I understand that it adds to security and I agree. The problem is privacy.
As governments implement tougher and tougher regulations on exchanges, users find it more difficult to buy coins without providing personal identification for KYC laws.

There is only one definite private way of acquiring any PoW coin and that is with mining.
I am afraid that requiring coins to mine would stop people from getting into the system without their governments permission.

Providing a way for anyone to get into the system anywhere, as long as they can connect to the network is a very valuable feature.
You can't expect people in remote places without a proper banking infrastructure or tough cryptocurrency laws to buy their first coins.

Does using a multisig count just as a payment mechanism?

I think mutlisig transactions are the most popular and useful feature that has been brought to us by the blockchain.
Trustless escrow is quite an invention.

This isn't really news.
The real question is, why would you follow links written in the blockchain?

I don't even click links that friends send me, unless it is from a known website.

I haven't read your proposal, but I don't like that you say that miners need to have coins in order to mine.
It takes away from permissionless nature of the blockchain.
I think everyone should have a permissionless alternative to get into the system.

I would never suggest waiting to buy Bitcoin.
Unless you are waiting to learn more about it.

Sve mi se cini da oni kopaju to privatno dok ne naprave profitabilnije miner-e, pa prodaju ljudima ove manje profitabilne.
Dok oni prodaju svoje izrudarene bitkoine po najpovoljnijoj ceni, a ostali moraju da cekaju i rizikuju da cena poraste.


Ako potraznja postoji, doci ce i ponuda. Ako ne Telenor, mozda se osnuje neka nova banka, ako neko primeti da je potraznja dovoljno velika, ko zna...

By the end of this week it will be a month since this topic was created and we had absolutely no response.
It is quite disappointing that moderators don't have time to respond to us at least once a month.
Not even a simple "no", so we can know that we shouldn't waste our time.

Here's a Bisq presentation done recently by Chris

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv-eCchzBZA

Every other alternative to Bitcoin has it's serious drawbacks.
Gold is not digital, you can't send it across the world in matter of minutes.

Bitcoin is not just an investment, it is a form of payment, a currency.
There is no currency that is decentralized like Bitcoin.
Fiat currency is constantly being printed by governments, losing it's value.
Bitcoin has a very strict monetary policy, built into the protocol itself.

Big reason why people like Bitcoin is because it is decentralized and no one can take it from you.
It has high level of security and privacy. Government would have a really hard time confiscating your bitcoins.

I wouldn't bother. The amount you can earn from these campaigns are quite small, even for Legendary ranks.
I don't think no one will harass you for such a unusual income that no one is sure about.

Bitcoin is largely unregulated in the world and it will be difficult to regulate it once they make a significant effort.
This amount is also pretty small, so I don't see why someone would really care, as the whole signature campaign economy is very small.

But then again, I am not a lawyer, I have no idea.

Congratulations man!
We are proud of you too.

Yes. It might not be a good security practice, as your new server won't validate the blocks again, but if you trust the data, sure.
You will need to copy everything though, not just the blocks directory, but chainstate as well, otherwise it will start block validation process from the beginning.

I currently have 9 outgoing connections, since I added a node in my configuration file.
So you can have more, you just need to specify their IP address. It can't find more then 8 for you automatically.

Sharing the same board would be good enough for now, if we can have the same functionality, with ability to create child boards and etc.
Otherwise Croatia would unfortunately lose it's own board, which is not that good of an idea.

It is an eternal struggle. World will never be neither fully decentralized nor fully centralized.
Every centralized system tends to decentralize without outside influence.
In every system there are errors and some are more persistent then others.

I think it is reasonable to assume that every centralized system you see today will become more and more decentralized.
However new things get invented, new systems and structures get built and they are almost always centralized in the beginning as centralization gives lower complexity, speed and efficiency. But then trust,security and diversity come into play and they must decentralize to survive.

It is just a natural way of things, in my opinion.

Having more connections doesn't help with speed as much as reliability and security.
It is the ping that you should look at when you go to Debug Window->Help->Peers that can show you the quality of your connections.

You can always add more nodes as long as you are specific about which nodes you are adding.
Go to Debug Window->Help->Console and type "addnode <ip> add" to add a node with that IP address.

You can make these nodes add automatically when you start Bitcoin Core by adding a line (or multiple lines like it) to bitcoin.conf in your data directory.

Verovatno vecina nas ovde jeste. Ima vec nekih projekata ovde ili sa ovih prostora. Ali tesko je okupiti dobar tim generalno u svetu, pa u Srbiji jos teze.
Tako da bi morao da imas dobru ideju koja izgleda stvarno prakticno ostvariva i prilicno sigurna.

EDIT: Ima jedan interesantan topic ako ste zaboravili, na koji mozete slobodno baciti neki smisljen komentar https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3013762.40

Don't underestimate the Bitcoin community and their ability of creating passionate debates from nothing.
Even if they all agree that a fork needs to happen, they will still fiercely debate on what kind of fork it should be.


Miners can simply agree (as a soft fork is) to not mine nor accept as valid ECDSA signed transactions.
However they might still want to keep those valid, which might make sense, depending on how easy these attacks might be in practice.
We will have to wait and see.

New signing algorithm might simply use anyone-can-spend transactions, like segwit does, with miners agreeing that they won't mine them unless they are also sent this new type of signature with the transaction that is trying to spend the coins from this anyone-can-spend transaction.
This is how segwit doesn't break old nodes that see valid anyone-can-spend transactions, but can't seem to get their transactions confirmed if they try to spend them themselves.

I doubt a hard fork would be needed. I assume this can be done with a soft fork.


I wouldn't say destroy Bitcoin, as much as give us a really good discount

As far as I understand, it gets exponentially difficult to create a quantum computer that can work with bigger keys, so it is still probably an open question on the possibility of reasonably building such a strong quantum computer.
I assume we will switch to some new quantum secure algorithm with a soft fork as we slowly get closer to that big quantum computer, just like the rest of the tech industry does as well. It isn't just Bitcoin that would have to be upgraded, Internet and tech industry as a whole will need to go through this together.

Ja nekako sve imam osecaj da ce jos malo da padne, ali ko ce to znati.
Mislim da je sve ovo zanemarljivo za vrednost Bitkoina u buducnosti, ne bi covek trebalo previse da razmislja o ceni danas.
Ulozi sta mozes da priustis da izgubis i osim ako ne cujes da je kriptografija na kojoj je Bitkoin zasnovan nepopravljivo slomljena, ti samo drzi.

Mislim da ce Bitkoinu trebati bas dosta vremena da bude znacajan, par decenija bar. Tako da opusti se i razmiljaj o tehnolgoiji i sta moze da donese, ne o trenutnoj ceni.