[Moderation note:]

Generally speaking, any level users of the forum are easily mislead legendary are just as much as newer members sadly..

users are not always in a position to defend themselves from misinformation and their nodes are treated as 'compatible' thus they have no way of stopping certain groups roadmaps. any nodes redesigned to oppose such are thrown off the network

It appears as though there are some unscrupulous people out there who would take advantage of this.  It's therefore vital that we give all users the real knowledge to be able to differentiate between lies and genuine assistance when they are presented with information about technical subjects.  As such, this topic wil rebut the the propaganda that other networks are a better way to transact and 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 lies are permitted to post in this topic. but will be  corrected. and at worse, yawned at and laughed at. if they dont like it they can hit the ignore button.. its free


ISSUE #1:

"The Lightning Network will encourage users to leave Bitcoin by locking it up in smart contract vaults that are co-signed by elite users called "factories" who will charge for the service of being the entry and exit of broadcast tx and they will handle the non blockchained payments inside LN (other network thats not bitcoin). all due to certain devs stagnating bitcoins network scaling and implying bitcoin cannot transact well.. yet its the stagnation and stuff the devs have done that is the hold up. not blockchains themselves.
blockchains are not self coding AI. devs code it, so any problems it has come down to devs.

the result would be that average joe will end up seeing different blockchain coins as favourable when they want to exit the non-blockchain network. due to other blockchain networks having lower fee's and allow more transaction throughput
again bitcoin is not an AI that self coded in limitations and fee increases and self stagnated. developers purposely limited bitcoins scaling opportunities these last 3 years.

here is a person claiming it wont be the case, but he himself in his own reasoning shows that it will be the case that people will atomically swap within the non-blockchain network

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.

this is exactly what banks done with the gold market in the 18th-20th century by offering something thats not as secure as gold but "convenient".. and eventually people didnt want to play with gold no more. eventually realising silver and copper coins were easier to handle. and then the banks got to keep the gold while swapping ownership of the gold from the users to the banks and letting users then have silver and copper coins

ISSUE #2:
thinking a swap is an equal 2people enter 2 people exit(one with btc, one with altcoin). and here is a persons foolish attempt to sway the sheep to sleep by saying it will all be ok

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.  

an elitist factory(bank) takes in peoples bitcoins under their smart contract cosigned address.. its not one person with bitcoin one person with an altcoin.
its one bank with altcoins and multiple people with bitcoin.
thats what an LN factory is. a bank vault where many people lock funds up with one entity and then the factory hands out non blockchained, unaudited unconfirmed 'payments' to users so that users can play around within LN

once those people end up wanting to leave LN by needing a factories signature to do so, users will naturally want the cheapest fastest easiest way to get their value out of LN

thus naturally leaving with altcoin and the bank as one entity keep the bitcoin..
reasons.. as explained in issue #1

ISSUE #3:
many have been fooled initially that LN is a bitcoin only network layer that will make bitcoin scale and more popular. but that is a myth

LN is a separate network, it is not as secure as bitcoin, it does not solve the byzantine generals problem, it does not have a blockchain to even community audit the payments. users need other users for it to function. the other users need to sign off an payments. and many other issues.
yes i understand the promoted "convenience" POSSIBILITY. but in no way is it a bitcoin scaling tool. its a separate network to get people away from using bitcoins network. and locking people bitcoins up in co-signed contracts. and making it harder to exit LN via things like factories gatekeepers/watchtowers that are made to persuade users into keeping bitcoin locked up, by reissuing new offchain transactions as oppose to broadcasting bitcoin transactions out.
and lastly by making bitcoins network innovation of scaling be stiffled for 3 years just to keep up the persuasion that bitcoins network is not the best utility for value(facepalm)

so if anyone wants to refute this and instead continue the lie that LN is made just for bitcoin. try checking the code.
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/chainregistry.go#L579

Code:

litecoinMainnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,
})

// chainMap is a simple index that maps a chain's genesis hash to the
// chainCode enum for that chain.
chainMap = map[chainhash.Hash]chainCode{
bitcoinTestnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
litecoinTestnetGenesis: litecoinChain,

bitcoinMainnetGenesis:  bitcoinChain,
litecoinMainnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
}

 and as pointed out thus far even by the guys over promoting LN who are now FINALLY admitting its purpose to get people in, and then atomic swap them for altcoins(issue 1)

ISSUE #4:
people still insist that bitcoins network has scaled in the last 3 years due to segwit.

