Do you use a bitcoin credit card that makes this possible or do you really only buy in shops that allow you to pay in bitcoin directly? I imagine that being pretty hard and only very few places on earth should allow the latter.

*rofl* I think you did not send your payment to the escrow. So sorry, it looks like you are screwed with that issuer.

Edit: Before questions come up. It was the issuer making a joke. Not that someone doesn't get it and gets the wrong idea.

That's the best news i heard in months on that topic. I hope it's true and these things will happen. Though likely only after segwit and ln got to start anyway.

Do you say that this block does not need to verify at all? So in fact everyone could send out such a block, he must not even be a miner? Or does the miner have to put the transactions together, take 10 minutes for it so that he can find the block hash and then propagate?

I would await, when the block does not have to validate, and you could only create these blocks with your home computer, propagating them, then it would be no problem with 1mb blocks too. Simply create alot of these blocks, send them out and let the nodes die on them.

What's wrong in my paragraphs?

Which is MOST likely why he started to pay back too. If the victims of the other scams brough be in and they unite in some form then they would be a real threat to him.

In any case, even if the amount would be pushed down to a level that is not a crime anymore, with the repayments done, he still can be sued under civil law. At least he will have to pay back...  or else...

Even if it is no criminal offense for some reason, the civil right and law still gives enough power to deal with that.

These things are different.

So the only thing to even kill that hypotetical threat would be to include that fix into bitcoin classic and you would say bitcoin classic is fine again?


You have to keep track of the bitcoins that move inside of ln. Until you can move the actual bitcoins in the bitcoin network. It makes sense to ask that question since you could use an altcoin to keep track of that. However that coin has to be constructed.

It simply is a difference if you move actual bitcoins in the bitcoin network or virtual bitcoins that only moved outside of the bitcoin network.

I know what you mean but still the bitcoins on LN are pratically only virtual bitcoins that are moved virtually. Which means for these steps you effectively do not use bitcoin. You only use bitcoin when opening and closing payment channels. Everything between those 2 steps are bitcoin token, rights on owning a bitcoin. I think that is pretty similar to the virtual money moving in the banking system. I mean you know about bubbles and how they burst when people want to get the real value they virtually have? It might be not that bad since no bitcoins can be created in LN, hopefully no dev get's the idea that this would be needed someday , but still you deal with virtual tokens. Unless the single transaction at start and end.

And sure, such an offline system can deal with a lot more transactions, only thing is, these transactions have to be stored too, and since bitcoin is already pretty effective in storing transaction data i wonder how it can be less data to be stored. I think it can't be less. Only less for the enduser maybe, who is not able to control directly the security of the networks transactions like he would be with bitcoin core. (This last paragraph is only my theory.)

It would even be worse when the 1MB blocks led to really huge fees for bitcoin transactions. Maybe at one point in time fees will be so high that huge transactions have to be created so that the single ln-transactions are still relatively cheap. Which means who will hold these payment channels then? Corporations and banks? Normal users would only act in the ln-network then? That can't be named bitcoining anymore then. It would mean virtual bitcoins for the average user while the power of the real money is back in the hands of the banks.

It's a step backwards and contrary to what bitcoin started for.


Well, to be honest, at this point in time i don't trust the core developers anymore. It simply is too strange how many arguments come out against a fully natural step for the future of bitcoin. Consensus is blocked and developers who think different are going away. Hearn is not the best example, he is corrupt, we all know this since ages. He had his own plans but that doesn't mean the idea of bigger blocks is inevitably needed.

I would not trust newbie developers too when i would not be sure that the wallet code will be properly reviewed by enemies and all. There would be no big surprise when using it. And bitcoiners still could use the wallet they feel comfortable with.


I know. But what happens then? The real bitcoins do NOT move until the payment channel gets closed. What is moved are bitcoin tokens. Which is different from real bitcoins moving. Only when the channel is closed real bitcoins move again.

I mean what is it with all the safety bitcoin brings when you have to start to use virtual bitcoins in your transactions? I know i would not feel comfortable binding many bitcoins when i know i can access them only when the channel is closed again. Which needs the other parties agreement or a timeout as far as i know. With real bitcoins i have the control about the real value all the time. I have no contracts for the right of having 2 bitcoins to be paid out to me. It's like we move from bitcoins to having bitcoin bonds only. It doesn't help much that you will have real bitcoins someday later, in LN you only deal with "I owe you's".


Yes. And we know since some time that this is the risk in multisig addresses. They are somewhat safe but still hold a risk. You have your own coins not under your full control anymore. Right?


Ok, i don't know why you stress that point so much. It simply is not the same like dealing with real bitcoins when you only are entitled to bitcoins at the time the channel closes. Do you tell me that it is the same for you to have bitcoins that you know will be in your wallet at one time later than having your bitcoins in your wallet instantly? Can you do everything with the "bitcoins" you have at ln? Surely not. So they are virtual until you really control them. It's like with cryptsy. Many have bitcoins there. But they won't ever get them because they only traded virtual bitcoins there. Might be that ln is safer but still, no real bitcoins are moved. Everything that is moved is your trust in LN.

If don't see a difference at all i will stop discussing that point with you.


I don't really know who you are in reality. You mentioned you know the wallet code and you might be a core dev. If you don't know fine. What i heard is that a lot of investments went into blocksteam. Whoever invests in something is promising something from it. And that is normally profit and no act of altruism.

Though like i said, i might be wrong on that point and the investments are a myth.


