I feel like there's a prevalent double standard when it comes to protecting identities of forum users.  

If topics existed where lots of users were posting theories and collecting evidence in an attempt to unveil the real-world identity of another forum user, I don't think such threads would be tolerated.  As per the rules, doxxing is only permitted in the case of legitimate scam accusations:

here are some new rules on doxxing:

1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), which is only visible to Members and above. Personal information is defined as anything which links a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

So why do we allow rampant probing and scrutiny regarding the identity of satoshi?  I don't see any justification for them to be an exception to the rule.  There's no way people would accept it if it were their own account subject to such investigations.  If someone did ever successfully identify satoshi and published it here on the forum, then they would have clearly violated the rule.  Ergo, users are attempting to break the rules every time they publicly try to link:

a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity

This should not be happening.  There are inherent dangers in revealing someone's identity, particularly if they are considered wealthy.  The user in question, or even their family, could be at risk of falling victim to burglary, kidnapping, torture or other crimes (and I'm certain there are few potential targets more tempting for criminals than someone as flush with BTC as satoshi is perceived to be).  There are very good reasons why attempting to dox someone is frowned upon.  

I propose it's time for this rule to be applied properly, to end the double standard and to ensure no one is attempting to dox anyone else when there is no valid complaint of a scam.

I think we need to be a little more mindful about the arguments we're presenting when discussing Bitcoin with critics.  Have a read of this blog/article: It's not still the early days.  They make a compelling case.

Yet people still frequently say it is "early days" or that Bitcoin is "still in its infancy".  It's not.  A generally accepted definition for 'infant' is:

"a schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight" 

Bitcoin is more closely akin to a teenager.  Both in years and level of development.  It's not fully mature, but it's certainly no baby.  And I think we risk selling Bitcoin short by comparing it to something so vulnerable.  Bitcoin has survived in the wild for years against determined attackers.  It has time and again proven itself resilient and indomitable. 

It's the usage and acceptance of Bitcoin we are trying to refer to as still maturing.  Not the technology itself.  And we need to make that distinction clearer for the critics.  What are peoples' thoughts on how best to delineate between the level of adoption and the level of technological development?

[Source:]

I get the impression someone at the Guardian really isn't a fan of Bitcoin.  They do seem to enjoy publishing negative headlines fairly frequently.  Although what they've written technically isn't inaccurate, it's not particularly likely either.  People should be cautious, but that goes for anything they do with their banks and other financial companies as well.

Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/14/bitcoin-could-become-worthless-bank-of-england-warns

The Bank of England has said that bitcoin could be “worthless” and people investing in the digital currency should be prepared to lose everything.

In a warning over the potential risks for investors, the central bank questioned whether there was any inherent worth in the most prominent digital currency, which has soared in value this year to close to $50,000 (£37,786) a piece.

The cryptocurrency peaked above $67,000 in early November, but suffered a sell-off after news first broke of the Omicron variant of coronavirus, before stabilising around its current level in the past week.

The deputy governor, Sir Jon Cunliffe, said the Bank had to be ready for risks linked to the rise of the crypto asset following rapid growth in its popularity. “Their price can vary quite considerably and [bitcoins] could theoretically or practically drop to zero,” he told the BBC.

This Cunliffe character is certainly prone to dramatics, though.  The article reads:

The Bank’s financial policy committee, set up in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to monitor risks, said on Monday there was little direct threat to the stability of the UK financial system from crypto assets.

And yet, just about 9 weeks ago, Cunliffe was raving:  "Bitcoin could trigger financial meltdown".  Hmm... So how did we get from "meltdown" to "little direct threat" in such a short space of time?  Give it another few weeks and maybe Cunliffe will be calling Bitcoin a fantastic investment.  


But I think the real crux of the matter was this part:

However, it warned that, at the current rapid pace of growth, such assets could become more interconnected with traditional financial services and were likely to pose a number of risks.

Clearly they aren't looking forward to more institutional investors getting on board.  Is it possible they believe that if they can scare off the average member of the public, then the "traditional" investors might steer clear as well?  Seems a little desperate on their part.  

Still, I suppose with the position they're in, with no real influence or control over the outcome, the only thing they can do is fire off warnings.  

I don't watch much TV on the TV itself nowadays, so I don't know if anyone has been talking about this ad or not:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbvl60_CZl8

"What a load of bullshit", I found myself saying aloud after witnessing that for the first time.  How can it be working for everyone when so many people in the world are unbanked?  And how much of the wording in that was deliberately chosen to mirror the kinds of things we say about Bitcoin?  It feels very much like a pre-emptive first strike on their part, possibly demonstrating some insecurities about the threat their business model now faces.