yet. segwit byte for byte is heavier on a hard drive than legacy bitcoin transactions. bitcoins original creator calculated under lean, non bloated contracted silly feature conditions. where users just do lean transactions of one spend, one recipient, one change address.. would allow 7tx/s (604k tx a day) this was an estimate given 8 years ago.
segwit of same lean 1 in 2 out wont get 600k a day for the same 1mb hard drive space
and....
the wishwashy code allows
partial data to be miscounted(witness scale factor)
separated(segrgate witness).
and the pretense of there now being a 4mb "weight" limit.
even the devs that created segwit admit that it wont achieve a 2.4m tx a day threshold(4*1mb estimates)
they cant even guarantee a 1.2m tx day (2*of 1mb estimates)

even now. there has not been a day that has pushed passed the 600k tx estimated threshold that has existed since 2009

segwits aim was not to be a scaling solution. as the byte for byte bloat proves (though many devs try hiding it with wishy washy scale witness and vbytes code)
segwits utility is to be the gateway tx format to persuade users over to other networks, such as LN.
while also adding in a trojan back door to allow devs to now change the network without using bitcoin consensus.
(their buzzwords 'inflight upgrades'/compatible softforks)
which if certain things are added that have malicious intent. users wont have consensus to prevent it as that has been by passed with the "compatibility" backdoor and threats of being taken off the network if they attempt to oppose segwit or deactivate it.

This post will be updated with more issues that will and are negatively affecting bitcoin.

just remember they dont want bitcoin to scale. they want people to lock up thir bitcoin, play with other networks and not return so that elitists can stockpile the bitcoin. because they want bitcoin as a "reserve currency" not a open peer to peer cash network

so series 3 was released this week. its a show all about cryptocurrencies
available/showing on sonys crackle platform/channel..... of them cough streaming sites cough that are not affiliatd with mainstream broadcast platforms

starring
dork from 'the OC'
watson from 'sherlock', he also in recent 'fargo' series and a few marvel movies
hellboy from 'hellboy'

series one was about starting an altcoin, and pivoted into ICO and blackmail and VC funding
series two was about ICO and blackmail, kidnapping and murder ending with releasing a openbazaar LN hybrid

series three begins with the openbazaar LN used as a silkroad(darkmarket) which brings in the NSA trying to get involved

this might cause a stir in the speculative market. as it was not a coincidence that just making an altcoin mutated into "ICO's" around the time of the hype of series 1&2

im writing this here because eltoo is not a bitcoin feature. its not even an blockchain so doesnt belong in the bitcoin or altcoin section. its a feature for a separate non blockchain network that will be used for multiple coins offchain.

i also going to moderate it purely to delete any anal people that just want to sling mud(insult) because of whatever PR bias they have to defend a social group, rather than actually talk about the topic.
but dont fear. if you actually reply to talk about the issue. without slinging insults you'll be fine

personal note
windfury ill give you a bit more respect than doomad as you dont sling insults in every post for drama entertainment
as for research. try google, not the boys club i see you keep conversing and echo chambering in. after all. if you havnt learned about eltoo yet, it seems they are not teaching you

now lets begin
first step down the factory rabbit hole
https://blockstream.com/2018/04/30/eltoo-next-lightning.html
"

Beyond Lightning
One such multiparty off-chain contract is the channel factories presented by Burchert et al. as a scalable way to fund any number of payment channels on top of a single on-chain transaction and to rebalance or reallocate them dynamically without ever touching the blockchain.

"

this is where it is saying that its adding another layer away from the onchain transaction
EG you dont fund a channel direct. you fund a factory onchain... then OFFCHAIN(emphasis) the factory funds a channel. and the channels settlement does not close back onchain. but the settlement returns funds back to a factory.

you can imagine it like funding fortknox with gold. and locking gold to fortknox. and then let fortknox hand out paper promissory notes (offchain tx) to individual channels (accounts).. then the accounts dont close by handing gold to the user, but handing the prommissory note back to the factory. where by the factory then gives new promissory notes to new channels(accounts) to avoid broadcasting back to the blockchain

the link to Burchert et al goes into more detail. but the funny part is the first opening paragraph. is the obvious bitcoin is broke cant scale wont scale mantra.. but if you actually care about bitcoin the network instead of core the monarchy. you will know why it cant scale. because core halted scaling onchain. (halting onchain to make lightning, to then have lightning supporters say the halted scaling means lightning is needed more(thats like starving your kid so you can eat then blaming your kid for not growing))

also i am providing links from the side i detest for good reason, just to show it the information is theirs and not some information gleamed from some social drama group. or a group that some people call the core opposer's.. that way it cant be said that i am linking information that is just biased against the eltoo/core crowd
(if it comes from the horses mouth. you cant say 'nah ignore it its just an ass(donkey) talking)

