Each output adds 180 bytes of weight to transaction, so if you'll take 1sat/byte as fee (which might get rejected after hanging for some very long time), you'll get a minimum amount that can be moved - 181 satoshi. If you'll use higher fee, you'll have to multiply fee/byte and 180 bytes to get a new minimum amount.
To get the best possible returns out of your dust, you need to wait for a moment when mempool is empty, you can track it here: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size
Recently there was such opportunity during BCH hard fork, and you could have moved your dust just for 1 satoshi per byte. In the future there might be a new opportunity when SegWit will get activated, or before November hard fork.


If you want to get good rate (i.e. extracting 25 mBTC out of 30), you'll have to wait much longer, a few weeks maybe.

It's possible that BCH will have some more pumps in the future, but eventually it will die, simply because it's a shitcoin with zero innovation. Big blocks is not something new, lots of altcoins have different block sizes, block times, and other minor tweaks. The market has proven that all that stuff doesn't work and can only make the network less secure if it will start hitting transaction cap. Don't listen to hype, don't get investment advice from strangers, study how crypto works to make your own judgement. 95% of big price moves are caused by whales to just fill their own pockets.

Don't forget that Crypto-Games has exchange feature with only slightly lower rates (around 3%). So, if you are depositing/withdrawing small sums in Bitcoin (10-20 mBTC for example), it might be faster/cheaper to deposit/withdraw this sum in some altcoin and exchange it for Bitcoin. This heavily depends on the current state of Bitcoin's mempool, so you need to do the exact calculations if you want to use this method.

I don't think that anyone here argues that Bitcoin protocol is permissionless and open, and no one can't dictate others what to do.

But the current situation is that in November there will be 2 blockchains, and developers/users/miners of both will call their chain "Bitcoin".

It will be very inconvenient for users, especially for newcomers, so it's in the best interest of both sides to find some consensus. And currently, crypto community hasn't established any unwritten consensus rules regarding blockchain names after split. To my knowledge, there wasn't any crypto civil war previously, because new developers were adopting new names for their forks.

Cryptocurrency fees are very flexible, and their size determine how fast they will get their first confirmation. If your coffee merchant agrees to accept 0 confirmation and low fee payments, than you can buy coffee with Bitcoins with just a few cents in fees. But it's not a secret that transaction fees of any altcoin are cheaper than in Bitcoin for one simple reason - their networks process very small amounts of transactions, because no one really uses them, since their usage comes with security, volatility and conversion costs.


With this kind of reasoning you should promote Dogecoin instead, since it has only $0.003 average transaction fee.

When people invest in some cryptocurrency, they are essentially investing in developer team behind that coin. This is the reason why no altcoin has ever flipped Bitcoin's marketcap - Bitcoin Core is the biggest and the best dev team in all crypto space, while most alts have some few amateur devs, who can only copy Core code and tweak it on very basic levels. This is why alts like Viacoin, Vertcoin, Syscoin, Groestlcoin, and Digibyte implement SegWit in attempt to get attention. Now, if you think about SegWit2x coin and Bcash coins as alts, it becomes clear that they are no different from Dogecoin, because they lack something that makes Bitcoin valuable - strong developer team.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Multisignature

This pretty much answers your question. You can come up with different configurations for multisig to create levels of authorization for accessing your wallet. Multisig can also be used for escrow transactions.

Literally every other cryptocurrency offers "p2p electronic money with low fees", yet merchants and users are not switching to alts, because the result would be just the same as with Bitcoin - fees will skyrocket. Cryptocurrencies as of now can't compete with traditional payment processors in terms of capacity. If you can't achieve at least 3000 tps with low fees, you can forget about becoming global p2p cash.

This is not over yet, now miners might try to push a 2mb hardfork in November, and since this fork comes with no replay protection and has more support from miners and some businesses than Bcash, it might have a good chances of dropping Bitcoin's price in short term. So, stay tuned for the news, check what important people on both sides are saying and trade carefully, because we still might see some big volatility.

Potentially bought account

Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=106205

Activity gap: May 25, 2017 - August 07, 2017

Was active on Nederlands (Dutch) board, but now speaks fluent Russian

Tries to hire people to post on his ICO thread from multiple sockpuppet accounts - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2073441

Even with very big blocks and pruning Bitcoin won't be able to scale on-chain to the levels of payment processors like Visa. Bitcoin Cash is still a "digital gold", because it can't process 5000 transactions per second.

Running a node takes different resources - RAM, bandwidth, storage, CPU, so different users might have different bottlenecks. Since there's is economic inequality in the world, increasing requirements for running a node will push 95% of nodes to wealthy countries. This will make Bitcoin less secure and permissive, because you'll had to invest thousands of dollars every few years to get full Bitcoin experience of trustless transactions. Poor people would have to use SPV and online wallets and be vulnerable to different attacks.

