Of course yes, basiccally bitcoin can be used for good things and bad things include support terrorists
but should the peoples who care about bitcoin and as comunity of bitcoin
we must take care about bitcoin don't be used for bad things like support to terrorists.
please don't use bitcoin for support terrorists and criminal
You cannot stop it, no matter how much you beg and plead. In my opinion it is better if it was used by criminals and terrorists. Disruption of the banking system is what we want as Bitcoiners right? |
|
|
|
Yes it is that is why we have Bitcoin mixing services. Trackibility will not discourage the criminals from using it as their preferred way to do transactions. Try dealing in the dark markets. Bitcoin is reaching new heights by operating outside the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies. |
|
|
|
I don't get it. It will actually be bad for BOTH chains if indeed Bitcoin forks into two. Some people who are following the space could see this as a weakness and another reason not to start investing or accepting BTC as payments. Imagine if you were a merchant and you have to go thru and be involved in this sh*t, with all the debates and the drama. And worst of all the uncertainty of BTC's future.
Because one of them wants to allow Bitcoin to scale, the other doesn't. duh It is not really as simple as that. The incompetence of the BU developers is also at play here and it will be a very important point to emphasize that they do not deserve to be in the position of the Core developers. I have nothing against BU and what its trying to acheive. But please find better developers. |
|
|
|
I also often think like that someday there will be a coin which beat bitcoin. The main issue of coins is a marketing strategy, we all know that bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency so that it is acceptable to everyone.
Bitcoin being the first crypto surely does matter, but the point is that people don't need any altcoins. Bitcoin does exactly that what people want it to do. I quite often see people stating that altcoins are better because they offer this feature, because they are faster, bla bla bla. They don't realize that basically every feature that altcoins advertise themselves with, is just a gimmick that doesn't enjoy any actual usage. Another thing, most altcoin networks are pretty much empty as they don't enjoy much usage. If they at some point get the same level of usage as Bitcoin, then look how much of their 'speed' is left... It will slow down immensely. This is very true. There are now some people who are asking if a soft fork to activate Segwit or a hard fork to Bitcoin limited is necessary. You have to ask yourself this, if there is really a need for an "upgrade" and why. Bitcoin as a store of value is ok with me to be honest and most of the people here treat that way anyway. |
|
|
|
|
franky1, I am sorry to say that Roger Ver, the Bitcoin Unlimited developers and the Chinese miners are playing the same game too. They are all colluding to push their own agenda and take the Core developers out by hard forking Bitcoin away from them. Do I think anything is wrong with that? No, it is what it is. But I do not think the developers behind BU should be supported because they are incompetent.
|
|
|
|
They are already using fiat for their financial needs. Bitcoin does not directly enable them to do more.
It could make certain transactions easier though, but the same goes for any new technology. Bad people can always use it for their purposes as well. Does this mean we should stop technology development?
Here comes the question: if bitcoin be used for evil purposes, will we be able to stop them? And who will lead the effort to stop them? If fiat is used for evil purposes, will we be able to stop them? And who will lead the effort to stop them? Same question, with the same answer. Law enforcement will lead the offort to stop them, sometimes we may be able to stop them, sometimes we cannot. Fiat is still the biggest currency for illegal transactions. That something CAN be used for something does not mean that that is the only thing that it can be used for. Bitcoin makes it easier for them to move value on the internet. Ask yourself, would the dark markets be possible if fiat was used to transact in them? The answer is clearly no. Bitcoin is a god send for criminals. |
|
|
|
|
OP, believe me, you want that to happen. If you think "mainstream adoption" will take Bitcoin use to another level then you are gravely mistaken. It is the criminal, underworld use of Bitcoin that will take it to new heights in price and technology-wise.
|
|
|
|
trading is not manipulation, trading only suply and demand
but you can manipulation demand and can incraese price if you have much money, you can pump everything coin you want if you have much money
Of course it is. Manipulation and pumping and dumping have been happening since the creation of the idea of trading markets. Do you really believe that something like the Tulip Mania was all owed to the law of supply and demand? Of course not, there were a lot of misinformation, hype and of course the pump of the price that manipulated the people to join in and buy it up. |
|
|
|
But who do you propose take over as the stewards of the Bitcoin network?
stewards of bitcoin?? get that centralist hat off your head right now! there should be no stewards/kings core want to control bitcoin and fear an open decentralised diverse peer network. other implementations dont want control. set no deadlines demanded nothing and not making PoW nuke threats. core is adement that they wont want to join many different brands on a dynamic peer network. where nods of different brands set the rules by independent consensus. core want their controlled TIER network core want their back door exploit to slide in changes(by going soft) without nodes vetoing the changes seriously get that "stewardship" hat off your head and think of the big picture P.S blockstream(core) have admitted that going soft is using a backdoor exploit. and admitted they want to add more exploits to make it easier to go soft. what becomes 'easier' for core.. is actually bad for the network as other can then use that exploit for more nefarious purposes Yes they are the stewards because it has not been hard forked away from them yet. If someday the Bitcoin Unlimited developers gain all the hashing power they need then they, for better or worse, become the new stewards of the Bitcoin network. Is he trying to justify his decision to do a hard fork that brought forth to Ethereum Classic? |
|
|
|
|
OP, you should always keep in mind that most of the altcoin traders are amateurs and self thought traders. They make the mistakes of amateurs always make like the one you witnessed. He made a market order without any regard on the liquidity of the market.
|
|
|
|
Well the price prediction before this major dump would be 2500$ surely at the end of this year because the price was just going to reach $1300. But the current situation and stats tell that the price can be around 1700-1800$, but as more countries are starting to adopt it, the price is literally a surprise right now.
