It seems that the world and his brother is taking the blockchain and cutting it at a specified height, and they they splice anewly created chain on the end of it. This isn't a fork, but is a parallel chain with a divergence. Calling it a fork just makes it sound as if the Bitcoin blockchain is under attack.

I'm waiting for someone to invent a "rope". You take the existing blockchain, and weave in the new additions that have compatible transactions. This wouldn't be a way to avoid exchanges, as it would be a completely new coin.

Well done - Russia has changed dramatically, and I understand you have some of the healthiest food in the world. Once we ( The UK ) have thrown off the shackles of the Keiser Reich, and are no longer forced to accept their low quality food products, I hope we will be able to import some of your non-GM and organic food.

Transaction fees are set by users, and not by miners. If you don't want to pay high fees, then don't submit transactions offering to pay high fees.

Well they want to create a new world currency to replace the dying fiat currencies, so of course they wantr to regulate Bitcoin. They should be looking at the Renminbi and the Ruble - those are much bigger threats to them.

There is an advantage to the Bitcoin community if I move my coins into a different wallet. It means that multiple outputs will be consolidated into one tansaction, and this will reduce the size of the unspent coins pool.

I'm on your side - I run a full node - 0.15.1 , and I do it over public WiFi.

I used to run two - the second one was on a Ubuntu machine, but I decided that it wasn't worth keeping the second one. However, I think I'll reload it, and send my cons onto the Linux wallet. Then I can play with the forked coins via the Windows machine.

ps. I'm the one who thinks blocksizes should be halved, but block generation should be speeded up.

Flashy signatures are really annoying, and on some forums, I've had to disable them. Obviously this kills the impact of the sig campaign. One way to make sig moderation self-policing would be to give members the ability to restrict sigs to ( say ) two lines of standard sized alpha-numeric text.

Are campaign managers aware of the number of signatures that are blocked on these boards?

Not if the powers that are trying to repace current fiat systems with a single global currency, and they are trying to reduce Bitcoin by acquiring most of the available coins. The creation of a futures market shows the lengths they will go to in order to suck money out of theBitcoin economy.

NameSilo is the fasest growing domain name registrar, and they accept Bitcoin for registrations, and purchases in their marketplace. They pay out in Bitcoin for domain sales as well. With free privacy, and free market site hosting, I think they are unbeatable. Regular price for a .com if you have a 500+ portfolio is $8.69

https://www.namesilo.com/

I accept Bitcoin for domain name sales from my portfolio as well.

If it doesn't have any previous outputs on the blockchain, it will be rejected by the nodes verifying new blocks.

That is why I want to transfer to a different wallet. I'm toying with the dumping of Windows 10 for security reasons, and I'm also thinking of maintaining a Bitcoin cash wallet with the few coins I've been given. I've also got some very small transactions, and I think it would be useful to consolidate those.

I want to send some coins from my Windows wallet to my Ubuntu wallet. Both are based on nodes using the latest version of core. I'm not bothered about confirmation times, even if it takes a week to get a confirmation. It seems that no-fee transactions may be possible under certain circumstances.
The above quote is from the Bitcoin Wiki.

Another quote is

Are these two quotes still true. or are no-fee transactions dead in the current market?

I think it shows they have a genuine interest in spamming the boards to earn revenue from their sigs.

By "gone mainstream" do you mean it is being subjected to an attempt to control it by the Deep State bankers? Surely that means that forums such as Bitcoin Talk will become even more important if we are to be able to continue to use Bitcoin.

I hope my simple text sigs are not too intrusive.

Signatures are a small way that a forum can say thank you to contributors. That alternative - paid to post boards - tend to be a lot worse in my opinion. I don't spend a lot of time on boards that don't allow signatures. Large text in sigs, or intrusive banners are another turnoff. A simple text string with a max of 3 lines, and a size restriction should be sufficient. It might reduce the clicks for the sponsors, but that could be a good thing, and might contribute to a reduction in spam posting.

I don't think prizes are a good thing. It would just create bad feeling if one didn't win one.

You've rejected account sales, but I hope you will reconsider this. Account sales mean that the reputation rankings are meaningless - I ignore them, and form my own opinions from current posting activity. Also, it is another thing contributing to bulk posting of low value comments.

Blocking signatures completely would be a bad thing in my opinion. I use my sig for various minor things, such as selling bitcoin domain names. This is the only option in this forum if one wants to offer Bitcoin domain names. The market place is full of not very interesting ( to me ) things, and threads are constantly being bumped. However, the problem with signatures seems to come from supporting signature campaigns that posters don't use themselves. They just see them as a means of gaining revenue, and don't care if they are honest, or if it damages their reputation by promoting the sites. One solution could be to restrict links to domains that are owned by the poster. I believe that this would cut out many of the posts that are made to scratch a few Satoshi.

An open board for discussion where a (full) member requirement for posting would be a good idea in my opinion. This could provide very useful reading for guests and junior members, and could generate some great discussions. Advertising on this board could be more valuable for the forum owners as well.

On a personal note, I would like to see a dedicated board for the sale of crypto related domain names. A paid sub-board with registrar advertising, where the registrar accepts Bitcoin or other cryptos, could provide another source of revenue for the forum.

It seems obvious that bigger blocks are not the answer, we need some other solution. Bigger blocks will just bloat the system, and make things worse.

Make sure that your Bitcoin is wearing a burqa. I think this reply is at about the level of the question.

Actually asking these questions is harming the reputation of Islam. Many countries are starting to discriminate against Islam because radical Muslims are trying to impose restrictions on non-muslim countries. It is a matter of conscience, if you feel that Bitcoin is the currency of pigs, then don't use it.

A lot of it seems to depend on the governments perception of possible gains or losses. I the UK, you don't pay tax on the disposal of your car, unless you are a business. This is because most people make a loss on their cars. If the government started to tax sales, then they would hve to allow tax relief on maintenance and losses. However, there is a limit to the number of cars you can sell in a year, if your exceed this, then you are classed as a trader, and then you are liable to tax. There are a variety of taxes involved in the sale of your home as well, I suspect that this is because it is an appreciating asset.

If they start taxing Bitcoin gains, then they will have to provide tax relief for losses, and with a volatile market, some governments may be reluctant to do this. It may also be possible to get rollover relief if you exchange one virtual asset for another. This could include crypto-currency swops, and domain name purchases. Of course, if at any time you take profits or income in a fiat currency, then that could be liable for tax.