Anyone else get the sense they had crypto in mind when they wrote the script for it?

Let's settle this once and for all.  There are few, if any, reasons to be excited about the "potential" of CBDCs.  Assuming they even happen, they will just be a continuation of existing national currencies, only without the physical coins and banknotes.  If you have no current interest in buying and holding everyday, normal fiat currencies like Yuan, Pound Sterling, Dollars and others, then equally you should have no interest in buying and holding any CBDCs.  If anything, they will offer you far less freedom and autonomy than you currently have, because they'll try to phase out physical cash, which offers you privacy and anonymity.  Why would you support something that sacrifices that?  Don't buy the hype.  CBDCs are nothing more than the next step in the war on cash and continued erosion of your freedoms.

I honestly don't understand why people are actually looking forward by this.  People seem to think you'll be trading them on exchanges like you do with cryptocurrencies.  I think this is a little naive.  You'll only be sending funds to an exchange if the central bank, government, regulators, etc allow you to.  And I highly doubt they will allow that.  Why would they?  Keep in mind that they will likely have the power to freeze, or even seize, funds and also reverse any transactions they don't approve of.  If they decide they don't want your coins being on an exchange, they're as good as gone.  All it takes is them making a quick adjustment to their ledger, which they will easily be able to do.  At any time and for any reason.  You won't have a say in the matter.  

When they're cherry-picking which parts of our technology they're going to utilise, do you really think they're going to keep the parts that benefit you?  Of course they won't.  They'll take any parts that allow them to monitor, surveil, record and document every single move you make.  That's all they're interested in.  CBDCs will give those in authority absolute and total control.  To be perfectly blunt, you're an absolute fool if you would unquestioningly welcome that proposition.  Whatever opportunities you thought it was going to give you, think again.  If anything it will likely take away some of the few rights you still have remaining.

According to this topic, a forum member is banned from posting in that particular subforum.  After a while, they started posting there again.  I had been wondering if the ban was temporary and had now expired, but a mod has confirmed the ban is still in effect.  So that user has been wilfully ignoring the ban and posting anyway.  49 times this month, no less.  

Should they be permanently banned from the forum for ban evasion?

Topic derailment in the Development & Technical Discussion subforum is frowned upon, so continuing the off-topic discussion here:

A user has disingenuously queried why Bitcoin's overall transaction capacity is lower than other coins.  The answer is simple.  In practice, the other networks in question process fewer transactions than Bitcoin does, even though they have the potential to process more.  There is a cost to be paid to broadcast all this transaction information to other users on the network, so it stands to reason that users running nodes for other chains have a smaller cost to bear.  Overall throughput in Bitcoin will increase only if/when those who secure the chain are prepared to carry a heavier burden.  

Explain:
Why does Litecoin have 4X the transaction capacity of bitcoin?
Why can Dogecoin do 10MB in 10 minutes and bitcoin can't?
Why do other coins have increased transaction capacity at transaction fees ~400X lower than bitcoin.

* PROTIP:  If you're going to throw down the gauntlet, try to make it a challenge your opponent hasn't already completed. *

Is your cognitive impairment so severe, you can't recall that I have explained this to you already?  The coins you refer to do not come close to utilising their full capacity.  If they did, the fees would not be as cheap as they currently are.  If the blocks on those chains were consistently full over a period of several years, the total size of the blockchain would be larger than Bitcoin's, meaning there would be very few, if any, non-mining nodes to enforce consensus rules.  This would make a chain highly susceptible to corruption due to weak network governance (as already explained in that D&T topic before you got it locked).  

You say Litecoin has 4x the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, but if we look at today's figures:

Litecoin Transactions avg. per hour   2,524
Bitcoin Transactions avg. per hour   11,878

So in reality, Bitcoin actually processes 4x the number of transactions Litecoin does.


The novelty of highlighting your profound mental deficiencies is starting to wear thin.  Why don't you stick to what you're good at?  Which is peddling proof-of-stake detritus that no one cares about in the altcoins boards.  It's obvious why you continually attack Bitcoin with your intellectual dishonestly.  Only problem is, your ability to create false narratives is feeble at best.  If you genuinely believed that non-mining full nodes are not crucial for the continued health and stability of Bitcoin's network, then you would merely be a fool.  But instead, I'm going to work on the assumption your posts are, in fact, malicious.  You can't honestly maintain the contradiction that mining centralisation in Bitcoin is a problem when your arguments against non-mining full nodes would only give miners greater influence to weaken the protocol by implementing undesirable changes.

