You interpreted my mindset quite well. I really don't plan to get married because I don't see a value for me to do so.
A relationship can work as well or as bad if you are married or not.

If you love your choosen partner until the bitter end and your partner feel the same for you that's the perfect scenario which often enough happens.
But don't forget the other people who don't have the luck to find their soul mate. I don't think those couples should stay together when they don't love each other anymore. But of course you should first try to work on the relationship and try to fix it before going separated ways. I don't mean you should give up a relationship after the first small discrepancy.

You say, the person you married becomes your closest family. I agree with that. But sometimes it happens that this person becomes your biggest enemy.

When there are children involved it gets more complicated but even then I think it can be better when the parents don't live together. If a child get love by separate living parents or even get love by only one parent it can be better than parents who constantly fight each other.

And also if they stay in the relationship it will prevent them that they can find a better partner.


That's the main problem. Too much people don't follow this rule. They rush with the decission to marry someone and then wonder why the relationship did not hold.

In my opinion no government should be allowed to ban any book.
In the best case I could accept an age limit but no complete ban.

It does not matter if it's the bible or any other book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments

If there is no more love in the relationship it's just stupid to stay together.

If one partner in a relationship is not happy anymore, the other partner will also feel it and will also become unhappy.
If you stay together just for any artificial reason like 'it's sacred' or 'we committed long time ago' you will just make everybody involved unhappy.

So, if there is no chance anymore to save the relationship, quit it. It will help you and your partner in the long turn.

Don't waste time with the wrong partner. And if the partner is right or wrong can change over time as people also change over time.

Consensus means, that the majority of the participants are willing to follow those rules.
And I'm quite sure that at some point in time the majority will agree with a block weight increase.

Let me think about the different roles who are part of the bitcoin network.
The following list is just my opinion of what the different roles could think. I might be wrong, so feel free to correct or extend this list.

• Miners
  Most miner would be for an increase of the block weight as they could pack immediately more transactions into one block which would increase their collectable fees.
  Some miners with a bad internet connection might be against it, as they would have a disadvantage as bigger blocks would get broadcasted a bit slower which means they have a bigger delay to start mining a new block.
• Full Nodes
  Depending on how big the increase will be, the people who run full nodes will need to check if their current CPU power is high enough to be able to validate incoming transactions and blocks in time, if they have enough disk space to store the blockchain and if their bandwidth is high enough to be able to download and propagate received blocks to connected peers.
  The CPU power will not be a limited factor as even with a x4 block weight increase a Raspberry Pi could still easily handle this load.
  Also disk space is not a problem today with an increased block weight.
  The bandwidth is usually the limiting factor. Not the download speed, it's more the upload speed.
  So, if the increase would be too high this could mean that some people could stop or limiting providing their full nodes.
• Users
  Normal users usually only want a good experience. With increased block weight, transactions would get confirmed faster and that's what is important for them.
• Companies
  Companies, as seen in the past with support of the 2X will be happy with an increase of the block weight. I don't see that they would be against it.
• Core Developers
  Core developers want to keep the network as secure and as decentralized as possible. When they see that an increasing of the block weight does not have a big impact on security and decentralization, the majority will also be for an increase.
  As the infrastructure (CPU power / bandwidth / hard disk storage) increase over time, so they will allow also an increase of the block weight with about the same rate. This will more or less guarantee that the network don't get more centralized

When a fork for increasing the block weight is agreed, I think there will be not only an increase of the block weight but also some other new features which require a hard fork.
As a hard fork is always dangerous, you should get the most out of it to avoid another hard fork after a short time.

Combined with also new features a hard fork might be more interesting also for those people who are against a block weight increase on it's own.
Such a hard fork will also need a preparation from I guess about 1 year. So there is time that everybody get notified about the hard fork and have time to update their software.

But of course there is a big chance that a chain split happens as it's hard to get everyone on board.

There will be a legacy chain and a forked chain. But if the majority was for a consensus change, the most value will be on the forked chain and just a small part will stay on the legacy chain. Maybe the legacy chain will die after some time, maybe it will continue like Ethereum Classic or maybe it keeps the most value. This decision will then be made by the market.