[sabbatical from Blockstream]

edit

poor gmaxwell moved a post away from another topic so people were less likely to read it.
more twisting the narrative to fit his scripts
but i put the post back in its place as it refers to the twaddle he was rabbiting on about in that topic

gmaxwell you spent many conversations in that 0bin trying to pretend matt corallo is not an "employee" of blockstream.

yet again many people see your half twisted wording.
just be honest

matt changed from "employee"  last month and is now "employed" by chaincode labs but remains a 'contractor' of blockstream under the title advisor and his "employment" at blockstream is not terminated. just set to on sabbatical/contractor

you could save yourself alot of trouble by just being honest

https://blockstream.com/team/   (scroll to bottom - advisor)
http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/08/08/chaincode/

I’m excited today to announce that, for a few months this coming fall, I will be taking up residency with Chaincode Labs in New York on sabbatical from Blockstream. Even more exciting - we’re looking for people to come join the fun!

in short. if matt corallo is not part of team blockstream do 3 things.
1. take him off the listing of team members of blockstream
2. dont give him access to your blockstream product 'elements'
3. or admit he is still involved in blockstream .. and man up and say so

lets please avoid the lame kardashian drama 'who is satoshi' distractions of the roundtable.
and lets ask, discuss and look into the real question that should be asked:

what actual proposals of bitcoin code changes, features and demands were discussed at the round table

coindesk has made a summary
http://www.coindesk.com/blocked-block-size-bitcoin-basics-satoshi-roundtable/

any other sources and info? which would help the community know whats been said and suggested during their closed door meetings

Sidechains[altcoins] considered

That's not to say that the discussion didn't provide advances.

In conversation, prominent technologists seemed increasingly interested in testing scenarios in which a sidechain[altcoin], or a blockchain featuring bitcoins pegged to the main blockchain, would be used as a way to extend the tech's functionality while preserving its core.

Under this scenario, the bitcoin blockchain could theoretically support a separate blockchain[altcoin] that would have different features, such as say, an 8MB block limit

The discussion focused on two particular sidechains[altcoins] proposals introduced in recent months, though which had not been broadly been considered as potential ways to achieve scaling.

However, there was acknowledgement that other factors needed to be refined (such as how the sidechains[altcoins] would be secured). Also notable is that the idea would require the addition of new code to the bitcoin protocol by way of a soft fork, meaning miners would still have to signal support for the upgrade.

Conceptually, however, the idea seemed to have support, and a potentially broad appeal.

One attendee summed up the idea:

    "The people who want things to stay the same can keep everything. For people who want large blocks, you don't have to schedule a hard fork."

funny part is if an altcoin can cope with 8mb.. then all the "internet cant cope, nodes cant cope" rhetoric just got destroyed,  because obviously there is no node/internet issues if an alt can do it..

so just let bitcoin itself have the capacity starting at a rational dynamic beginning of say 2mb and naturally grow, knowing 8mb is possible. especialy knowing that they deem altcoins/node/the internet can cope with it..

just came across a documentary about bitcoin
called "banking on bitcoin"
cited as created 2016

sorry if this streaming site gives a couple annoying pop-ups. most sites do these days
if anyone can link a less annoying site, ill list it
https://123movies.cloud/film/banking-on-bitcoin-18789/watching.html

review
interviews with lots of people

mentioned everything from cypherpunks, a bit about how bitcoin works (no big technical detail, so noob friendly)
mtgox, silkroad, bitinstant, VC's jumping in, bankers starting altcoins. and a few speculations on who is satoshi

summary fair 50/50 unbiased. mentioning major events and history of bitcoin

[this is a thought experiment.]

this is a thought experiment.

imagine you had control of a countries economy and could revolutionise how money creation is done.
explain how you would prefer money to come into existence
explain who, when and why X should get it.