Having plenty of fun and games at work today.  The payment processor we use is experiencing issues and we are currently unable to process card payments.  Probably overloaded with the increased transaction volumes for Black Friday.  Such is the nature of central points of failure.

<insert 'Bitcoin user not affected' meme here>


//EDIT:  To clarify, as there seems to be some confusion, I spend my day at work processing card payments over the phone, among other things.  The payment processor my company use had a temporary fault affecting anyone who was calling in for about 30 minutes.

It occurs to me that since a large number of people are going to be stuck indoors for a while, the forums might be busier than usual.  Are Cloudflare ready to anticipate and cope with the extra demand?


//EDIT:  Confirmation from Theymos that all is well, locking the thread to prevent spam.

Topic in question:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5223497.20

Specific quotes:

if you go check that topic thread and read the post from above mine in that topic .. you now the one made by bitrefill.. you know the one you merited... you would read

'Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want. If you use rules that are different than other LN wallets or the rest of the network, you will be limited to a subnetwork of people using the same rules. Turbo channel opening requires a custom channel, '

they are playing by their own rules to have the ability to open channels with millisat balance thats not pegged to a confirmed and locked bitcoin blockchain tx'

its bitrefill that should make it absolutely clear that people are accepting unbacked balance.
again shame on you for making it out the user is in the wrong for opening the channel

most users/consumers using these custom rule lite wallets. think its the same rules. think all LN millisats are backed. they are not coders or know how to check things. they just like many consumers blindly trust the PR thats been spouted out. again they are not coders. so yes they are unware of what they are agreeing to. but agree anyway because they are given millisats at a discount. they dont see they are given unbacked millisats

these wallets do not have a button of terms and conditions that in bold tell people that the balance is not pegged. it doesnt tell them the critical stuff.. its just a open channel to get milliats. and the person says yes they want them millisats.. without any consideration if those millisats are backed pegged to a real bitcoin confirmed tx lock of funds.

you are an absolute fool.
but its nice to know you admit now that you feel its ok to have unbacked balance in LN.. but shame your blaming the user for having unbacked balance by saying they agreed to it. you really dont care about users security or having a payment sstem thats as strong as what bitcoin is. total shame on you.

whats next blame users for being suckered into the HYIP schemes that are starting up in LN. do you have any moral/ethics to actually care about users experience and user risk. or are you just mr exagerated positive PR guy wanting to fame up LN under the FALSE pretense that its thought to be linked to bitcoin because people throw the buzzword around alot.

even thor turbo admits to this by saying their unbacked channels are customary and usually those accepting unbacked balance are using their software varient..

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but it looks like a slam-dunk defamation case as far as I can see.  No less than three totally unjustified accusations of unbacked balances being sold to the public.  Plus a comparison to a HYIP scheme to boot.

[Topic Rules: Absolutely NO discussion of forked chains or altcoins here, please]

I'd like to put forth a few arguments to present the case that it's high time for all topics about Craig Scammer Wright to be moved to the Altcoins section [//EDIT: Or some other, more appropriate, section] on sight.  

• First and foremost, he doesn't deserve the attention we give him
• Almost all threads about Faketoshi devolve into people talking about forked chains and other altcoins anyway
• Even when he claims to be talking about Bitcoin, every insane thing Faketoshi says is deliberately calculated to attract attention towards his fork
• Faketoshi has absolutely no official connection to Bitcoin itself, but the more we talk about him, the more it appears as though he's somehow important or relevant
• It sets the tone that, as a community, we want to distance ourselves from the constant, sordid three-ring-circus/pantomime/freak-show he embodies
• We shouldn't be providing a platform for con-artists to further their fraudulent agendas, it's irresponsible

It's time to draw a line under this and move on.  Feel free to add more arguments, or dispute or critique the ones I've laid out.  If someone responds with an argument I like, I'll add it to the list.

^{Topic Rules:  Absolutely NO discussion of forked chains or altcoins here, please}

Take two.  Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments.  I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too.  I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

• Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities?  Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes?  If you had to choose, which takes priority?  Freedom?  Or ensuring everyone agrees?  
  
  
• Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement?  Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress?  Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well?  How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade?  Do they have cause to complain?  Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise?  Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change?  Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
  
  
• Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
  
  
• If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces?  Do you keep up to date with the latest changes?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on?  Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?
  
  
• Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions?  Do you think some developers have too much influence?  Should there be a larger number of dev teams?  Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?

While I'm curious on all these points, I'm not honestly expecting answers to every single last one of them.  Just express what you feel confident about.

