I use BTCPay on our website. It integrates easily with Woocommerce.
Cool, just found this open source PoS project for BTCPay: https://github.com/arcbtc/M5StackSatsWe're still early days here but the new Breez wallet announcement gives me a lot of faith that Lightning is nearly ready for everyone. |
|
|
|
Does anyone know of any NFC Point of Sale devices that work with Lightning Network?
I'd like to look into buying these for the cruise ship.
While most lightning wallets can easily receive payments, the two dedicated Lightning PoS apps I've seen are are in BTCPay Server & Breez Wallet. I've never seen a PoS device for any of these, just smartphones and Raspberry Pi nodes. https://btcpayserver.orghttps://breez.technologyI'd probably go with the BTCPay server nodes. It's by far the most advanced. |
|
|
|
|
NECRO AWARD WINNER!!!
Just researching Facebook's Libra coin and ran across this 2014 thread. Ahh, memories.
Who thinks it'll work this time and Bitcoin could have some actual competition that trades on exchanges?
|
|
|
|
|
Nice! I'd love to see the foundation rise from the ashes doing this kind of stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
BUMP! Time to bring this up again, this time for BCC!
Loaded - You around buddy? Roger's supporting the sad BCC altcoin now that will fork off of bitcoin on Aug 1.
Batter up!
|
|
|
|
I noticed that you had nothing to say about most every rebuttle I made except one that you found a tiny hole in. I'll take that as near-total victory. Since you're a "journalist", I'd like for you to cite a single source where I've ever mentioned a singular relation between "Blockstream" and "core devs" You haven't paid me so I don't see why I'd be inclined to do that research. However, I'll concede that you didn't make the direct link in this thread if you can concede that this is the common link people make. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you feel the problem is more widespread than one company. Hopefully you can see that so, too, are the core devs. I speak to several of them on a daily basis and keep up with the linuxfoundation devlists. In doing so, I see more infighting between them than I do agreement by far. If they were financially incentivized to do something for their bosses, you'd expect to see more agreement on the attack against decentralization/freedom. That is actually pretty rare and I only tend to find argument about how decentralization can best be acheived. Edit: I don't see any other teams around here even fighting towards that goal so why would anyone consider any team but the core devs? |
|
|
|
It's sad that I have to explain to your little mind that the Core devs professional income revolves around Core being relevant and, despite their repeated claims on medium which they or their fanboys control... It's far sadder to explain to your sub-atomic mind that the core devs are in a decentralized, open source github project, which you yourself are welcome to join and that far more of them are volunteers, not working for any company. I'm continually surprised by people's incredibly manufactured (in China) stance on Blockstream. Most claims made about the whole company are completely baseless and appear to be FUD produced by someone (in China) to perpetuate the block size debate. I invite you to look deeper into them yourself. Some points I've found: 1. Blockstream isn't even the company with the most bitcoin devs in it. 100% of Chaincode's devs are Bitcoin core devs: http://chaincode.com/#team2. The 'corporate money' that blockstream accepted, AXA, is just a French investment bank, not goldman sachs. Very few in the US has even heard of AXA. But more importantly, there was no contract stating that AXA could direct blockstream's efforts or leadership in any way, much less any of their partners. (The paperwork isn't available, but no one who saw it made the claim that it does. This must be treated as baseless slander.) 3. Adam Back is one of the most well-documented Cypherpunks on anyone's record. Before he wrote Hash Cash, which brought proof of work to where it is today, he worked on the systems that underlie TOR and Bittorrent. Now he's full time on bitcoin. Why in the hell would anyone assume that someone who spent decades working on at least three of the most important decentralized, cypherpunk projects ever be trying to harm the latest one by centralizing it? That's compelling evidence alone, if not proof, that Roger's off his rocker for all those baseless accusations he makes of Back on twitter. Ex: The TOR whitepaper referenced him directly: https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.pdf4. At Blockstream, every developer is HIGHLY incentivized to make bitcoin's price go up, thus incentivizing working against the vision you seem to believe they are following. At hiring $10,000 worth of bitcoin is purchased (part of their hiring contract) and set aside for them, and they can't touch it for the first year. After year one, each paycheck is paid in it for four years, equally distributed over that time. This is well documented. If developers there saw plans to harm bitcoin, then they'd likely fight those plans to keep their paycheck valuable. 