BCash was a fork without overall consent, that's the reason why it just become an alt coin. If BCash would had the majority on their side or if the Segwit2X would have been successful with the majority on their side (which would also be represented by the market value), this winning fork would be the new bitcoin in my eyes.

I've read this medium article, but I'm a bit confused about the second part (Funding & redeeming).

In the first part the author is doing everything right to keep everything on the offline laptop.
But then he suggests to copy the wallet.dat to an online computer?

For me this makes no sense. Why doing all those secure steps before to create a cold wallet and then just copy the wallet.dat to an online PC?
With this step the cold wallet instantly turn into a hot wallet. So what is the point here?
It does not matter for me, that the passphrase was never used so far.

In my understanding a cold wallet never touches a PC which is connected to any network.

I would only agree with the described way if the author would change one point and add one point.

1) The wallet.dat on the usb-drive should not be verified on any online PC. Only copy the wallet.dat on the online PC whenever you want to spend the coins.
2) Whenever you spend something from this wallet.dat, always spent EVERYTHING and then never use this wallet.dat again. Create a new one.

I think we will see a block weight increase in the future.

But I also think that this should not be rushed.

The first step was to get Segwit which is essential for lot of future improvements including lightning.

But I guess lot of people did not understand that it's not done by just activating Segwit.
It's important that people and companies also use Segwit so it can show it's benefits.

And I think the only way it was possible to force companies to implement Segwit in their services was to reject the Segwit2X fork.

Companies usually first think about their money.
So what is cheaper for them?
Increasing the block weight where they don't have anything to do or hire some developers to implement Segwit in their software.

Of course the companies decide to go the easy and cheap way.

With the Segwit2X I think we would have temporarily solved the full blocks end of last year but I'm quite sure that nearly no company would have implemented Segwit on their side as everything is fine even without using Segwit.
Without the overfilled mempool end of last year (which might be caused by attacking the network with spam transactions), I also think that Segwit adoption by the big companies did not happen that "fast". Because of high transactions fees they were forced to implement Segwit and batching transactions to maintain their businesses.

Therefore I can completely understand that lot of people (including lot of Bitcoin Core team members) were against a block weight increase for now.
But I don't see this rejection of the 2X as "they are against an increase forever".

So in short. Segwit need to get adopted which would be much slower if also a block weight increase happened.
After adoption of Segwit and other soft fork scaling solutions I'm sure we will see also an increase of the block weight (maybe not in the near future, but it will come).

Maybe you want to have a look at the following project I found by using google.

https://github.com/peatio/peatio

It's open source and based on ruby on rails.
Regarding their readme it's a full featured exchange which is already used for some exchanges, so at least it does look like something legit.

Just remember, that running an exchange is more than just installing a software on a web server....

• You need developers who understand the source code to be able react fast in case of software bugs, or just to implement features you need but are not available in the current code base
• You need security experts to secure your servers, do security audits or handle attacks to the server
• You need people with knowledge how high availability servers need to be set up and maintained
• You need people who maintain the full nodes of all cryptos you want to provide on the exchange
• You need people to guarantee 24/7 support

And there are for sure lot more tasks which need to be done.

I don't know how experienced you team is, but if you don't have enough knowledge it's quite likely that you mess something up and you loose the funds of your customers.

Edit:
Just saw, that there is not much happening on github. The latest changes beside the readme are already 3 years old.
So as there is no ongoing maintenance of the software, if you plan to use it, you should really have your own development team to continue the project.

The question is wrong. I would ask "Is life with or without a relationship better"?

It's the relationship what makes the difference, not the marriage (at least it should not make a difference in your connection to your partner if it's your girl-/boyfriend or husband/wife).

The short answer is, "it depends".

Different types of people will give different (valid) answers.

People who love to be together with another one, where relationship is more important than being single, who cannot be alone, will be unhappy without a partner. So they seek a relationship to live a happy life.

On the other hand there are people who love to be independent. They want to do whatever they want whenever they want. A relationship can make this difficult.
A relationship is always a trade off of what you want and what your partner want. In the best case these two expectations matches, but usually there is a gap between those two expectations.
Someone who see less benefit in giving up some of his freedom than the benefit of being in a relationship would sooner or later be unhappy with the relationship.

And there are also people who don't see any benefit to be in a partnership at all. For them a relationship would just be a pain in the ass, so they stay single and be happy with this decision.