Make your views heard.  Are you blindly updating your node to the latest version of Bitcoin Core without paying the slightest bit of attention to what the code actually does?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what your node is doing and know beyond all reason that you are expressing your own will?  Or are you somewhere in the middle, where you give the recent changes a quick read but generally just go with the flow?  Do you perhaps run a non-Core node because you don't agree with what Core are doing?  Or do you not run a full node at all and just want to weigh in with your observations?

Overall, do you think Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think users are the ones who make the decisions?  

now with core having what they desired. a network of core nodes that goes unopposed, so that as long as people continue to just sheep upgrade their nodes to the latest core release. core dont have to worry about hard forks no more. they can just do as they please and add what they like. yea i know some people dont want to be called sheep. after all they think they have become enlightened and 'woke' from the old boys club of fiat bankers. but have yet to realise they swapped one boys club for another

bitcoin has lost its diversity and lost its byzantine generals solution now that there is one general in charge of the rule change options.

bitcoins ethos and unique revolutionary feature has been lost. and so now people are questioning what is left for bitcoins utility/uniquness 'values' especially now the shephards herding the sheep want to deburden the bitcoin network by swaying the sheep into the commercial fields of LN and out of the organic fields of yesteryear known as the original ethos of bitcoin

It's also not the first time they've landed this accusation:

but right now no alternative brands that have their own proposals. just sheep following core

CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed

you'll see that things did change and anyone else was just sheep herded into the change activation via the "compatibility" trick where by not upgrading didnt actually prevent activation. thus people in the general community could not vote/veto/prevent the change.

And probably a few dozen other times, too.

I want to hear your views, because this accusation too often goes unchallenged.  Maybe you've all got him on ignore, I don't know.  Are you sheep?  Or do you have a voice of your own?  Does this user raise any valid points?  Or is it merely trolling?  

[Moderation note:]

Generally speaking, longstanding denizens of the forum aren't as easily mislead as newer members.  Sadly, new users are not always in a position to defend themselves from misinformation.  It appears as though there are some unscrupulous people out there who would take advantage of this.  It's therefore vital that we give new users the tools and knowledge to be able to differentiate between lies and genuine assistance when they are presented with information about technical subjects.  As such, this topic will stand as a handy guide on how to counter any fraudulent or deceptive arguments being presented by malicious users.


Moderation note:  Any malicious users who are quoted as sources of these lies are not permitted to post in this topic.



LIE #1:

"The Lightning Network will encourage users to leave Bitcoin in favour of other blockchains with lower fees and faster confirmation times, leading to Bitcoin losing dominance in the market".


SOURCE:

people will deposit bitcoins into LN. play around on LN but not want to get BTC back(slow confirms, only ~2k tx per block, higher fee's than many countries min wage). people will instead want to exit LN via an altcoin thats cheaper and faster.

people will deposit fiat into an exchange and realise fee's are lower, withdrawals are faster using the other coins compatible with LN. such as litecoin, vertcoin and others. after all users will only want to hold onto value as an actual blockchain coin for just long enough to get it out of an exchange and into an LN channel.

they wont care about which coin it is.

in short not sorting out bitcoins network issues and swaying people off network. wont really help people to want to use bitcoin or return to the network.. instead they will just prefer to swap to altcoins within LN and then use other coins network...

FACT:

Atomic Swaps are an exchange between two parties, where each will take ownership of the other party's funds on their respective blockchains.


REASONING:

It's called an Atomic Swap.  The clue is in the name.  It stands to reason that you can't swap coins on your blockchain with coins on another blockchain unless someone with coins on that blockchain wants some coins on your blockchain.  People will want to hold bitcoins due to the comparatively higher levels of security and adoption in relation to other coins.  If you relinquish ownership of some bitcoins and take ownership of a proportionate amount of altcoins, the owner of those altcoins will then take ownership of the bitcoins you just swapped.  It's not a one-way street.  A swap is only completed if someone takes ownership of the bitcoins.  As such, it's only natural that there will be as many users coming in as there are leaving.  This will not result in a reduction in the number of people using Bitcoin.  


This post will be updated with more lies as they are debunked.

[IMF warns storm clouds are gathering for next financial crisis]

Okay, that wasn't the actual headline.  But still, I'm pretty sure that's what they're really saying here:

IMF warns storm clouds are gathering for next financial crisis


At first the article sounds pretty reasonable and sensible:

“As we have put it, ‘fix the roof while the sun shines.’ But like many of you, I see storm clouds building, and fear the work on crisis prevention is incomplete.”

But then as the article continues, the true motivation is revealed:

Lipton said the IMF went into the last crash “under-resourced” before it was handed a war chest worth $1tn (£790bn) from governments around the world, while adding that it was important that world leaders had agreed to complete a review of the fund’s financial firepower next year.

