Done it, thanks. 157 posts.

Thanks again, payments received!

ps: Can I move into that member slot you've got open for Jnr member?

A lot of people would buy up a ton before it hits $1, which would at the very least probably keep it in the high double digits. Unless there is some security issue with the actual code/network, you're always going to have the hard core holders that will keep up the value.

Ah, the lesser known 'pinky pink with pink bits' shade.

That's quite amazing, because it's a little known fact that anyone who's favorite color is 'pinky pink with pink bits' has an IQ of over 200! Just like the OP predicted.

Now, if you'd said 'pinky pink with pale pink bits' it wouldn't have been the case, you'd be knocking at around the 62 IQ mark.
 

Ah, thanks for the answer.

After reading quite a lot of stuff about the block size, and in particular a post by Litecoin guy, I have to say, I can't see what the exact point is to keep the blocks at 1mb. I mean, in the long run Bitcoin will stand to lose more than it will gain by not adapting.

I'm no miner so I know I basically don't know, but as far as I can understand it, Bitcoin needs bigger blocks, and even if it needs bigger blocks in the future and another fork, then so what?

PC hardware was never designed to be upgraded in the first place, but it was built on... and on... and on. It wasn't the end of the world, quite the opposite in fact.

I remember when I was using a 1k 'computer'. You couldn't even fart with 1k nowadays.

Ya, see, I knew all of that as soon as you said pink. But if we want to get deeper into your deep soul, we have to know what shade of pink. Shocking pink, steel pink or perhaps you're a tango pink kind of person.

In which case ignorance was far more practical in the first place

As to the "IQ test" I'm waiting for the 'whats your favorite color = your personality type test' thread.

Don't think it'll ever happen. It would possibly destabilize their Linden dollar. I figure one in game currency is probably enough for them.

I'm waiting for 'No Mans Sky' to come out and hope that Bitcoin is enabled in that. Be great if it is! But I can't say I've heard any word that it's a possibility either.

I think gaming in general really needs to step up with integrating Bitcoin in-game.

It's hard to answer that question, but I also know what he means. This is  a strange statement that perhaps only the older generation from the UK will understand now, but mass suicide killing was just never a very British crime. This was probably more due to gun restriction and of course, a much smaller population... but it definitely seems that it wasn't something even a nutter from our culture/country was ever likely to do. Has happened though, but he did a 'Rambo' was how we referred to it as.

We just liked to think that even our criminals weren't that ridiculous and cowardly. Kill yourself, fine (this is not a suggestion, by the way) but don't kill other people because your going through teenage angst and the most popular girl in school won't sleep with you.

The UK is now also saturated with US media and it definitely has a heavy influence on UK culture, rightly or wrongly.

This is a good question, I've also wanted to clearly know the answer to this.

What about companies that have API's or have built something connected to the blockchain? Will they have to do something at the fork? All of them? Because I imagine that would be a nightmare to do every two years.

Or is it not like that?

That's good. Not so long ago Bitcoin insurance was a touchy subject, then Lloyds of London published their insurance guide for it and it seems the standard practices for Bitcoin insurance are being implemented.

To anyone else looking to get a Trezor, I put it in another thread but figure it might be helpful here too: Trezor is now down to $99 and the price for the DHL delivery is lowered too.

$99 is for the white and grey Trezor though, the black one is a touch more expensive. I'm guessing the colors white and grey are less popular for Trezor?

Damn, since 'revolutionary' has been said so many times, I'll go with: Radical

Ya, there was a contract I saw on Reddit yesterday where if you put your vote in the Ether was burned, so I kind of wondered if it was always burned when smart contracts were created.

Thanks for the answer.

I think the protocol is very interesting, to be sure. If it develops the way it should/hoped it'll be very special.

I just want to know though - because no matter how much I read about it I'm still not sure - what is the total amount of Ether there will be?

Is there a hard written quantity in the code that is irreversible? As far as I can make out, that's not the case and no promises have been made not to increase the Ether supply. Is that correct?

I understand that each time Ether is used it's burned, is that also correct?

Thanks in advance

Whatever you choose, thank you for your service, and that goes for all other miners too. You carried the flame during an important phase of the Bitcoin revolution.
 

Pretty much most of ^this^. Bitcoin isn't really first and foremost about the money for me, it's the whole concept of it and its reasoning for creation/existence that interests me, and the fact it draws attention to the broken financial system like nothing except a crash does/has. I see it as a tool for ones freedom and sovereignty.

I see it as one of the most important inventions - at least in this century - and comparably in history too. Note I say 'one', not 'the', because no one can deny 'the wheel' or anesthetic. 

A sig campaign is just a nice addition for posting what I would already post anyway. I think it also depends on how you take the minimum or maximum  required/allowed posts though too. Either way, it might lead to many posts or too little. The one I'm with seems about right for my usual amounts of posts when I'm a member of a forum.

And besides... it'll pay for the Trezor I've already bought... which of course, has now gone down in price to $99. If only I'd waited a week or so

The interesting part about the Bitcoin decentralization experiment, is that after sometime, those involved in it when it increases to a large enough degree, cannot agree with each other about anything, so progress becomes impeded.

Then people choose organizing bodies in the hope that it will change, but the more power/influence the individuals in that body have, the more they go in oft mutually exclusive directions for a variety of reasons, power/ego/greed/other, then even those in the leading body with lofty principles will clash with the former.

Then, the 'public' would naturally want to find out about which 'leader' they should believe/choose and open discourse begins. Before long, some clever candidate realizes that emotions affect votes more than logic does, and before you know it, there's Satoshi Nakamoto in a photograph holding a baby looking like a swell guy.

There is actually a very good reason why centralization exists, the Bitcoin experiment can be seen as something of a macrocosm of society and how it functions in view of mutual benefit - which is arguably the main point of all societies.

Were Nakamoto to stick his oar in, he'd ruin his own experiment.

Ya, I like the picture but I also thought it was one line instead of three different development lines. I would have put a cheque book after the newspaper, because I mistakenly thought the whole image was time frame related from top left to bottom right.

Nice image though.

I think Canada is doing well with their 'hands-off' laws they've enacted to allow for Bitcoin business development, and Australia is making all the right moves too. If I had to choose either of them, I'd probably go with Canada. Not sure how much actually Bitcoin economic activity goes on there though.

I think there are perhaps two different answers, one country for positive laws/regulations, and another for Bitcoin usage.

I mentioned this on another thread somewhere, and although at first it sounds a touch unusual, Bitcoin holders can essentially create a nation... not a state, but a nation.

A nation doesn't necessarily need or claim land ownership. Here's the Wiki definition of a stateless nation:

'A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation


What's the point?

A cohesive group (by vote) can provide greater direction, and be viewed from the outside as such. Nation status can also possibly exist as a legal entity, or at least grant it more weight/rights on the international scene.

Democracy. Using the Counterparty protocol on the (Bitcoin) blockchain, an asset can be set up that will effectively be connected to the Bitcoin nation.

Vote tokens can be distributed via this and so provide (hopefully) clear democratic consensus on Bitcoin future decisions.

All that's really needed is a point of focus website that explains the current vote and its ramifications and so on.

It's a practical move rather than a political one, but either way, the nation would already have it's own currency at the very least.