Yeah, right... Roger Ver and Craig Wright will scale the decentralised crypto by introducing gigabyte blocks and hiring people to change the constants in the code for them

You don't know what you're talking about, man.



You can use whichever standard you find suitable - they all work and none of them will stop working.
How is it complicated? What is your problem?

As I said about 5 years ago, this would take at least 10 years to deliver for the core dev team.
So don't expect it within the next 5 years

As for block #508873 you have:


Then you have:
... some of which are segwit, others not (can't say for sure how many)

And then, as the reference, you have the certainly non-segwit:

why do it on ethereum, not on bitcoin?

since segwit got activated, signalling for it has became irrelevant

Fortunately this doesn't need any further cooperation from the miner community.

Otherwise I'd be really concerned

People learn quickly.

I remember years ago when Gavin Andresen was the famous Bitcoin Chief Scientist, he was always saying that in order for Bitcoin to succeed, the wallet's interface needs to be so simple that even his granny could use it.
Since then the wallet's interface hasn't changed, but we can say that Bitcoin has succeeded pretty much.

People can learn to handle new staff - especially when there is a profit involved.
They will have to learn to handle the payment channels. And they will.

I already said it: greed.

Why would a user pay $20 fee, if he can pay much less?

Obviously the companies who make their money on small transactions are going to enable that, because nobody is going to use them otherwise and they will go out of business.

It's inevitable.

Because the most commonly used wallets don't really suport it yet, so most people don't have choice as they are not tech savvy and can't do command line.

Even people who made Segwit in the first place have not really released the segwit functionality for the wallet they make.
So what do you expect from others?

This is not unusual. If you ever worked in a big organisation, you know the release cycle (preceded by design, development and testing) of such a feature would take probably about a year.
The Lightning Networks are surely much more complex and will take far more time to release than the segwit payments - but it's gonna happen for sure, as there is money to save and therefore to make.

They really don't like it when you call it BCash.
Why don't you just say BCH, to make it even shorter but less offensive?

Of course the fee marker is a vital part of the protocol.
Whoever had though otherwise must had been an idiot.

I think the bigger problem is the lack of software, rather than the funds of the big players.
Big players don't really need cheap transaction - it's the small players that need them.

The problem is that everyone who's been involved with bitcoin long enough, today has enough dosh to not needing to work anymore.
So whoever is going to make this Lightning Network software, likely needs to learn first.

It's pretty obvious.

Why would you pay $20 for a transaction, if you can pay much less for it?

It is going to be encouraged by your greed.

Recently the BCH's mempool got some backlogs and it turns out that most of the miners choose to limit the block size below the 8MB: https://imgur.com/BnrYCil

I think it speaks for itself.

If anyone is interested, the (not yet tagged) version 1.9.4 of gocoin supports native segwit addresses (the ones in bech32 format).

I've used them for a couple of weeks already and they seem to have been working just fine.
Still, make sure to verify your signed transaction before broadcasting it.

Spending from a native segwit address might cut your transaction fee by as much as half - that's when you have your coins already deposited at a native segwit address.

Let me know if you need a help using it.
Basically "Segwit Deposit Addresses" for your existing (traditional) wallet are automatically shown in the Wallet tab of the web interface.
And you can enter bech32 encoded addresses in the MakeTX tab for output addresses.
Use the new version of wallet app to sign the transaction that either spends from or to a new (bech32 encoded) address.

Obviously, the backward compatible P2SH segwit address types are working as well, but that's a very old news (I think 1.9.0)
Still better to use the native segwit addresses (in bech32 format) as they make fairly cheaper transactions.

As for the moment you need the gocoin client to spend from your native segwit addresses.
It's because none of the block explorers used by balio tool supports fetching their balances yet.

Some screenshots:
https://imgur.com/ACWUAh8
https://imgur.com/gqGYXUY

Cheers

Gocoin node shows it on its web interface.

In the "Blocks" tab, the SPB column shows the average tx fees within each block.

For more detailed data, you need to click the chart icon next to the block you want to see:



Then you get to see a chart like this:

---

For that you should rather use the "Transactions" tab, as it shows the current state fo the mempool:



With the chart like above, you'd probably want to go slightly above 500 SPB.

I think since the beginning of human civilisation its biggest problem was scallability.

But there we are - 2018, 7.6 billions and still growing...

Internet and it's IP packets routing protocol was the first global network to exist - and it became THE one.

So I would say: YES

Not because Internet's protocol was the best and perfect.
But it was the first one and after it was already working people would rather build applications on top of it than try to invent and introduce a new type of wheel.
This wheel is good enough - the remaining potential is only in what we will do with it.

It can be done but requires some exercise and some time as the process might take awhile.

Basically you need a full bitcoin node.
You better  keep it offline and then remove all the blocks starting from the height you don't need.
Then you tell the node to rebuild the unspent database.

If you want to use my gocoin node for that, I can guide you through. For the core client,  ask the core people.

Well... don't mean to be mean, but the answer is pretty obvious who anyone who isn't an idiot.

Because brute forcing of such a complex seed would require more computing than brute forcing of a standard bitcoin address.

Nee. Who told you that?

Getting a private key out of trezor is kind of trivial as the device doesn't even use any kind of a secure hardware.
See here for example: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/trezor-power-analysis/ - this is without even opening the case!

Ledger is harder as it uses ST secure chip, and the cost of peeling the layers of silicon to get into the memory is estimated at $300k or so.
But it also can be done - it has been done. There are even videos on Youtube of people dumping the entire memory of the chip.

The science of hacking (secure) chips is an actual science and is far more advanced than the non existing science of hacking brain wallets.
Like take this presentation for instance - that's from 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62DGIUpscnY - see what he has done here? This is what I call hacking, not the bloody brain wallet hacking charlatans who just make empty claims without proving shit.

Anyway.
If you think that a hardware wallet is secure but a brain wallet isn't - it only shows how much you have been brainwashed by the brain wallet pseudo-scientists and how much they made you to loose touch with the reality. In reality everything can be hacked. And personally I am quite sure that any of the hardware wallet on the market is easier/cheaper to hack than my brain. Can't speak for your though