“One lesson from that crisis was that the IMF went into it under-resourced; we should try to avoid that next time.”

"Bail us out so we can bail you out"?  Is that it?  Great plan.  I'm sure printing more money out of nowhere and throwing it at the problem is going to solve everything.  


//EDIT:  The Independent are now reporting it too.

Depending on who you ask, Bitcoin is either 9 or 10 years old right now.  It seems like we can't collectively decide which date is the right one to recognise as the official "birthday".  Which date do you think is most the appropriate one to celebrate?  Or do we celebrate all three equally?  

• The bitcoin.org domain name was registered on 18th August 2008.
• Satoshi's whitepaper was published on 31st October 2008.
• The Genesis Block was mined on 3rd January 2009.

I'd appreciate it if people didn't just post a date in response, but to actually justify their reasoning for it.  This is a self-moderated topic and I'll be deleting low-quality posts.  If all you can do is pick a date, use the poll and don't bother replying with a post.

[Current:]

So in Bitcoin Discussion, there are four "child boards" and two of them have pretty decent descriptions, but I think Press and particularly Meetups require a bit of tweaking:

Current:

Press Notable press hits

Meetups

Proposed:

Press Notable press hits about Bitcoin

Meetups Find conferences, summits, workshops and other notable gatherings in your area

People seem to be mistaking Meetups for "two dudes hanging out in a basement" or something.  And some people still think they can post any news (even related to altcoins) in the Press section.  Simple descriptions can help remedy these mishaps.

People generally agree we need more moderation to combat low quality spam posts, but many people wouldn't volunteer to do it as a full-time job.  Would there be an easy way to implement a system where those with good reporting history could earn "Mod Points"?  

We could start small to test the concept and make sure there's no abuse.  So, as an example, for every 200 accurate reports you make, you would earn a single "Mod Point", which you could expend to delete one spam post.  Then, if people aren't abusing it and the idea proves successful, we could lower the threshold to 100, then later maybe even 50 or fewer accurate reports.  You could also use any combination of rank/trust/merit as a prerequisite too if potential abuse is a concern.  Maybe it might be decided that you have to be Sr Member or above with no negative trust to be eligible to earn mod points.  But since anyone found to be abusing it would obviously risk losing their account permanently, I don't think abuse would be a big issue.  If you've taken the time and effort to make lots of accurate reports, it's fair to assume you care enough about the forum not to act maliciously.

[//EDIT1:  And forum staff would need to get a report so they can monitor that it's being used correctly]
[//EDIT2:  It's something that could work in conjunction with the proposed reporter badges with some refinement]

Eventually, this could ease the burden on the existing mods and encourage higher posting standards in the community.

Thoughts?

Seeing reports that millions of people currently aren't able to use theirs cards for purchases all over Europe.  Maybe people will finally start to understand why centralised systems are vulnerable to failure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44335804
https://news.sky.com/story/visa-card-problems-hit-uk-customers-and-businesses-11392087
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/visa-card-payment-down-mastercard-not-working-broken-payment-shop-a8379381.html

<Insert "Bitcoin user not affected" gif here>


//EDIT:  Even though I posted this first, one of the forum mods has started a thread for this, so I'll redirect everyone there:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4398048.0

Increasing numbers of people seem to be expressing the belief that because they can't wrap their heads around how Lightning works, that must mean it's too complicated and that the average person will never be able to use it in the real world.  But the simple truth is, if you don't understand Lightning, it's highly probable you also don't understand how direct deposit, payroll and credit/debit card payments work on a developmental level.  You'll notice, though, it doesn't stop you receiving and spending money with them.  I challenge everyone to sift through this thrilling four-part guide to automated clearing houses:

https://engineering.gusto.com/how-ach-works-a-developer-perspective-part-1/
https://engineering.gusto.com/how-ach-works-a-developer-perspective-part-2/
https://engineering.gusto.com/how-ach-works-a-developer-perspective-part-3/
https://engineering.gusto.com/how-ach-works-a-developer-perspective-part-4/

And, just in case you missed it, don't forget this exciting bonus supplement of ACH return codes:  https://gusto.com/ach_return_codes

Note that this is the simplified version.  Now try telling me how credit and debit cards are too complicated for the average person to use, simply because ACH isn't the easiest thing to comprehend the first time you read about it.  

Long story short, you don't have to understand it.  That's a job for developers.  Just know that when the time comes, it's going to work.  You'll be so busy sending and receiving payments, you won't even give a moment's thought about how or why it works.  It just will.  And that will suffice.