Let's say I want to open a lightning network channel with the funds on a hardware wallet.
 - First, is it possible?
 - Do only certain types of hardware wallets support LN operations?
 - Do I need to keep that hardware wallet plugged into the computer running the lightning node while the channel is open?
Thanks

Thanks. I can see that but shouldn't it be built into the program for easier user experience?

Hey Guys,

I'm kind of new to running bitcoin core node, so apologies for the newbie question. It seems there is no button to update the program. Is this correct?

I was able to update it by simply downloading the program fresh but surely it would be more efficient to have an update feature built in.

Is this something that needs to be raised with devs?

Cheers
Pat

Sorry to dig up an old topic but I had been thinking about this recently.

It would only take a 2 decimal place shift in the price of BTC before 1 satoshi is equal to approximately 1 cent. Arguably a long way off, however there are 2 reasons I think this should be taken more seriously:

1. Streaming money - Maybe 1c or 1sat isn't a small enough division to pay for 30 seconds on a song, half an hour of insurance etc.

2. 1c may seem like an insignificant sum of money for someone from a rich/developed country, however it may not be a sufficiently small division in use cases of people from poorer/developing countries.

Cheers

It's crazy that the Nicehash hack hasn't even made a blip on the market yet... What the hell is going on?

I would not compare it to the bible because the bible is terrible.

The bitcoin white paper is at least written by a very intelligent person(s).

Am I the only person that feels bad for travelling due to the environmental impact? (i.e. pollution)

I think you're wrong. I know people that are noobies to crypto who are buying bcash because they think bitcoin is too expensive. It's easy to imagine that this is the case all over the world.

I don't believe this is correct. If the currency is deflationary, it means that in the future the price tag will be lower on goods and services (as you identify). So, why would I go buy a new bike today when I could save my money and buy it later for less?

Sure, some crypto's are used only as a store of value. Bitcoin's current use case scenario seems to be best at this but it will evolve. There are so many people working on scaling up the payment side and it was part of satoshi's original intended purpose. We shouldn't limit the platform to a store of value.



Could you please detail why exactly it would need to be an inflationary coin that could break into the mainstream?

Hi All,

It seems to me that people are incentivised to move towards a deflationary monetary system because if they just hold their money and do not spend, their unit of currency is worth slightly more over time. Particularly in contrast to inflationary monetary systems that most of us come from.

If you're a government, you're not going to aim for deflation because it means people will stop spending money in your economy and your economy will fail.

However, if you take the environmental conservationist standpoint, this could be seen as a great thing. It could curb our rampant consumerism & over consumption because everyone is incentivised to save.

Do you agree with my premise?
Would it be a good thing?

I look forward to your thoughts.
Thanks

Excellent. Thank you for your comprehensive reply.

Hi,

I posted this topic in the beginners section but didn't receive much advice other than being advised to run a virtual machine. Could you guys help me understand this:

I would like to run a bitcoin node and I'm also considering using bitcoin core 0.15. I feel like they have good development but my understanding is that if every node is running the same software, then it leaves the network vulnerable to attacks if there is a vulnerability in that particular software. So, my questions here are:
1. Should I only run a node if I have an educated opinion about protocol development? i.e. if there is a proposed change and I don't know precisely if the proposal is a good thing for the network, would I be inhibiting the network?
2. Should I consider running node software that ISN'T core, so as to "decentralise" the network in that regard?
3. What are those alternatives called?


My computer is only a relatively new build and I can see no evidence of any viruses,malware etc., however I do use it for general internet browsing and it's basically impossible to know if my computer is infected. If I was to run a bitcoin core node and utilise the core wallet:
 - What procedure do you recommend to scan my computer for viruses/malware? Is a reinstall of windows sufficient? Is it more secure to run linux as a second operating system for this purpose?
 - (although I don't see this scenario occurring for a little while) Is it possible to use the funds in that wallet away from home? (i.e. using a phone app or something?)
 - As I have been advised to use a virtual machine: If my local computer is affected by some type of virus, wouldn't the virtual machine also be vulnerable?

I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and kind regards,
Pat

Asking this question on a bitcoin forum will get you biased replies. The replies might not be so bullish if you asked on an stock's forum for example.

