Not all constructive posts earn merits, but the most constructive of them. Remember merits are scarce and thus users will only give them to posts which they consider of the highest quality.

For this, you can visit my thread: List of Threads Giving Away Merits

It's almost the same for me, I see normal signatures, I do read most of them and sometimes click. But I ignore all signature ads.
I actually have this banner blindness not only here but in other sites too, I even find it weird that people complain about the ads in some sites

So for all users that want their signatures read, don't make it look like a sig camp ad. Keep it plain and simple and more people will see it this way!

I can't find where I saw it, but I believe that it even leads to a perma ban. Maybe a moderator can confirm this.

Plagiarism is a bannable offense by the rules, so plagiarists will probably get banned and not only their posts deleted if their posts were plain copy/paste.

The size of the blockchain has nothing to do with Bitcoin adoption. Blockchain's size increases with every block added to the blockchain, which usually happens every ten minutes. And each block of 1 MB size increases the size of the blockchain by 1 MB.

Btctalk name: Oulay
Rank: Member
Current post count: 133
BTC Address: 13G98UbxC68oWrKXxh56WpKrL59Jrf2Ev8
Wear appropriate signature: Yes
Wear avatar: n/a

I guess it would have been better if Yahoo62278 announced that the campaign is full (assuming it's full). He actually said that he won't be accepting anyone else before the first week payment indicating he may accept someone after that. Also, users updating the list of signature campaigns consider it open.
I know some users still apply for closed/full campaigns, but it's not their fault this time.

You got the wrong idea about difficulty, with less miners mining difficulty will decrease. It's a totally possible thing and it's related to the network's total hash power.

That being said, no country banned mining due to high electricity usage. In fact, banning mining, although leading to centralization, would increase its profitability, so the whole OP doesn't make any sense.

EDIT: If you want miners' opinions you should post in the mining board, the spam in this board makes quality posts harder to be seen.

Your status has nothing to do with how many members see your post.
The two things that mostly matter are the title and content of your post. An interesting title will attract users to click on your post and a high quality content would make them want to engage into discussion with you, thus replying to your post. And with every reply your thread is bumped to the first page for more people to be able to see it.

They didn't delete the whole thread, I guess he meant that they deleted the post that pumped the thread and every post that followed it.

Thanks for the correction guys, I'll edit my post so that it doesn't show wrong info.

I guess this is why I confused things up.
So just to get things totally clear, services already support sending to P2SH addresses and that's why they all support sending to nested SegWit addresses?

Thanks, that's exactly what I was asking about.

Thanks for the good read. It's definitely going to be a new era for bitcoin if Lightning Network is as perfect as described in this article. I hope it's adoption won't take so long when it's out of beta, which I know will.

Thanks for doing this, much appreciated.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3095368.msg32307265#msg32307265
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3119273.msg32240938#msg32240938
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3048258.msg31373553#msg31373553
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3082289.msg32069356#msg32069356
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3057817.msg31490711#msg31490711

The difference is that transactions made from SegWit addresses cost less fees, so yes, it's better to use a SegWit wallet. And now the mempool is empty and fees are at their lowest so it is a great time to transfer your BTC to a SegWit address.

To answer this question, you have to know that there are two types of SegWit addresses.
 1)  P2SH SegWit nested addresses that start with '3' and as others mentioned not all addresses that start with '3' are SegWit nested but all SegWit nested addresses do start with '3'.
 2)  Bech32 native SegWit addresses that start with 'bc1'.
And of course there are the legacy non-SegWit addresses that start with '1'.

So what's the difference?
Bech32 native SegWit addresses are new and are not supported by all wallets and services yet. The result is that you may not be able to send your BTC to a native SegWit address unless you import your private keys into a wallet that support this type of addresses. While all wallets and services support sending to P2SH SegWit nested addresses.

So what's the right term to use here? And why the term 'activate' can only be used for soft forks?
English isn't my first language so I want you to help me a bit here :3

I get that, if it was ready it would be "out?" (since I can't say activated :p ) already.

I read that: But please help me with this question, will LN be available for the normal user with a small internet bandwidth? or does it require certain setup?

The last "peak" lasted for months, even being from spamming the network, it did negatively affect bitcoin, and increasing the tx capacity would make such spamming attacks harder to achieve and less effective. I'm not asking for bitcoin to handle as many transactions as paypal, but I am hoping for such peaks to never happen.
I have near to zero technical knowledge so I can't say if LN development is going faster or slower than it should be. But I can't see how a faster adoption of SegWit would be "rushing things". SegWit is fully developed and it's the responsibility of wallets, exchanges and other services to start supporting it.

I might actually do it :p
I have some knowledge in programming languages like C++ and java, but I don't know what you meant here by "learn to code", do you know where can I start?

I have reached a conclusion that Bitcoin has almost got to the highest adoption it can sustain and we can't get to a higher adoption without solving the scalability problem first. As:
Higher adoption ----> more transactions per second ----> higher tx fee/time ----> inability to do smaller transactions ----> less adoption.

We can see this happening when Steam stopped accepting bitcoin in December last year after the high surge in its transaction fees.

What I find weird is how slow things are going. SegWit adoption is low and LN is not activated yet. Even when LN is activated I don't know if it would solve things up.

What can we do to help?
What comes to my mind is that we should start using SegWit addresses for all our transactions. I think if more bitcoin users show interest in SegWit and LN it would encourage their adoption among wallets and other services.
Any other suggestions on how we as a community can help solve the scalability problem?

PS: Though technically it's not a technical question but I preferred to post it here and get useful replies rather than posting in bitcoin discussion and having to deal with all the spam.

I'm so sleepy right now to make sure my answer is accurate but here I go:
Double spend is to spend the same coins in 2 different transactions. It's mostly attempted when the 1st transaction doesn't have any confirmations yet, because it becomes much harder to successfully do a double spend after each confirmation.
Double spend is usually attempted when someone makes a transaction by mistake, when a transaction gets stuck because of a low fee, or of course for fraud.
There are several ways to attempt a double spend, what I know of them:
Including a higher fee in the 2nd transaction (the one you want to get it confirmed faster), asking a miner to include your transaction in the next block, these two methods work for unconfirmed transactions.
Double spend can also happen in 51% attacks or similar attacks where the attacker has high hash power. In this case the 1st transaction could have a couple of confirmations and still get reversed. Though this kind of double spend is not worth it unless the amount of transaction is so high.

Correct or wrong answer I'd be happy to receive feedback 

I found that some links were wrong, edited the OP everything should be in its place now.

Thanks! If you by any chance find a thread that I haven't listed be sure to post it in the replies!

Congratz for the winners and thanks for the feedback! much appreciated.
Regarding the signature, I actually liked the old one better. IMO a simple signature would draw more attention. I feel like if a signature is too complicated some people (like me ) would assume that it's a paid ad and would just ignore it.

Nicely done btw, I see this challenge took much of your time.