Everybody in this range from "cannot live without a partner" to "cannot live with a partner" has his valid reasons and they should be respected.

I don't think it will be possible to travel back in time.
We can just watch into the past by observing the stars (we only see the stars how they looked like in the past, not how they look like now. Even the sun we see now is the sun from before 8 minutes).

Even when we can watch the past of distant objects, we would never be able to watch ourselves in the past (without recording ourselves).

But we could travel to the future. Einsteins special relativity theory would allow it with his thought experiment of the twin paradox.

To send someone to the future, you just need to send them to space with an extremely fast spaceship, let him fly around the solar system for a year with nearly the speed of light and then come back to earth. While for the guy in the space ship one year has past, on the earth much more time has past, so he would be back on earth in the future.
But as travelling to the past is not possible, he would never be able to go back where he started from.

It's never a thing like money or anything else you can imagine which is the root of evil.

It's always the human.

Money and other stuff might be a catalyst, but it's never the root cause. It's the different nature of people which make things good or bad.

It is so sad to know that there are still a lot of people who DO believe in God even there is not one provable evidence to his existence.

Religions usually pray acceptance, unity, peace and so on but (some of) their followers are the first one who break their own rules when it comes to people who don't fit into their view of life, like witches in the past (or even now in some places in Africa), or their enemy number one homosexual people. There is enough prove here in some of the topics in Politics & Society where different sexual preferences or stuff like that is discussed. Mostly it's religious people who are against those life styles with the reason it's a sin or other bullshit.

As long as religions don't accept different life styles of different people without attacking them, they are completely worthless to me.

I don't have any problems with people who want to believe in god or in any other supernatural being even when I think it's stupid.
I usually only have problems with missionaries and people with very limited views of other peoples life styles. Interestingly mostly religious people (of course not only them) fall into this category. Where is the acceptance here? Where is the unity here?

I don't need a god to make moral decisions or to know what is right and wrong
  - do you think if people never invented the concept of gods or religions, people would all be psychopaths and would not follow any rules?
I don't need a god to live a happy and fulfilled life
  - do you think if people never invented the concept of gods or religions, everybody would constantly thinking how fucked up his life is?
I don't need a god to whatever else religious people think they need a god to be able to master their lifes.
 
Everything religious people think is only possible with the help of god, can be done as good if not better also without a god.
It's just arrogant to think that only religions have the one and only answer for everything.

It depends if you run the full node with open port 8333 to allow incoming connections or not.

My full node allows incoming connections and these are my values:

The download volume is quite low, about 0.5 GB - 1 GB per day
The upload volume is high compared to the download volume. It is at about 17 GB per day.

I don't know if this depends on the peers you are connected to or your internet speed, but that 17 GB upload volume per day was quite stable over the last months.

My internet connection is 100 Mbit down and 10 Mbit upload with no volume limit.

If you only want to buy items from the game company, the game company just creates an address on their server, and show you the QR code with the amount so the player can pay it. The server is checking if the coins were confirmed by the network and then would give you the items.
It is not necessary to implement any type of wallet inside the game itself.

If you also want that players them self are able to sell and buy in-game items with each other, I would add something like a SPV client into the game where each player control his own private keys. The game would create transactions automatically after the player confirmed the payment and then would exchange the item after the transaction got confirmed.
Instead of a SPV client you could also integrate a lightning client, which would allow cheaper micro transactions (what is usually the case in games).

I understand what you want to achieve and why but I don't think your idea will solve this problem.

Even if you find a perfect technical solution to your problem (what is not possible because of several reasons) you will not solve the social issues with this idea.
There is a difference to do things right and to do the right things.

To create a fair distributed currency to solve unfair distributed wealth is not the right thing to solve this.