5. Scaling off-chain is, as you know, required for bitcoin to be used in daily payments. Blockstream hasn't stated their price sheet yet for liquid, nor their version of the Lightning Network, but yet they are attacked for thinking about it. These are just two of the projects they are working for towards scaling anyway, and they don't make up a large percentage of their other projects that do not involve scaling. Meanwhile, why penalize specifically Blockstream for trying to make a buck from off-chain scaling when we can name at least 10 other projects/companies trying to do the same? 6. The most 'valuable target' in bitcoin core for any infiltrating source would naturally be the Commit keys, which allow the Wladamir-led team of core code cleaners the final say on what becomes bitcoin and what doesn't. Today there are 4 bitcoin developers who work at Blockstream. Sipa is one, and although he has a commit key, due to the scaling debate he has publicly sworn off using his key for scaling changes. Maxwell used to have the 5th key, but he actually gave it back a year ago because of the scaling debate. He doesn't even have the access he used to anymore. So if blockstream was trying to take over Bitcoin or lead it's governance in any way, they've not only failed, they've hobbled themselves so badly at it that it's now impossible. P.S., Not that it should matter, but the argument against Back being a cypherpunk because of his being missing for the first couple of years in bitcoin makes me laugh out loud every time... Are we really supposed to penalize someone with Satoshi's skillset who was missing while satoshi was present, for not being around with satoshi at the right time? Maybe, like Clark Kent, it's his glasses that make us so against the idea that he could be satoshi? Lulz... |
|
|
|
...Perfect evidence that you simply have no clue what is going on with bitcoin.
Perfect evidence that the concepts of sarcasm and irony are entirely over your head.  Oh please... You were about a sarcastic as Janet Yellen delivering a report to congress. We're in a visual medium here, so you can't use icons like  to end your otherwise drooling-newbie mistaken posts and have other people imagine that you were just being sarcastic. Worse yet, if you were being sarcastic, you would have been defending the core dev team with that statement... And then turned around seconds later to tear them down, accusing them of " hurling more unfounded accusations of the hardware guys." -Which is ludicrous but that's another argument. So it couldn't have been sarcasm. Give it up. |
|
|
|
It's confusing to you that Jihan would signal both of the clients that are in opposition to the Core devs and would help oust them? Perfect evidence that you simply have no clue what is going on with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
That's quite a far flung theory. One reason highly its unlikely is because Blockstream and core devs want to scale bitcoin in the exact opposite way that Satoshi recommended.
By using... SATOSHI'S Payment Channels to create a lightning network? lulz... |
|
|
|
Adam Back is the biggest mook in the history of crypto. He was the first person Satoshi emailed and he didn't mine or buy any coins until the price was $1000. True story.
Lol! So your reason for hating on the cypherpunk who wrote Hashcash before Satoshi came along was that he wasn't around for bitcoin's earliest days? Isn't this EXACTLY what we should expect the real persona behind satoshi to do if he wants to stay anonymous? Yay! Let's hate on the person most likely to be satoshi because he was missing during Satoshi's appearance! lololol.... |
|
|
|
I'm 100% certain that only 1 of the 2 of us is all on about Blockstream. I'm 100% certain that you can't hear the facts when you plug your ears like that and look for something mundane like the repetition of a company's name to talk about. Why not try responding to the points given? Afraid that it'll be uncomfortable to learn how wrong you are? I'm 100% certain that hyperbole and delusions don't bolster anyone's case.  I'm 100% certain that you're not open to accepting anything factual at all. |
|
|
|
The only way to truly make it decentralized is to defund the Core dev team.
