I can't speak for him, but I think what he meant is that the comparisons are ultimately pointless because it's not like each example listed can use a different off chain solution. Heck, while it could be true, it even feels weird to call the first two off chain solutions. For exchanges, people usually just say transfers are facilitated off chain (they're just updating balances internally after all), and the second barely has anything specific to do with crypto.

...or at least that's what I thought when I stumbled into this topic.

No. The market always boils down to supply and demand, so unless a crypto manages to implement a system that can properly regulate its supply based on the current demand (and that might even be impossible), market mechanics will dictate prices.

The closest thing to what you're describing are probably stablecoins though. Some are pegged to some currencies, while others try to implement clever workarounds. Try reading up on those.

How is the transaction speed exaggerated? You said yourself that there is no need to wait for confirmations. It was designed to facilitate instant transfers. Either way, the Lightning Network is completely opt-in and is mostly meant for point-of-sale and micro transactions. There's really no need to use it if you're not in a rush to send money.

But yeah, the simplest way to put it is that it's just another wallet that has a new network running on top of it. You can effectively transfer Bitcoin outside the blockchain through that network, and you can "save" the changes on the blockchain anytime later through a regular transaction. It's very controversial because it could be argued that it's not Bitcoin anymore, but it does eliminate the need to wait for confirmations, making it more suitable for real world use.

Even if you look at it purely from a technological perspective, it's bound to survive for a while. It's in constant development and there are a lot of things planned in the future. Barring a massive breakthrough in blockchain technology, I don't see anything rendering it obsolete within our lifetimes.

Lol well the community would know that some of them hate each others' guts no matter what, casual users probably have no idea about their backgrounds, and the greater world likely haven't even heard of them. If the intent is to show solidarity, I don't think many people in the loop will buy it, and those out of the loop won't know why a show of solidarity is necessary in the first place.

But yeah I don't believe it can happen, but I think it's a fun idea regardless. I nominate Bill Gates because he's one of the few skeptics who might actually be able to understand the white paper lmao. A chunk of the community also seem to be fixated upon his opinions regarding Bitcoin, so it works out for both parties.

This reeks of a money making scheme lmao:


It seems like nothing is really known about them as a group, so I don't think them taking over once Kim Jong Un is toppled is a given. This says they help North Korean defectors though, so it might be nice to support them. Other than that, it's a cool proof of concept I suppose.

Well the Eclair wallet has been developed enough that you don't need to run a full node to make a Lightning payment, and receiving payment is in the works. Lightning has been criticized for being too complicated, but this shows it doesn't have to be. I'm certain more and more people will use Lightning in the future once it starts to be as easy to use as typical Bitcoin wallets.

I barely understand what you're saying, but the gist of it is that you want to know which fees are appropriate without having to test yourself, right? You can use this website:

https://coinb.in/#fees

I find that this one is better than other common fee estimators, as a lot of those often inflate the minimum fee recommended.

As a sidenote, it's higher than usual at the moment (but still low in the grand scheme of things) so you should wait if possible.

That's pretty bad too because you lose proof of the scam. I know that the forum doesn't moderate scams, but they should probably make exceptions for cases as blatant as this, or at least prevent manual locking of threads in the marketplace section. This way, someone could at least leave warning messages for people who don't know how the trust system works.

But yeah, it's sad how people are falling for such blatant schemes in the first place. If they're naive enough to fall for something like this, I don't think there's anything anyone can do to protect them.

I disagree with his ways, but I'm pretty sure he has been very careful not to cross the line between being misleading to outright scamming. Bitcoin related scammers have been apprehended before, so he's probably not getting away with his questionable tactics because of a lack of regulation alone. I'm sure he has lawyers who tell him how far he can go and where to stop, so his plethora of fans don't get a chance to send him back to jail.

So yeah we can't really do anything, which, to me, sucks.

Or you know, it could also be because he was a brutal, divisive dictator. That conspiracy theory is grounded on the assumption that the concept of petrodollar is still significant to the strength of the USD, and I simply don't believe that it still is.

Worthless numbers in a computer screen that can be created at will could also be used to describe just about every other fiat currency there is, so why stop at USD? Why isn't other fiat being exposed when they don't have oil or anything backing them?

I think it sucks that he's using it for his own agenda, but that's well within his rights. I also think he's only a crypto supporter in a sense that he's going to be in favor of moves that would benefit him financially -- so pretty much like most people in crypto, except with more power and influence.