Mainstream adoption is not really that widespread so what is affecting the price of Bitcoin now is the same as before. Whale manipulation, law of supply and demand and speculation. Japan's acceptance of Bitcoin is good news but that also opens a door to limit it. I would prefer no regulation for Bitcoin and keep everything open. |
|
|
|
So BU has a buggy code and Segwit is just a power grab owned by cores ?
I guess nothing will be implemented this year again and many years to come.
Cause they're many speculation and conspiracy theories about Segwit without hearing their side first. This is like an endless loop of debate.
Please do your research before making posts about any issue in Bitcoin. It is very unfair that many of you make clueless comments while some of us have tirelessly made the research and still keep making the research about what is happening in the Bitcoin. I want ask you, what power grab? The miners have the final say if Segwit will activate or not and the Core developers are the accepted stewards of the network right now. |
|
|
|
|
OP, as far as scaling solution ideas go, I will be fair and say "maybe". But we should not allow incompetent developers to become the stewards of the Bitcoin network. The buggy code they released has shown that they cannot be trusted to take over and their code has not been thoroughly tested.
Show us an excellent group of developers and the community might support them.
|
|
|
|
That was quick, it is not even a year when it happened and they already recovered the funds that was lost. I guess there are still those trusting bitfinex and its system even after the breach. I hope they are doing a better job now in protecting their users and investors.
Yes, I was expecting them to close down in the next 2 years after the hack. This latest development has made them one of the most trustworthy Bitcoin exchanges now as far as the owners of Bitfinex are concerned. |
|
|
|
Now those clever fuckers at Blockstream seem to want to concede somewhat. However, SegWit with 2MB does NOTHING to get rid of the real problem. The real problem is a private takeover of the blockchain to support Blockstream's view of the future where they charge you money to use their private 'side chains' to the disadvantage of the network's miners. This is a wholesale diversion of funds away from network participants into the private pockets of big investors.
SegWit with 2MB will be marketed as an improvement in capacity. However, it will only serve to let the boys at Core continue to build toward a private 'off chain' system owned and controlled by Blockstream.
Fuck Core/Blockstream and their SegWit2MB
But who do you propose take over as the stewards of the Bitcoin network? I hope it is not Roger Ver and his cohorts at Bitcoin Unlimited. I would prefer to keep the status quo than let incompetent developers take over that might hurt the stability and security of the protocol. It is good that you are expressing the truth now. This is not an argument about block sizes but a movement to take the Core developers out and let the BU developers take over. |
|
|
|
of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.
Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this. In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you. looking at the dates of when the most spam spikes are june/july 2016 and then a long constant go at it from october onwards.. it appears obvious that anyone offering something from those particular dates that want to sway people into thinking their features are needed to remedy the spam would benefit from creating spam to then point out that something needs to be done. https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1yearjune/july 2016 = core CSV october+ = segwit You cannot be serious in using that as evidence to show that Core or a group allied with Core is behind it right? That is too obvious. Because a group against Core could do it too and make it look like Core did it. We cannot snub that possibility out. |
|
|
|
There are already so many different proposal for scaling and we now left with two condidates: Segwit and BU... Both are not perfect and have pros and cons. I guess we do not need more proposals...
Or maybe we need none if it breaks the community apart. There is also the question that asks "Do we really need to upgrade the Bitcoin network by activating Segwit or hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited?" Are they really necessary for Bitcoin to work properly? Before the scaling debate we have not seen any problem until someone started spamming the network to create a sense of urgency for an upgrade. |
|
|
|
I scanned the thread quickly backwards and I was expecting to see Litecoin as a good investment to be mentioned. But I did not see one mention of it. If I am mistaken please tell me.
OP, Litecoin might be a good and "safe" investment you are looking for. There is an argument that it could come out better if Segwit is activated there but rejected in Bitcoin. So there will be more room for growth in LTC because it is more ready to scale.
If you are feeling a little bit dangerous and adventurous look into Ethereum Classic. No good reason except it is supported by Barry Silbert. If he is holding a lot of ETC then why not take the risk and follow him.
Altcoins cannot be a safe investment because they are cheap and easy to manipulate by the whales and you can't be sure that they will be stable on the price and if they will not dump. So i think investing in altcoins with those $2,000 is a bad idea and it is better to just buy bitcoins with that money and keep it and wait for the price to reach $1,500. That's correct investing in bitcoin is safer in compare to investing in any altcoins as altcoin market involves huge risk so its better to invest in bitcoin as the price of bitcoin will definitely go higher in long run so you can get profits by selling when price goes higher. You 2 clearly did not read the OP. He wanted investment ideas that are not Bitcoin because he already has his funds in Bitcoin. I too missed the part in the OP that he does not want to buy any coin. He wants new investment ideas. I heard some mixing services accept smaller Bitcoin investments but I am not sure which ones they are and if they still have the offer open though. |
|
|
|
You don;t have to imagine, you can already see that altcoins will take over.
Bitcoin has already failed to scale and the longer it continues to fail to scale the more altcoins will take over.
If it takes much longer, the damage will be irreversible, assuming it is not already too late.
That is one possible scenario. But it does not mean Bitcoin will die. It will always be there as a store of value. A kind of "digital gold" which is something how, most of the people who are hoarding it, see it anyway. |
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball, we get your point and you have already made that clear many many times already and with all due respect there is no need for further assaults in the Core developers and contributors. We get it and it is time for the community to think for themselves now and what is good for them as users of Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