You are just spreading FUD and shilling for your shitcoin, instead of trying to present some technical argument. I can only feel sorry for newbies who get influenced to buy shitcoins by posts like this.

Now, in reality what that article was saying is that there are hardware limitations that don't let Bitcoin's network to process as much transactions as PayPal or Visa. Big blocks increase capacity at expense of decentralization and security, and this is why no one really wants them. There are countless shitcoins that have bigger and/or faster blocks, time has proven that this does not work, and no one really wants it.

They can release better software, which will reinforce confidence in Bitcoin, cause it's price to rise and make miners switch back to it, as it will be more profitable to mine Bitcoin instead of Bcash.
And Bitcoin hodlers can help this process by dumping their Bcash, causing it's price to crash and making miners to switch back to Bitcoin.

This is one of the problems in Bitcoin community, there is no good way to vote for proposals before they happen. Core tried to solve this when they introduced signalling, but miners only represent their selfish interests.



Longest chain  
I can just fork Bitcoin, drop difficulty and block time and solo mine the longest chain on my CPU.
Longest chain consensus establishes consensus within network with the same rules, it doesn't apply to chains with new rules.
If you wanted to cite Satoshi, you should have said "chain with the most PoW", but this means that miners decide what is Bitcoin at this current moment, and users need trading to establish economic majority.
The problem is, establishing economic majority will take some time, it will be messy because newbies will be losing money to replays, ticker confusion, potential network disruptions, etc. Online wallets will be deciding chain names for their users, which again makes newbies very vulnerable. In the end, we will have new economic consensus on what chain is Bitcoin, which might or might not be the better software. No one argues that this process is permissionless.

What would be great for Bitcoin community (regardless of their views on the future of Bitcoin) is if we had some etiquette rules regarding forks, and maybe some mechanisms to signal your economic intentions, like for example signalling with coins you hold. This could help us avoid months of "civil war" in cases of economic splits in Bitcoin community.

Private/state-owned blockchains are just snake oil or distractions, blockchain is good not because it's secure, but because it's decentralized and consensus-driven, and allows to perform trustless transfers and guarantees immutability. When you try to create blockchain system with permissions, you quickly lose any trustlessness of transactions.

It's all about succession of the "Bitcoin" name after the chain split. Usually, people who introduce modified software, that is incompatible with current versions, are taking new name for their project.
There are no rules and regulations regarding names for cryptocurrency projects, and there shouldn't be, but if you don't have strong community support behind you, you shouldn't try to take over project's name, it would be a dick move.

BCH split has already caused problems for some newibes, they got tricked into installing malware, sent their coins to wrong chains, got confused about the price, etc.
If 2x fork will happen, it will be much worse, because it will come without replay protection, and different services (most importantly, exchanges) might have different stances about names for both chains.

And I feel like crypto community is pretty bad at consensus for names, Bitcoin Cash just took BCC ticker, even though it already belong to Bitconnect.
Perhaps we should agree to name coins by their clients to avoid fighting for names, i.e. current Bitcoin would be Bitcoin Core, Grazik's SegWit2x would be BTC1.

You (big blockers) can all other chains whatever you want in your pathetic attempt to scam newbies, but it's a matter of fact fact that todays economic majority of Bitcoin users runs Core software, and there are no reasons to believe that they will switch to Garzik's software in November. In crypto world, users shows their trust in dev teams by trading coins on free markets. Bcash failed to drop Bitcoin's price, meaning no one lost confidence in Core so far.

First, you should be careful with amounts of BTC you withdraw when you try to use some service like exchange or casino as your mixer. For example, if you deposit 20 BTC, and than just withdraw 20 BTC to a new address, it's easy to notice it on something like walletexplorer. And when you withdraw to different addresses, you should be careful to not accidentally spend-link them (or their children) in the future. Also, more and more people now rely on Monero for mixing, so you might want to take a look at that.

This launch of BATM's is planned by kuna.io as part of their ICO roadmap (other steps include some Visa BTC cards and IaaP project). I'm personally a bit skeptic about ICO's in general, but these BATM's seem to be a real thing, here's their video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh-vJYLf_0A
They plan to launch 20-30 BATM's in Kiev in this month, and increase think that this number can be increased to 150 by the end of the year.
As for fees, they should be equal to fees of their exchange, which is 1% for fiat deposits and 0.0001 BTC for BTC withdrawals.

This attempt to steal Bitcoin's name for their altcoin shouldn't be overlooked, because it damages Bitcoin by creating a field for confusion and errors for newbies. Noobs are already mistakenly sending coins to wrong chains, outsiders gets confused by prices (some think that Bitcoin has dropped to $200). This is why we should name it Bcash and pressure exchanges and services to use this name too, and use only BCH as a ticker, because BCC is already taken (even though Bitconnect is also a scam). And if miners will try to fork in November, we should find a name for 2x chain, something like 2xCoin, or GarzikCoin.