EG one
funds creation:
multisig. based on birth certificate registration between 2 parents and the birth/death registration office. (2 of 4 multisig)
funds created at signing birth certificate and locked.
funds usage:
released at set times EG 25% rate of national minimum wage(yearly total) is released per year (covers unemployment/state pension) from birth to death.
money creation value:
£$4k a year. making £$300k money creation per person living 75 years

EG two
funds creation:
multisig. based on birth certificate registration between 2 parents and the birth/death registration office.
funds usage:
funds are accumulated based on education. where if you attend education everyday you get extra credit. if you get C or above you get extra credit.
funds are unlocked by the employer "buying" your locked credit to then pay you.
thus the better you do in school the better locked credit you have and thus better job you can apply for to get paid better.
money creation value:
back luck at school: £$4k a year. making £$300k money creation per person living 75 years
good attendance C+: £$6k a year. making £$450k money creation per person living 75 years
good attendance A+and degree: £$10k a year. making £$750k money creation per person living 75 years

in both cases i could go into more details. but lets see what creative idea's people can come up with as a new national monetary system

take into account things like lessoning the requirement on taxes to cover poverty, while also helping people better themselves

this is not a news or documentary series.
its actually a real entertainment/action tv series
called "startup"
first mention of cryptocurrency is at 12minutes when they talk about developing their "Gencoin"
basically really gets into the whole crypto currency discussion at 28:30 onwards

yes i know people dont like links
but for all those that like free TV streaming sites, you should recognise this one.
http://123movies.to/film/startup-season-1-16042/watching.html
enjoy

your free to search your own streaming service for "startup"

[£]

after seeing the dollar<->pound drop on early news there was a "leave" majority(even though only 1% of votes were counted at that point)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36611512

if the leave does actually win. we should see some more parity between the dollar and pound.

in short if you were holding onto 1btc yesterday ($640 - £440)
then IF the dollar<->pound tanks any more. the $640 dollar price of bitcoin can become over £500 per bitcoin due to the forex rate changes getting closer in parity.
EG (forex rates $<->£)
1btc@$640=
1.50 rate= £426.67
1.45 rate= £441.38
1.40 rate= £457.14
1.35 rate= £474.07
1.30 rate= £492.31
1.25 rate= £512.00
1.20 rate= £533.33
1.15 rate= £556.52

which is good if you want to sell coins for pounds, because you get more pounds per bitcoin
although the news hasnt shown if remain would make the rate increase. but if it did. then the pound price of bitcoin could go down, which would make it cheaper to buy

might be some good speculative profiting happening this morning either way

firstly lets get the fundementals out of the way.

luke Jr wants to do a hard fork to drop the difficulty because he WRONGLY thinks blocks will take longer to mine due to events of the reward halving.

now to understand this you need to know some basics that luke jr has not factored in.

when a pool solves their block. the solution is based on the work done by just that pool. not the entire network.

its the data processed within that pool that keeps attempting different combinations until it finds a solution.
any 'work' done by pool B is not shared with pool A.. they are separate pools and their attempts are not related in any way.
the work is independant to the individual pool. and not shared. only the end solution is shared.. not the work

so say pool A solves a block in 10 minutes.
if pool B decided to give up and claim bankruptcy. it would not affect pool A's work at all, pool A would still have solved that block in 10 minutes.

also
block difficulty is not based on network hashrate. but based on the times of each block solved over  2016 blocks.. if its less than 2 weeks the difficulty changes.

so say pool A solved 2016 blocks in a row. it does not matter what the hash power of pool B, C, D, E is. because they have not solved any blocks.
also its not a guarantee that the pool with the top hashpower is going to solve every block. so again hashrate is not important.

now lets get into understanding the scenario
when 1 pools solves a block the other pools dump the attempts and move onto the next one(usually).

now in a nice world of statistics we would love it if when a block is solved the other pools continue on until they too have a solution. and then publicise the average time it takes for each pool to make a block.. rather then just knowing fastest first.(basically having 20 time statistics for each of the 20 main pools, instead of 1)

so my scenario is based on a random number of between 8 minutes to 40 minutes to represent the average times a miner would solve a block.
below is a table that has marked in green the 'fastest first' winner. but also has the average(random) times which the other pools would get a solution if they didnt ditch their attempts.

the reason for including the times is so that if we start to remove certain pools from the table we can see who would be next in line to win in a scenario where some of the pools didnt mine.. all times in the cells are random numbers between 8minutes to 40 minutes.. you too can easily try this yourself
i originally thought about doing 5-20 minutes randomness for the top 6 pools and 8-40 minutes for the remaining 14, to closer resemble pool hashpower percentages
 but instead thought 8-40 for all 20 pools would be fairer and less chance of knitpickers moaning.. because the numbers are larger and more fair to the naysayers



so above shows a healthy amount of pools making blocks 8-12 minutes.