Here are my thoughts to your idea:

• Your wording is incorrect. Distributing wealth is not what you achieve with your idea.
  When you introduce a fair distributed crypto currency, only this currency is fairly distributed at the beginning. But you forget, that wealth is more than this new money.
  There are goods/properties/other currencies and so on owned by people. Your new fair distributed currency will not change anything about this. Rich people stay rich, poor people stay poor
• Unless you forbid at the same time any other form of money or store of value the people will just exchange their coins to anything else before their upper transaction limit is reached. This would (if not already existing) create a parallel currency which don't have this artificial limits.
• The current average mindset of humans will not allow such a system. A person who do more or more valuable work (in their thinking) usually also want to benefit more than someone who do less or less valuable work. In their thinking you just want to steal their well earned money. It's just unfair for them. So why should they participate?
• And if you think that no one would exploit such a system, you are very naive

Until the mindset of humanity don't change, such a system like communism will not work.
And if the unrealistic case happens, that everybody become a saint who's destiny is to do whatever necessary to help society, we would not need any form of money at all.

Sorry for pointing out those non technical issues, but it make no sense to create a solution which would not solve the problem.

It's like if you want to fly to the moon and build a car for this.
Even if the car is technically the best what can be done, it just does not fit to your problem flying to the moon.

The same is that a new fair distributed currency never solve an unfair distributed wealth.

I would not replace a complete ERP (or any other) system with a blockchain version of it. 99% of the functionality would not fit to the abilities of blockchains.

But I can think of a relative simple way to achieve "trust" in any system where data should not be allowed to be changed.

• The ERP or whatever system stays like it is (using RDBMS as data storage for example)
• It need to be defined which data need to be immutable (not all data inside such big systems need to be immutable, so not necessary to track it for everything)
• Each data record which should be immutable will get hashed (included a timestamp) automatically by a new function within the ERP system when such a record get saved
• The generated hash will be stored in any public blockchain
• From that point on a controlling instance can verify that every saved record in the system do have a hash and that the hash is also saved in a separate blockchain (with timestamp) and that those two hashes matches.
• If someone try to change any data in the ERP system, this would generate a new hash which is not available in the blockchain

With this method you could prove that every recorded transaction in the ERP system was never changed after creation.

I'm quite sure there are some flaws within this simple idea which need to be looked at, but from the basic concept it would work.

Yes it's possible.

There are several implementations of the bitcoin protocol which can act as a full node.

You can see a list of available implementations here https://coin.dance/nodes.

You need to scroll down to "Bitcoin Node Implementations" section.

I cannot think of any way how this would be possible.

A reorg as Xynerise already explained can only invalidade (orphan) the shorter chain, but this would not be a merge.
A reorg in this case would be a disaster. The losing chain would throw back all transactions to the mempool.
This would first of all spam the mempool (depending of how many transactions happened parallel in the forked chain) and I guess it would invalidate most transactions which references to any double spend coins.

The main problem here are the double spends.

When you spend some coins on fork 1 and on fork 2, which transaction after the merge would be valid?
It cannot be both, it would brake the consensus rule of double spending. So it only can be one of them.

And if it can only be one of them someone need to chose which one.
And if the decision was made which one is valid, that mean that ALL transactions from this side of the fork need to be valid and ALL transactions from the other side of the fork need to be invalid. And now we are back at the reorg.

You cannot chose some transactions from fork 1 and some from fork 2.

Factoring big numbers can be highly accelerated with quantum computers and Shor's algorithm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

In my opinion new POW algorithms should not only be ASIC resistant, they should also be quantum computing resistant.

Bitcoin would already suffer if some day quantum computers with enough qubits become reality as the private/public keys could be cracked with Shor's algorithm.
The SHA-256 hashing of the public key would prevent this attack, but there are already lot of public keys revealed which still contain balances (very old transactions, reused bitcoin addresses). And with those known public keys the private keys could be calculated.

Also RSA encryption (used for example in HTTPS connections) could be cracked quite easly with Shor's algorithm which might be the best what could happen to our nice three letter agencies to globally spy on every online connection.

It might still take long time until quantum computers with enough qubits are available, but we should try to avoid not quantum computing proof algorithms when creating new stuff.

Unfortunately this checkbox will not be implemented anymore.

There was a request to do it here
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12520

The solution was to remove the "New" Button in the address book so it's only possible to create new addresses via the "Receive" tab.
This is the pull request which is already merged into the bitcoin master branch.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12721

So with the next bitcoin core release there is no more "New" Button in the address book.

I already implemented this checkbox as I also missed it, but before I got the chance to create a pull request, the "New" Button was removed so my changes are useless now.

Have not thought about this stuff. You are right, some stupid governments could really go against people who run full nodes with such an argument.

I just hope this will never happen.