Even if someone else had registered Bitcoin.com at the beginning, we have no idea what it's going to be used for. It's a valuable domain, and it's still going to be centrally controlled like it is now. I guess it is more ideal for someone who actually supports Bitcoin to control it though.

I don't seem to see any issues with these?


Exchange rates are pretty easy to use. The same applies to USD and just about any currency and no one really complains about having to convert every now and then.


The same applies for goods and services, and yet those thrive where they are allowed. Different people from different countries may enjoy different sets of privileges, but it shouldn't have an extreme effect on the ecosystem as a whole. It's unfortunate that some countries are hostile towards Bitcoin, but enough accept it for it to thrive worldwide.


Using Bitcoin has exceedingly low requirements, so I don't see the lack of technology as an issue going forward. Again though, just because some people don't have access to it doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't either. Equality is ideal but not absolutely necessary.

When did he say stuff about Bitcoin being a bubble and being bad for the environment? His most recent statements were only warning banks from issuing their own "crypto" because it could reduce the demand for cash.

He is in a position of power, so it's possible he could influence crypto in a much more direct way unlike run-of-the-mill rich people like Warren Buffet, but these recent statements shouldn't be a problem for crypto at all. It might actually be better for the community if banks followed his warning.

The problem is you're actually hurting awareness in giving away trash coins by giving people a horrible first impression. A lot of them are scams too. It's absolutely true that there are good ones, but the fact that they're so few in number and that most of them aren't worth a working adult's time make it hard to recommend them.

Faucet-like solutions do help with awareness I suppose, but giving people amounts so small they can't spend it on anything anyway doesn't help adoption IMO. For mass adoption you ideally want consumer dependence, and one way you get that is by improving utility and user experience.

I think freedom should be above all else. The openness of Bitcoin encourages it, and there's no way to make everybody happy anyway.

If that much consensus is necessary, I don't think the community can go anywhere. As far as I'm concerned, everyone can hard fork all they want; the community can support whichever aligns with their ideals the best. There are going to be a lot of fractures, but it's better than staying in an unhappy marriage right? You also get to measure real consensus this way, from actual end users. Forcing people to agree to whatever compromise just to keep the community together feels a little too much like government to me.

People who choose not to upgrade in cases of soft forks can't really complain because it's their choice at the end of the day. They can't force individuals with different ideals who want different things to grant them anything more than backwards compatibility.

Saudi only accepting oil undoubtedly started it, but even if they accepted other currencies now, I don't think it's going to matter too much. The US Dollar has already established itself as the reserve currency, and nearly every country has a huge stockpile of it. It's going to remain the most convenient option even without the petrdollar concept because it's going to remain globally accepted.

This doesn't mean that the USD can't collapse, but rather that it's a strong, liquid currency. Strictly speaking, it's still not backed by anything at the end of the day. Saying it's backed by oil is almost like saying Bitcoin is backed by whales IMO.

I'm not convinced about the "much better and newer technologies" part. There are some coins that are marginally better in some areas, but at the end of the day, Bitcoin's ecosystem, versatility, and resiliency far outweigh them.

I can assure you that people won't ignore a far superior product just because the alternative has turned into an icon. Look at Kodak, Nokia, etc.

People have already covered why it's a meaningless metric, but to give you a better idea what would happen, look up stats from late January 2018.

According to this site, it went as low as around 32% in that period.

Spoiler alert: there wasn't anything special happening. The alt market was just staying strong while Bitcoin was reeling from a furious bull run.

Looks to me like Fox News was the only one who was outright dishonest, saying explicitly that he made money from Bitcoin. Others simply drew comparisons, which may be necessary because I'm sure not a lot of their audience have heard of cryptocurrency before, but are familiar with Bitcoin one way or another. It could be argued that Bitconnect wasn't truly a cryptocurrency, much in the vein of Ripple, etc., but the mainstream won't be able to follow that anyway.

As for the Washington Post's piece, well, rotten apples ruining the bunch isn't an entirely new occurrence to crypto. It's unfortunate, but people ignorant to the topic will believe what they want to believe in; some people still firmly believe that Bitcoin is still predominantly used for drugs, for example. I do agree that citing crypto use in this case is unnecessary at best, and malicous at worst though.