now lets take away the pools that solve blocks often. lets pretend that these are the massive mining farms that luke jr presumes will go bankrupt due to the reward halving.

infact there were 20 pools listed. so lets take away the top 10 pools.. because luke Jr's presumption is that pools would take atleast 20 minutes to solve..if 50% was lost.... so lets lose the top 50% as the extreme scenario.. and see how it plays out



now.. this if luke Jr was right would show no miner making a block in less time then 16 minutes.. yet the table still shows 8-12 minutes.. so luke is wrong

now lets instead of thinking that its the top 10 pools that will go bankrupt.. but instead its the smaller pools that dont have a chance of solving as often even before the halving.



so in both scenarios blocks are still being made in 8-12 minutes.

now i want you to try it yourself.. and no before you even think about it, dont put in fake numbers to try to make a fake rebuttle example, be honest to yourself. so that you can see for yourself..
the formula i used is
=RANDBETWEEN(8,40)&":"&RANDBETWEEN(10,59)

8,40 is the number of minutes 8 to 40
10,59 is the number of seconds 10 to 59.  i done 10 instead of 1 purely for visual aesthetics because single digits look uglier. but you are free to do 1-59 as it makes no difference.

have fun making your own scenarios. and if you are going to be a twog and manually type in data just to fake a rebuttle. your only ultimately lying to yourself. so use honest random formula not manual numbers.

and you will hopefully come to the same conclusion i have.. that if pools drop out due to less rewards, it wont cause longer block solvings. because as i said if pool B drops out it wont affect pool A's work in any way

https://blockchain.info/tx/6fe69404e6c12b25b60fcd56cc6dc9fb169b24608943def6dbe1eb0a9388ed08

when looking at this analysis done a few years ago, some have presumed that all the tall slopes are satoshi..
or that satoshi was all the blue dots and only hal was the red dot.

but its not.

initial versions of bitcoin started at a base nonce('extranonce' if your going to be an anal knickpick) of 0 and incremented up..
even when solving a block they would continue increment the nonce until they restarted the client/computer. where the nonce began at 0 again.

some versions did eventually play around with the code and set it to reset after each block had been solved.
and some set it to reset after a certain number.
thats why you see that there is a difference between a bunch of people who's nonce never really goes above 250 some didnt go above 500.. and some went all the way up, and some were random

so most will say that satoshi must be all the long lines..
but then we get into the analysis of the angle of the slope.
where the angle reveals a different hash speed (cpu speed) so a slope at nearly 10degrees is a totally different and faster cpu compared to the one near 45 degree's

over the last few years many people have looked at angles, nonce resets and other factors and worked out in the first couple weeks of bitcoin (height 0-1000) there was 9 people or possibly 9 different systems mining bitcoin not just satoshi and not just satoshi and hal.. and even more miners by the time the blockheight got to 10,000

your free to use bitcointalks search to find the analysis.

alot of people are arguing that due to the reward halving, fee's need to increase above 0.0001btc.
this is not true, and now i will explain


this is the amount of bitcoin reward for solving blocks

this is the amount of tx fee with the assumption that starting from 4000tx(1mb) staying at 0.0001 and the blocklimit doubling every 2 years starting mid 2016 with 8000tx(2mb) leading to a 0.8btc total fee potential, then doubling block limit mid 2018 to 16000tx(4mb) with a 1.6btc total fee potential.. basically the fee per tx stays at 0.0001 forever, no matter what

now this is more complicated to explain, but basically speculating that when a reward halves, the fiat valuation doubles which means the tx fee halves, which is what happens already. miners try to retarget fee's to only be a few cents at most. but the chart also includes the increase of transactions allowed due to larger blocks allowing more tx's can fit in.. basically the tx fee drops when fiat value rises, thanks to deflation

so,, hopefully you can understand and see that in the image..
now
(1) this shows that while the block reward is 25 the constant transaction fee's are 0.4btc, the deflationary transaction fee is 0.4btc.

