get me wrong NXT is great, but not enough to dethrone BTC. |
|
|
|
The OP probably considered it as a joke and not serious enough to belong in the main section of the forum. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Why do we have to hard fork the blockchain? why not just modify these codes at bitcoin-qt, and every one using bitcoin-qt can recognize the lagger block.
Not everyone, the old versions would not accept the node as valid only recognize the first 1MB of a given block, thus splitting the network into those running old versions and those running new versions. This is what is called a hard fork as your client either accepts the changes or not read the first 1MB or the whole of the block. The number of lines you have to edit does not matter. It also does not matter if you push the hard fork into the future by a certain number of blocks, it only lessens the impact of the change as its more likely for people to update over a long period of time than it is over a short period of time. So : "every one using new version bitcoin-qt can recognize the lagger block" Do you mean these few lines changes = the whole hard fork thing we are talking about everywhere? i see people talking about two independence blockchains. If we go as my way, there is only one blockchain, old version qt can only recognize the first 1mb of a given lagger block, new qt can recognize 20 MB of it, that's it. No, the old version can not recognize the first 1MB of a block, because you would try to give it a bigger block. It would look at it and say: nope not valid and be done with it. Changing the old version is a patch that makes it no longer an old version. Why the heck people don't agree with this change?: if blocksize> 1MB then blocksize=1MB to if blocksize> 20MB then blocksize=20MB isn it? is the reason Gavin Andresen wants the change. Gavin will go for hard fork only if 90% of the network is running on XT. The Red part is the reason Gregory Maxwell does not want the change. GMaxwell is proposing the problem to be solved by implementing a very complex thing called lightning.netwrok. But even with Lightning Network, we'll eventually hit the 1MB maximum block, so whats the point? we need both things if anything. |
|
|
|
|
Like looks like a reasonable approach. I also predict that the 200-300 range is the new 1-5 dollar range of the early days of stability. It's good news if anything, this only means a lot of extra time to get as much BTC as possible on this low price. After 2020, I don't think it will be possible to make 1 BTC anymore monthly for the common folk.
|
|
|
|
|
So Lawsky finally delivered at last?
Would like a TL;DR version in lawman terms for the common folk that isn't into the bureaucratic jargon.
|
|
|
|
It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.
If PEOPLE choose to run nodes on XT, then XT will be the strongest chain. If people stick with Core, core will continue being the main chain. That's all. The devs can do whatever. At the end of the day, Bitcoin is nothing without the people running nodes. The people will decide what solution they prefer. How many actual people (or humans) are left running full nodes currently? I thought that only large ASIC/server farms were doing that now. This proposal centralizes bitcoin even more because it makes it more expensive to run a node meaning that it favors the large mining cartels. This is a centralization coup to control all the future development. If Gavin can get the big boys to switch, then he controls the network, because it would obviously be easier to get them to switch again next time. Because with each centralization fork (TPS scalability increase), there will be fewer and fewer nodes to convince to switch protocols each time until there is just one giant GVINODE!!! At that point, the only person he has to convince to make a change to the protocol will be himself, which is incidentally the way BitShares works for every user (not just the king). Every user has to convince themselves what fork they want to support, then they vote their conscious, and the blockchain counts the votes and instantly implements the consensus. Gavin is not just promoting his proposed bill, he is fast tracking it through Congress and will sign it into law weather you like it or not. He controls the protocol that mints your money. Of course he would not be so audacious as to raise the 21 million coin limit today, but when he controls the Gavinode, then pure power is just a mouse click away. Wow....first the TPP, then the Freedom Act, now the Gavinode. Is bitcoin more centralized today than it was 2 years ago? We continue down this path toward centralization for the perceived benefit of "scalability" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-02/americas-biggest-secret-wikileaks-raising-100000-reward-leaks-tpphttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-02/freedom-1-0-surveillance-state-maybe-senate-passes-un-amended-usa-freedom-act-billThe battle for decentralization is never ending. Good thing that we live in a community where our voices are heard and our votes are counted! As far as I know, running a node is simply having your Bitcoin Core (or XT) wallet sync and open. That's all. As far as industrialization of mining. This was something satoshi predicted. He knew making money off bitcoin mining for the average single person with a computer would only be profitable at the beginning, and as time goes on professionals would gather to do it, so I don't see the big fuzz about this. Don't get me wrong, I think the 20MB idea is useless and only a small patch, but staying 1MB is equally stupid (including LN, which has elements of centralization too anyway). |
|
|
|
what is hosting and domaine cost for a faucet?
Any regular hosting provider will do to run a faucet. You only need run the code. Look the basic hostgator program and don't get a domain thats too expensive and that's all. |
|
|
|
only basement dwellers would talk about bitcoin on a first date
if you want to atleast meander around the edges.. just say your an international currency investor..
Lol, that sounds great, it's actually what I say, not only with girls, but male friends, it's just too fucking geeky to mention, we are still the early adopters. Once it's on the news and so on, then we'll look cool because we were there since the begining, while the rest will be posers lol. |
|
|
|
Regarding the OP...Easy.. Make users increase their transaction fee to compete to be one of the few who get into the next block (priority goes to the highest transaction fees). That way, not only does the little guy get to keep his node (when he would have had to shut it down due to increased expenses following this centralization hard fork), but he might be able to make money mining again as the transaction fees increase making it valuable for the little guy to mine (just like he used to do back in the glory days of bitcoin). But that solution (among many others I have brought up) brings decentralization back into bitcoin (and we want that), but since we are not in control here, then we will not get what we want (profitable mining again for the little guy). Instead we will receive centralization. Of course, my simple and elegant solution is not the best for the Gavinode, and therefore will not be implemented. All we can do as bitcoin holders is sit and watch as our monetary system becomes more centralized with each and every (TPS increase for your "benefit") hard fork. There is value in the bitcoin transactions, but it is not for you to be able to mine. By keeping the transaction fees low (more TPS but cheap transactions instead of fewer expensive transactions), Gavin ensures that only the big miners can compete for fees and block rewards, and therefore all mining profits must go to the Gavinode: It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork.