Lol, the flat-earther-like Conspiracy theories about blockstream core are now, like flat-eartherism, to the point where I can give you all the facts in the world and you'll still just ignore them and plug your ears because you want to believe that Roger is right about blockstream and that your worldview model is not being challenged. If you had one shred of decency, you'd investigate the following, easily proven or disproven points for yourself: 1. Blockstream isn't even the company with the most bitcoin devs. 100% of Chaincode's devs are Bitcoin core devs: http://chaincode.com/#team2. The 'corporate money' that blockstream accepted, AXA, is just a French investment bank, not goldman sachs. There was no contract stating that AXA could direct blockstream's efforts or leadership in any way, much less any of their partners. 3. Adam Back is one of the most well-documented cypherpunks on anyone's record. Before he wrote Hash Cash, which brought proof of work to where it is today, he worked on the systems that underlie TOR and Bittorrent. Now he's full time on bitcoin. Why in the hell would anyone assume that someone who spent decades working on the most important decentralized, cypherpunk projects ever be trying to harm the latest one by centralizing it? That's compelling evidence alone, if not proof, that Roger's off his rocker for all those baseless accusations he makes of Back on twitter. 4. At Blockstream, every developer is HIGHLY incentivized to make bitcoin's price go up. At hiring $10,000 worth of bitcoin is purchased (part of their hiring contract) and set aside for them, and they can't touch it for the first year. After year one, each paycheck is paid in it for four years, equally distributed over that time. This is well documented. If developers there saw plans to harm bitcoin, then they'd likely fight those plans to keep their paycheck valuable. 5. The most 'valuable target' in bitcoin core for any infiltrating source would naturally be the Commit keys, which allow the Wladamir-led team of core code cleaners (referred to as Janitors within the dev community) the final say on what becomes bitcoin and what doesn't. Commit access is a right on Github to add a change to the git repository. Anyone with a Github account can write changes and propose them to the bitcoin core code, but only those with commit keys can actual add those proposed changes to the repo. Today there are 4 bitcoin developers who work at Blockstream. Sipa is one, and although he has a commit key, due to the scaling debate he doesnt use his for scaling changes. Gmax used to have the 5th key, but gave it back because of the scaling debate. He doesn't even have the access he used to anymore. If blockstream was trying to take over Bitcoin or lead it's governance in any way, they've not only failed, they've hobbled themselves so badly at it that it's now impossible. Stop believing LIARS. Blockstream is one of the good guys. Core is the only team that can make the upgrade safe. |
|
|
|
On a side note if he sudden bought BTUCOIN.com and started an exchange it would push this whole faith in his new coin thing over the edge.
He's not going to buy BTUCoin because he wants BTU to be something it can never be: Bitcoin. He already owns bitcoin.com. No point buying a new one when in his little world he beleives he has a chance of turning BTUcoins into Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
I do not understand why these people had to interfere with Bitcoin in the first place.
Oh today we know... https://t.co/2wUqgOglRSTom Zander: "It's not about block size" ... "It's about absolute power." |
|
|
|
3) the bitcoin brand name is all bitcoin still has. "being an alt coin" is a horrible idea for bitcoiners.
Agreed completely. BU wants the brand, because there is 8 years of network effects behind it, that transfer when it does. That was already the case when the first altcoin was made.
Ok, seriously. WTF. Take your own argument into advisement, man! |
|
|
|
|
Does the OP understand that for rules to be in effect, the majority has to adopt them FIRST?
You can't just make up a rule like "If you're a miner that does X, your get no bitcoins" and expect it to just automatically be valid... Miners have to vote to include it first!
If this wasn't the case, Segwit would be in effect already.
|
|
|
|
Alright, I've been giving this a ton of thought and and both for and against UASF. No offense meant to the OP, but it absolutely is dogshit, conceptually. Devs on this thread could instantly see that. It took me -slightly- longer. The worst part, I'm convinced, is what the BU community can do in response. Since UASF tells everyone to pick a side by X date or be left behind in a hostile manner, the BU team has NOTHING TO LOSE by Hard forking on that date. It would be extremely dumb of them not to. So basically, UASF forces a hard fork, the most horrible outcome for bitcoin's price. Hopefully no one wants that here. There is something to be gained by it's existence though. Remember your Nuclear cold war tactics? Nuclear Proliferation and Mutually Assured Destruction? UASF can act as a threat to counter BU. I say it should be developed if for no other reason than if they're going to HF anyway, we can scare them back in line with UASF. Like with the cold war, we really should be thinking about hiring a UN-certified Negotiator though. Is protecting $20 Billion not worth their price? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
