I'm not sure I understand your post. I and most others know that I am a Bitcoin newbie. I read the link explaining the changes in 0.12, and there didn't appear to be anything relevant to me. I'm running a full node just to maintain a single wallet, so my needs are pretty basic.

If I'm giving offence, then I can reduce my posting.

I doubt it, because you can't run the bitcoin core at Asda supermarkets (Walmart in the UK )

I've found that, human nature being what it is, if I make a statement of intent, then people seem to provide all the negative factors to indicate why I was wrong.

Your comment about speeding up sync time is valuable to me, and is an example of this. I'm still new to Bitcoin, and I have a mass to learn.

Apologies for starting this thread. The massive level of debt in the world is destroying countries as well as the banking system, and there will have to be a substantial reduction in the near future. I think this turns me against the concept, and I do appreciate the difficulties that some people have.

I think I had better lock this thread if I can, and let it die.

ICAAN has agreed that Verisign can increase the registration fees for .NET domain names. This comes into effect on the 1st February 2016. If any of you have any .net domain names, it is worth renewing them before the price increase is imposed by registrars.

If you need some Bitcoin quickly for some reason, then it seems to me that the best ways to get it is to exchange some other currency, or to sell something. Taking out an interest bearing loan just seems to be a waste of money. So that leads me to the belief that people requesting loans fit into one or more of 4 categories

1. They are already heavily in debt, and can't borrow from a conventional bank or cc company
2. They don't have any money
3. They don't have anything to sell
4. They want to defraud the lender


Am I being unfair? Please explain why I have misunderstood the situation if that is the case.

Thanks for the info and the link. It doesn't look as if there is anything in there that a small operator like me will need, so I think I'll stay with 0.11.2. Is that the best move for me?

You got me there bumping a two year old post.

I'm running 0.11.2, and I've got a peer running XT. I saw this 0.12.0 running for about an hour this morning. There weas also a 0.11.99 which I believe is a test version. Good to see there are some improvements on the way. Does anyone know what they are?

I watched the video, and it seemed to me that the emphasis was on the extraction of precious metals, and other metals were ignored. I noticed that Microwaves appeared to be destined for a frag machine, with no attempt to extract copper transformers or other non-ferrous metals. Cutting the mains cable was referred to as de-polution, but running it through a granulator will yield pure copper granules. Similarly, hard drives can yield a variety of specialist metals such as neodymium magnets. Lumping all of the ferrous metal into one pot means that the main use for the extract is rebars for use in the building industry.  Separating light iron, cylinder cast, shearing, and cast allows for a wider variety of uses for the reclaimed product. This separation is expensive in terms of man power, and traditionally it was done by small scrap yards and scrap c0llectors, recent government regulations have forced many of these out of business, and I belive that this is to the detriment of the economy and the environment.

One other point is that local government refuse collection services are funded in part by the sale of rtecovered metal. Removing this from their collections will lead to an increase in their charges. Not much of value goes to landfill these days.

I keep seeing sidechains suggested as a way to expand the Bitcoin network, and I don't understand how they can be integrated into the main blockchain. This is especially true when it is suggested that they arre administered by some 3rd party. The only way that I can see for it to work is if the sidechain was based on a main chain wallet owned by the 3rd party. They would then operate a separate blockchain to administer this wallet, and transfer Bitcoins in and out of the main chain as required. They would pick up the transfer fee as a payment for managing this sidechain.

Is this feasible, or have I misunderstood things yet again?

What most people don't seem to understand or accept is that bank deposits are virtual currency with no intrinsic value. They are also managed by organisations that have been convicted and fined for fraud and malpractice.

Traditionally charities have used cash collection boxes to raise funds. There have been many instances of collectors keeping the funds, and of bogus collectors defrauding the charities. Bitcoin with its open transaction reporting, is an ideal medium for collecting small donations. The charity, its auditors and the contributing public can check on all donations, and ensure that the money reaches the chosen charity. I'm thinking of using Bitcoin  to collect money for my favourite local charity. Have any members used Bitcoin for this purpose?

It would have been better if the US gov hadn't given them the cash in the first place.

I thought it was the Russians that were attacking the ISIS oil supply lines.

One of my peers is running Satoshi: 0.12.0 - is that a new version with an imminent release?

I knew I didn't want to be a miner.

We wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the  American space programme, but for how long will the US be able to invest in space technology.

So what happens to the Bitcoins that have been awarded to the miners in the short fork?

You should be far more concerned about the virtual money you have deposited with the banks than with the money you have invested in Bitcoin.

So what happens to the blocks in the shorter fork? (and the transactions in those blocks)