If PEOPLE choose to run nodes on XT, then XT will be the strongest chain. If people stick with Core, core will continue being the main chain. That's all. The devs can do whatever. At the end of the day, Bitcoin is nothing without the people running nodes. The people will decide what solution they prefer. How many actual people (or humans) are left running full nodes currently? I thought that only large ASIC/server farms were doing that now. This proposal centralizes bitcoin even more because it makes it more expensive to run a node meaning that it favors the large mining cartels. This is a centralization coup to control all the future development. If Gavin can get the big boys to switch, then he controls the network, because it would obviously be easier to get them to switch again next time. Because with each centralization fork (TPS scalability increase), there will be fewer and fewer nodes to convince to switch protocols each time until there is just one giant GVINODE!!! At that point, the only person he has to convince to make a change to the protocol will be himself, which is incidentally the way BitShares works for every user (not just the king). Every user has to convince themselves what fork they want to support, then they vote their conscious, and the blockchain counts the votes and instantly implements the consensus. Gavin is not just promoting his proposed bill, he is fast tracking it through Congress and will sign it into law weather you like it or not. He controls the protocol that mints your money. Of course he would not be so audacious as to raise the 21 million coin limit today, but when he controls the Gavinode, then pure power is just a mouse click away. Wow....first the TPP, then the Freedom Act, now the Gavinode. Is bitcoin more centralized today than it was 2 years ago? We continue down this path toward centralization for the perceived benefit of "scalability" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-02/americas-biggest-secret-wikileaks-raising-100000-reward-leaks-tpphttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-02/freedom-1-0-surveillance-state-maybe-senate-passes-un-amended-usa-freedom-act-billThe battle for decentralization is never ending. Good thing that we live in a community where our voices are heard and our votes are counted! "Making the protocol process transactions with the largest fees first" is a fair solution that maintains our decentralization, however, we do not have any control over what developments will occur to our bitcoin protocol now, and will only have less control over our money in the future. Is this what Satoshi envisioned? There are many political bitcoin laws that can be passed to bring back the glory days of decentralized and profitable mining for all, but these laws will not be passed because we cannot vote for them. Yes I am against this proposed centralization fork because I don't mind bitcoin being digital gold (valuable and costing a few cents extra to transmit). Let another coin be the highly circulated silver digital currency used for microtransactions. I go for the gold! Gold is not good for microtransactions, but it is the best store of wealth. Unless we adopt a more radical hard fork, then we cannot have both: Of course we could have our cake and eat it too. This is 2015, and it is more than possible, it is proven (but that would mean that we would have to become more wealthy than we were at the bitcoin peak in 2013)(and by the looks of it, nobody here likes money or wants to get rich and quit their day jobs): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078009.0;allUpping the transaction fees has a backslash: It will centralize Bitcoin in the sense of it will become a more and more elitist payment system as fees goes up, to the point only the wealthy can use it, when in fact Bitcoin is at it's best when operating in severely impoverished countries without banking infrastructures. You don't want to make the fees higher because those people would really suffer from it even if for us is not that much. |
|
|
|
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press/pr1506021.htmBenjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services for the State of New York, will deliver remarks on digital currency regulation at the BITS Emerging Payments Forum on Wednesday, June 3 at 11:30 a.m. EST in Washington, DC. A livestream of Superintendent Lawsky’s remarks will be available at the following link: https://livestream.com/FSRoundtable/BITSForumDC , DC Any idea what is this about? Bitlicense by any chance? No mention of BitLicense in ages in his twitter, people was starting to lose hope with it. He said it as supposed to be ended at the end of May. Let's hope he will deliver. |
|
|
|
|
Still holding Tesla, Apple and Coke as basics. If you wanna get on Tesla I would wait till it drops to about 230.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to learn what dollar cost average is. To put it simply: Get a job, and spend a small % of your wage on BTC. After 12 moinths you'll have more than 1 BTC if we are lucky and the price stays low for an entire year, which I hope for, since the higher it goes the harder to get 1 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Huh, the fork will not happen unless 90%+ of people are using Bitcoin XT, by that point the fork would happen and that would mean people wants XT, simple as that.
1MB is not enough, but 20MB is not enough as well, if we want to compete with Mastercard and friends. Right now Bitcoin's transaction per second volume is extremely poor.
|
|
|
|
 Seriously folks, ignore the FUD. There is no altcoin. You cannot double-sell. There is only one chain. Installing XT casts your vote for a potential future increase in max block size. Such a future increase will ONLY occur if/when 95% of mined blocks support it. Yup, and that is great. My question is: What happens if 1MB limit is reached, and we still don't have a clear consensus on wallet usages? I guess that, if there are problems once we reach 1MB, Gavin will be proved right and people will insta switch to XT en masse. |
|
|
|
|
Im hoping by then, the block size limit is totally solved and Bitcoin is able to perform the entire earth's electronic transaction methods combined per second, becoming the top electronic payment method.
Mining (or transaction processing to be precise) will not even be PoW by then, I presume.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