(2) now if we went with constant 0.0001 fee fee's will exceed block rewards in the year2022

(3) now if we went with deflationary fee's which decrease as fiat valuation increases. the fee's will exceed the block reward in the year 2029.

just to note. constant 0.0001 fee, means that when 1 bitcoin costs (speculating) $10,000 the transaction fee is $1 (which is not good and no one will want to transact.
where as
deflationary fee allows the fee's to stay as only a few cents or less.. while also earning miners over $20,000 in the year 2029, and upto $90,000 in 2034

which is fair for the users and also fair for the miners. as currently they average $10,000-$12000(depending on fiat valuation the last 4 years) so they are not really going to lose out either

in short:
with all that said transaction fee's should not need to go above 0.0001 again, as the fiat valuations and blocklimit increases will take care of things to allow miners to get an nice income for just 10 minutes work. as show in the deflationary fee chart
.

it would only be miner greed to choose to keep it at constant fee, which would make it too expensive for user usage, and would ruin bitcoin.

so lets just stick with the deflationary fee model which has worked well for the last 7 years, and should continue to work for both miners and users to both benefit, and simply end the tx fee debate as nothing needs to alter.. miners just got to continue reducing fee's to keep it inline with a few cents at most.. like they have so far

even american express see's that bitcoin can be positive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SUO2YFDSCY

jamie foxx's character mentions paying for burner phones with bitcoins.

i say this because many people thought bitcoin would never be mentioned in a multi-million dollar movie in 2014... well.. it now has

Here is the scene: http://youtu.be/-tUT9DiqkSo

Two New York-based Venezuelan brothers hope this week to start trading on the first bitcoin exchange in the socialist-run country, which already has at least several hundred bitcoin enthusiasts.

Due to currency controls introduced by late president Hugo Chavez a decade ago, acquiring hard currency now means either requesting it from the state, which struggles to satisfy demand, or tapping a shadowy black market. Even small dollar transactions are out of the question for most Venezuelans.

"Bitcoin is a way of rebelling against the system," said one bitcoin trader, Caracas-based software developer John Villar, 32, who discovered the usefulness of bitcoin when he wanted to buy a $10 cellphone battery on Amazon.

Unable to pay for it in dollars, he bought bitcoin off a friend using local currency. He then used the bitcoin to purchase an Amazon gift certificate, with which he bought the battery.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/08/us-venezuela-bitcoin-idUSKCN0HX11O20141008

no, this is not a money grab like the other guy is trying.

bitcoin can directly help reduce ebola contamination.

think about it, dallas right now has 80 people on observation. imagine it increased to 800.. would you start to be more cautious about who you touched, knowing they could have sneezed, spat or pissed on their hand.

well would you touch their bank notes...

well would you touch the keypad of a debitcard reader

wel would you touch the keypad of a ATM.. not knowing what germs or potential 'fluids' it had on there..

once dallas becomes more widespread with more people under observation due to more people showing symptoms you will see this happening. shop owners will start refusing to accept bank notes in fear of touching someone elses "fluids" and they will be spending lots of money on hand sanitiser and antibacterial stuff to put next to card readers to tempt people to pay via debit card or other methods.

but guess what

bitcoin is the solution. no need to touch an ATM or 'chip&pin' card reader. no need to touch bank notes. simply scan a QR code from arms length

... simple huh

 
the other topic of a similar name is someone trying to use the ebola outbreak as a get rich quick scheme. please dont donate to it, instead think smart about how you use your money. including who you come into contact with

is there any way we can legally protect our bitcoins by declaring that we are not the beneficiary/recipient  (beneficiary/recipient of bitcoin is technically the blockchain) but where we are purely the executor/administrator of the bitcoin funds.

where by bitcoin transactions cannot be used as evidence against the administrator or any bitcoins be seized as they are in trust as opposed to directly owned by a person

i ask this in response to the whole bitlicence saga of the near future, where by people will be looking for different ways to keep new york away from just taking coins. either due to the blockchain declared as a private trust, or out of new york jurisdiction.

we cant simply let other countries make laws for us, we need to know what common law or legal statutes exist to protect us from them automatically and from the beginning

there has been alot of waffle over the last 5 years that banks would hate bitcoin. but has anyone actually made a pro's and cons list for banks?

Well we heard alot of negative cons people percieve the banks would not like. such as:
they cant screw average joe
they cant manipulate it/control it
they cant simply make money appear from nothing

but what about the pro's, so lets start it off:
1) their hedge funders and brokers can still play the markets in their comfy leather chairs and continue to get their bonuses
2) they can shut brick and mortar banks as they wont need customer walk-in's, thus saving on building costs/maintenance per town
3) they can reduce staff numbers EG low level security/customer counter staff meaning a huge expenditure saving
4) no need to produce plastic cards and mail them out, saving a few dollars per customer
5) no need to produce paper bank statements and mail them out, saving a few dollars per customer
6) hoarding customers funds for a year, will make them profits without even having to play the markets
7)....(you fill in the blanks)

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/

i wont comment on my personal opinions. ill leave that for you guys