Let me declare here that I'm on the core side as most of you guys.

Now, ALL things taken into consideration, THIS IS GOOD.

Because:
- Jihan will get himself out of the market, because the economic majority will stay with main chain
- he will become the most hated person in the universe
- other miner producers will take his market share and he will slowly but surely be FINISHED.

It is good when a toxic MF like that schemes himself into oblivion. A fucking holiday, that's what it is!

Oh, look, we got ourselves a triggered SJW!

So much for a movement of tolerance. Tolerance, established by fascist methods, maybe.

Hey, I would like to voice some support to phelixes site; I became used to monitor new topics from there and now it doesn't work anymore 

I hope this gets sorted out because the list of the most viewed topics was really nice.

@dothebeats, I hope you are careful with your analysis, because most of the ICOs are snake oil. You get out in time, fine. You wait thath the scheme collapses, you're toast.
https://www.coindesk.com/icos-dumb-money-ethereums-ethical-dilemma/

Hi guys,
I purchased my first coins in the spring of 2012, for $7 each. Since then I constantly lurk here but write seldom.

I made a small fortune and lost a large part due a bad trading. But the stash grew by now and became nicely fat again. I claimed BCH's, sold them, bought some more BTC and some ZCash. I think the latter is one of few altcoins with good future because its advanced anonimity, something that BTC should also eventually implement.

There is a consideration to be made about ETFs being allowed to operate; maybe these ETFs to be are currently accumulating BTC assets?

The nodes should vote? How about USERS? What about the economic majority? They have shown their opinion in countless polls and Bitcoin Unlimited via hard fork is CLEARLY something they do not want. And yet here we see Franky explaining everyone how appropriate it is that miners+nodes push their agenda down everyone's throats.

Well let me tell you somenthing, Franky. You cannot tell the market who to prefer. It can only be the other way. Enforcin BU and successfully destroying bitcoin core will turn Bitcoin into an altcoin. Bitcoin will NEVER EVER regain the brand name and value it had compared to other coins. It will get lost in history. Sad ending. What BU is causing right now is treading over users choice. It will not go unpunished. Never.

Well, I see the poll started to show results. The poll is eager for more votes, but it's better than nothing.

I guess some do not vote because they want the third option - get out of bitcoin and adopt a different currency. I must confess that I am not interested in who goes out, but in those that stay in. I am curious which of two forked currencies to buy and it seems the writing is on the wall, pardon, in the poll  

Since the market will favor BTC over BTU, I will not hesitate to put my resources in the BTC. If I would be filling the shoes of bitcoin core team and all the miners that aren't favorable of segwit would be at least temporarily out of the blockchain I want to change, I would make it really damn sure I seize the oportunity and enforce the segwit soft fork. Hell, once I am there, I would also push through the lightning network and finish the damn thing. Because if something is killing us, it's the damn gradualism.

Hi.

Let's delve into a possible development of events in the next weeks/months. Let's say the hard fork happens, two separate currencies appear on exchanges and give us an inevitable choice - to sell one currency and put all of our resources into another. Into the one we deem to be more promising.

One remark though; the miners are trying to tell us that BTC will be finished, because the majority of the mining power will join BTU. This is BULLSHIT. The truth is, the miners will eat their word if necessary and swiftly join the currency with higher price. They do it for the money and they have hardware investment debts to repay. So the only one who will REALLY decide which of the new currencies will prosper, are the USERS.

And I am curious, what the opinion of the users is.

Cheers.

No, the best solution is lightning network, that comes on top of segwit. If you're sending some really small transaction such as one rupee, there will be no fee.

I have a question.

There is a lot of confusion about some people implying that the Lightning network wil make the Bitcoin system somehow more centralized.

Based on what I read, I see no proof of this. Actually the way I currently see it, the benefits of LN far outweigh its bad attributes.

Can someone with good technical knowledge expand on centralizatio/decentralization of LN? Thanks.

Right on!!!
The devs may write the code as much as they want, but if the miners won't like it, it will not be used. A nice example of this is SegWit code which is not accepted: https://blockchain.info/sl/charts/bip-9-segwit

This guy thinks that Bitcoin is centrally planned by core devs, which is fairly stupid.

No, no no. You're reading it wrong.

Proudhon is our greatest contra-indicator! When he sais it's gonna sink, it's actually blast-off time.

To the moon!!

This is stirring smoke, miners tend to unite in pools, they get block rewards and fees are expected to slowly get a little bigger. And they could reject transaction, but no one does it without a really serious reason (or just noone does it), because they lose money. Ability of miners to reject transactionns has nothing to do with their incentive to enable transactions to earn money. You are totally moving the target.

Look I'm dropping out, let the readers decide who is right.

Your explanation is wrong. Economic majority is represented by those, who are transferring btcs, e. g. doing business. Not just hodling - that doesn't create economy (not that it's wrong to hodl per se). Miners are rewarded by those who make transactions.

The problem in your seek of consensus are chinese miners. They will have to either grow their bandwith or go home. Trouble is, this will not happen through night.

Let's debate, among WHO should a consensus be reached.

If I understand you correctly, you say among EVERYONE, where each individual has an equal voting right. With that, I disagree. Consensus should be reached among economic majority. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Should individuals, having a bigger economic impact, have a bigger say? By all means, yes. --> this is not a democracy. It's anarcho-capitalism. (which Satoshi, being a crypto-anarchist, was close to in thinking).

Does that mean, only one version of bitcoin software? No. Always more versions, but the fact remains, that for the system to work, one software needs to prevail, and heavily.


This is how I think the system was set up: The miners choose the firmware, that best represents the interests of the economic majority. If miners would choose the firmware that represents the choice of equal weighted bitcoin user voices, that would be a democracy. And that would be BAD.

Should the body of bitcoin core decision makers be unified and only one software allowed? Hell NO. Centralization represents everythig, the bicoin is against!

Hmmmm
This really looks like it. May your words be true!
https://snag.gy/Idl7Vz.jpg

Firstly, I would like to express my complete agreeing with the quoted text. Now, to continue the story, in order to successfully impose the negative interest rate on personal deposits, they need to take the bulk of paper cash out of the circulation. Which Kenneth Rogoff (the "This time it's different" author) has now publicly voiced.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sinister-side-of-cash-1472137692

Now, the article does say that private hoarders hinder the imposing of negative interest rate on deposits. Which is true. But there is one bigger reason for central banks to withdraw cash: the banks themselves tend to build vaults to store cash, so they don't have to pay money to central banks to store money for them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/munich-re-rebels-against-ecb-with-plan-to-store-cash-in-vaults
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e979d096-5fe3-11e6-b38c-7b39cbb1138a.html#axzz4IdhNlZiw

This will for sure make imposing negative rates much more difficult, so I expect central banks to actually go and withdraw large banknotes out of circulation and at the same time extesively diminish the amount of cash available.

This scenario unraveling would mean an insane boost for Bitcoin price. An insane boost. Just saying.

I, for one, hail our eternal omniscient contrarian indicator, who has risen from forgotenness, to show us, what is NOT going to happen and what is NOT the way for the value of bitcoin to follow.

Thank you, Proudhon almighty, to guide us and show us, what will not happen to the bitcoin price. Thank you, for showing us, that the state of BTC is exactly the opposite of death. Thank you for showing us, what to not expect.

And therefore also what to actually expect.

I love that pic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hnBp7x2QAE