There's a lot of really smart people working really hard on BTC to improve and make it work. However, in some ways it works against the desires of very powerful entities in the world that could try and stop BTC.

Also, maybe there are fundamental flaws in the nature of BTC that inhibit widespread adoption/utility.

Think critically and don't assume:
1. The value will always increase
2. The platform will automatically become better without hard work

Thanks for the reply. I think mine is just a home version.

If the host computer has some virus, wouldn't that put the virtual machine at the same risk?

From Wikipedia:

"Speculated justifications for the unintuitive value "21 million" are that it matches a 4-year reward halving schedule; or the ultimate total number of Satoshis that will be mined is close to the maximum capacity of a 64-bit floating point number."

Hi,

A couple of questions:

I would like to run a bitcoin node and I'm also considering using bitcoin core 0.15. I feel like they have good development but my understanding is that if every node is running the same software, then it leaves the network vulnerable to attacks if there is a vulnerability in that particular software. So, my questions here are:
1. Should I only run a node if I have an educated opinion about protocol development? i.e. if there is a proposed change and I don't know precisely if the proposal is a good thing for the network, would I be inhibiting the network?
2. Should I consider running node software that ISN'T core, so as to "decentralise" the network in that regard?
3. What are those alternatives called?


My computer is only a relatively new build and I can see no evidence of any viruses,malware etc., however I do use it for general internet browsing and it's basically impossible to know if my computer is infected. If I was to run a bitcoin core node and utilise the core wallet:
 - What procedure do you recommend to scan my computer for viruses/malware? Is a reinstall of windows sufficient? Is it more secure to run linux as a second operating system for this purpose?
 - (although I don't see this scenario occurring for a little while) Is it possible to use the funds in that wallet away from home? (i.e. using a phone app or something?)


I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and kind regards,
Pat

The trade volume moved lower and now it's starting to bounce back up. Looks like it's already started a recovery. Just stay calm lol

Thank you for answering the crux of my question but I'm still not convinced that it won't be a hurdle. Even if the general population agrees that a decentralised global currency like bitcoin is the best system, it would still require a big psychological shift to accept that they will be paying a certain fraction to an unkown third party (miner) on top of the listed price.



As bitcoin is currently in an inflationary stage (and will be for the foreseeable future), I don't accept this as a reason to overlook transaction fees.

I have no problem with owning a fraction of a bitcoin. That's beside the point.

The fact that a bitcoin is divisible to 100 millionth of a coin isn't going to prevent your holding of bitcoin from eroding due to transaction fees.

I'm yet not convinced but I'm willing to hear your other thoughts.
 


I don't think it's productive to assume you just need to hold bitcoin to become rich. I think we should doubt/criticise Bitcoin otherwise, there is no reason for it to develop/improve. It has to compete with other payment systems and if those other systems prove to have better functionality, bitcoin will get dropped and the value will drop too. Being limited in nature alone isn't going to get us anywhere.



Thank you for your thoughts. So, in that case it doesn't sound viable as an everyday payment method. If that's the case, then we're limiting bitcoin to a narrow application. Don't you think?

I have just changed the title from "the cost of bitcoin" to "the cost of using bitcoin"

I'm not concerned about the value of bitcoin itself. I'm just looking at the utility of it and where the cost lays in using it to transact.

Once the price of bitcoin stabilises, maybe vendors could make the price for their goods or service inclusive of the bitcoin network transaction fee.

Hi All,

It seems to me that bitcoin will have a problem in becoming mainstream because it will feel more expensive to use than standard fiat.

With a normal Visa or MAstercard, the vendor bears the cost of using that payment method. In some cases they will add a surcharge or have a minimum charge (i.e. eftpos only available for purchases over $10.00) but in many cases, the vendor simply bears it as a cost of doing business and the customer doesn't see that cost. Maybe the total price of the goods or services factors for this cost but the customer won't see it.

In the case of Bitcoin, it seems to me that the transaction fee is always worn by the buyer and that would make it simply feel more expensive.

I understand there are many efforts for transaction fees on bitcoin to be minimised to improve scaling but it doesn't seem practical that transaction fees will ever reach zero. In the current fiat system, you don't have to pay a fee to use it (in most cases), so it means there is a lack of incentive to use bitcoin for everyday transactions.

How do you guys think about this problem?

Cheers