What i don't know yet, SegWit creates different blocks that can't be proved by old clients? Isn't hat a fork then too? Or how does it work?

And can you explain how such a transaction could be created and why it is not possible with 1mb blocks? Is this about outdated hardware working on validation?

But when i think about it... what a hypotetical threat. Who in their right mind would start creating such blocks? This could only do someone with a huge amount of miners so he can create blocks. Then screw the block and risk that the reward is going to dust fo him when he destroys that chain.

It's like with >50% attack. Who in their right mind would do it?

I think what he meant was that the thread:

"Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover.

Remains in the subforum "Bitcoin Discussion" while

"Bitcoin Classic" is NOT a classic attempt at a hostile takeover, apparently.

was pushed to the "Altcoin Discussion" subforum.

I mean even when theymos decided that discussions about forks of bitcoin are to be classified as altcoin discussions then it would need to mean that both threads are about altcoin discussions. But the way it is now it means that the contra fork discussion gets way more attention in that subforum than this thread gets in this subforum. Which means it's manipulating the public view on that topic.

Edit: Guess that step immediately led to silence in this thread. Discussion stopped. Hm...

Alright everyone. It seems the ICO ended and the rules that were made at the start says that i will release the bitcoin, minus the bonus bitcoins that have to be paid out to the miners, will be sent to the issuer after 3 days.

Please investors use that time to check thoroughly the wallet, the coins, the code of wallet, the issuer and whatever and speak about all problems that should stop me from releasing the bitcoins to the issuer.

Good luck with mining!

Just for me to know it, how do i know who found the block that needs to get a reward. The blocks have no bitcoin address attached to it right? So how to identify the miner? Does he need to come in this thread and provide a signed message for the lucky blocks address he mined the reward with?

I wanted to inform you if something happened, even when it is a smal thing.

The issuer was reached by phone finally. He wants to go with counterparty though he needs bitcoin addresses from the shareholders, since cryptostocks doesn't provide them with their shareholder email. So it seems the formular need to be adjusted to allow input for bitcoin addresses.

I think we should not wait until everyone put their address in then since this would take weeks and the biggest shareholders are collected anyway.

So i will inform you guys once the form is made ready.

Not a big step but at least a small step. Hopefully counterparty will be set up fine and everything will go more smooth then. Without delays and such things.

Sorry to hear about the trouble. You might consider buying one of those winter spikes for shoes. Made of rubber and put metal spikes on your shoes. For next time of course.

Wish you good recovering. I know these things can bring a good portion of fear. Hope all is better than you thought.

Wish you good recovering.

To buyers, your funds are safe in escrow. So when you think that takes too long then i can refund you and we inform jorjito about it. Though maybe it takes only some days until he is back.

Pretty much every big chinese exchange has zero trading fees. Or so low that they are negliable.

Check out okcoin.com, btcchina.com and so on. okcoin is best for leveraged trading.

Um, i think that was the old hardlimit for blocks. Some miners did not update that yet. It's no proof that all transactions were cleared at that point in time. It's fully up to the miner how many transactions he want to put into a block. It would be convenient to check the last blocks and found one of these blocks with only one transaction, the block reward, and believing that it shows the network is greatly underloaded.

I might be wrong but are the investments into ln a myth? If not how do you think these investments are planned to coming back, probably with profits?

Though maybe i was informed wrongly.


You are right, they don't say "Use LN or die". They practically say "Use LN or leave." since when bitcoin became unuseable because of too high fees then there would be LN as alternative, right?

I guess they really don't like that the way more simple solution already exists.

He means that with adoption of cryptocurrencies and broader use of ln, it would be inevitable that only big corporations could access the bitcoin network anymore at all. The 1mb blocks would be full and transactions very expensive. What will be left then? Banks and big companies. Great idea for a currency that started to free the people from the power of banks.
[/quote]

Then probably the only way is something like bitcoin classic since till now there is no suggested way to find a consensus otherwise.

Forced higher fees. Many pay higher fees in order to ensure their transactions to go through. Wallets help with that by suggesting fees that will make the transactions go through.

That's the plan for bitcoin when it comes to 1mb fans.

What's so hard in seeing that bitcoiners use bitcoin and want to use bitcoin. If someone offers "Let's not use bitcoin but an alternative way outside of bitcoin, only finalizing on bitcoin." then clearly that is the alternative suggested.

It's funny that the claims of the amount of worldwide possible transactions that can be done with LN instead with bitcoin, would not even work without the bitcoin blocksize being raised.


Well, for most bitcoiners it really feels like developers are the one in power who block. The devs that want to change something left or had to left. So the feeling of not having them acting in your interest comes up of course. And of course the feeling arises that they have the power and that it is no democracy.

Even when, what do you have against the fork when you claim there is no one in power? It shouldn't matter to you because it would be the normal way things go. Or would you prefer someone decides that no fork is allowed to happen?


You have to put your bitcoins into otherwise you can't act with lightning network. If i'm wrong let me know.


Right. Still, you have to give your coins ouf of your hands. And i believe the payment channel partner has to agree when you want the coins back before it's time. So waiting for your own coins to come back means you have to give them out of your hands. They might still be safe but bound.


Opening and closing the channel is bitcoin. Everything in between seems to be more like a virtual bitcoin circulating.

Well, guess you don't get my point then. You are right about the private keys but that only means changetip potentially can scam you. That is not the case with ln, but still you have to take your bitcoins and load them up in another system to be able to play with virtual bitcoins there. Until you close the payment channel.

I don't see that many will be happy to bind their bitcoins in some payment channels. But we will see.