I mean, yeah in a way that's valid... but I think it's more reasonable to say that I think miners are continually dumping into the "fresh money" that's already coming into bitcoin to keep their miners running.  So it needs to be said that it needs to be "Fresh money" > BTC's being dumped by miners to make a profit.

But people are starting to fear what the future of Bitcoin is I think.  They are unsure if the problems that face bitcoin right now are ever going to be fixed... especially before the halving comes.  There's just tons of uncertainty, which isn't good for the price.

But, people like to come on here, sit back, and just say that merchants will just all the sudden decide to accept Bitcoin in 2016... this isn't the case.  People on here and elsewhere will need to actively promote Bitcoin to merchants and explain why it is a better alternative than paypal and other forms of payment... which is difficult when trying to compare why Bitcoin is better than, lets say, Visa.

It's hard to say really. I never really tried to understand much about Ethereum, because it doesn't really sound like it's a "currency", rather, it's sort of a "database" system prototype.  I'm pretty sure Microsoft bought out Ethereum as a testing ground for their Azure platform.  So, in a way, I'm just not that interested in Ethereum.

I don't want to sound like some kind of shill for an altcoin on here, because I hate when people use FUD to encourage people to buy some of their coin.  But, I personally think the new coin on the block that holds a legitimate value compared to bitcoin would be Monero (XMR).  They are sort of a fork off of DASH, in which they both use the "cryptonote" code.  If you don't know much about the cryptonote system, it's basically a way to anonymize transactions on the blockchain through "ring signatures".  Monero is different because of a group of active devs working together on the codebase... whereas DASH has become sort of stagnant with active development.  

DASH is also pretty well known for being insta/ninjamined at the beginning, so that the very early adopters have an incredible amount of coins under their belt... Monero was a fairly launched coin, which makes it more appealing to other people who weren't the very first people to hear about it.  

If you want to read more about cryptonotes... here's the white paper:
https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

Also, here's what's being worked on Monero as of right now; which is Ring CT (way of anonymizing the actual amounts on the block chain) this is being worked on by Shen-Noether... someone in the monero research lab:

http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/Ring%20CT%20for%20Monero.pdf

Again, I really don't care if you guys get into it... I just really like it to help remain anonymous in my transactions, and not have everything publicly available on the blockchain.  A cool tool I use, primarily for buying stuff in BTC, is using my XMR (monero) and using https://xmr.to/  to pay any vendor who accepts bitcoins, and pay with xmr to help remain anonymous.  It just converts how much XMR is worth at the current moment of purchase (in BTC) and pays the vendor in BTC.

Edit: I will have to say though, that it does propose fixes for a couple of the problems that Bitcoin is facing right now... 1) XMR has adaptive blocksizes to adjust accordingly to amount of transactions being done 2) Tail emission features, where the total amount of XMR is added on to in the future to incentivize mining in the future (should be 18 Million coins, and then keeps adding coins as need... where it will get closer and closer to 21 Million over time, but keeps decreasing rewards so it never really gets there).

lol... yeah, you are right about the times we live in.  Privacy is most definitely an illusion, and people don't really care.  And I am in no way shape or form some anarchist or believe we should just free for all it.  But think about it, if you want bitcoin to become the next "payment system" then your boss will pay you in bitcoin.  Then he could essentially track where you spend that money at all times... is that right? Well I guess you can decide that for yourself.  But I would rather have my money private and between the people I do business with.

If you want to learn more about how I personally feel (which you probably don't, because you are so content with 'I'm not doing anything wrong' mindset) then you can watch this.

https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters?language=en

Everyone should value their own personal space and privacy... I think that this goes into finances too. (at least for me)

Probably due to the uncertainty to what is going to happen with the blockchain.  We can sit here and speculate all day about gold and bitcoin all day... but the fact that the monetary system isn't going to last much longer is inevitable (whether it's in 2-5 years). So we all need to plan accordingly.

I don't know if I read this correctly... but you wouldn't mind if a crook stole your identity?? Really?  I value my privacy, and that doesn't mean that I'm doing anything bad or illegal... it's just that my business is my business...

I don't have an Amazon account, and even if I did I would never give it out to anyone. I guess it's just more of a philosophical aspect of thinking, rather than rational.

Also, I saw that you posted a link to amagi metals... I thought there was some sort of scam associated with them?  I was looking at buying some silver and gold, but was looking at other websites.  What's your take on their website?

So... what you are saying is that you are so much of a sheep that you believe anything that the government tells you?  Just because someone in some government office says that Bitcoin isn't a currency doesn't automatically make it so.  It is against their best interest to have some other currency that gives the power to the people rather than the central banks who funds them.

It really depends on how much it takes to run the business... What if it was back to $200's like it was last August? What if it was $800 right now?  It doesn't necessarily HAVE to double the exact price that it is priced at right now.  So if someone already has the computer hardware and only has to pay for electricity, then he would have to try to get passed the electricity costs... So it all really depends on which miner or mining farm we are talking about.

Depends on how you obtain those bitcoins you are sending across the world for pennies... If you have to buy them, like a lot of people have to do (whether that's because of lack of knowledge or lack of funds to start mining) then your identity is in fact tied to your new money... You have to pay through your bank, which has all the info in the world about you and your identity.  If some clever person where to really want to get your identity if he/she realizes that you paid for your bitcoins, then theoretically it could be done.

Absolutely... Bitcoin is no where near where it needs to be to be considered for the prime time spot in finance.  Bitcoin is in the midst of a civil war right now with block sizes which, honestly, is a headache for me to read about all the time... Couldn't imagine being someone just getting into this and trying to understand all the jibberish coming from people on here and /r/bitcoin.

But let's take a step back from all of that.  Bitcoin is essentially trying to revolutionize how the monetary system works, which is absolutely HUGE! There hasn't been a real dramatic change to the monetary system ever since the Fed/government decided to discontinue the gold standard for all fiat around in the 70's.  As you can see, inflation is going nuts ever since that change to how things worked.

People don't necessarily care any more, or just can't comprehend the importance of having a finite currency.  Bitcoin is trying to digitalize the gold standard, by being the digital gold... that's a pretty big deal, and we are only 7 years in.  So we have to expect that there will be stuff to work out in the early stages; not just shove it down the publics throat that doesn't really care about it now, when the currency is still technically "under development".

This probably, in all reality, would never happen... the minute Satoshi takes bitcoin out of his wallet and puts it into an exchange, EVERYONE would know... especially on here.  People tend to be really on top of that for some reason.  But again, this poses a huge problem, and in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous. 

Everyone got into Bitcoin early on to be their "own bank".... Where they are financially secure and can do whatever they wanted with their Bitcoin stash.  Now, the fact that the creator of the currency we love so much can't so much as lay a single theoretical finger on his stash because it would plummet the price of bitcoin and cause a mass paranoia about whether Satoshi is selling out or not, is absolute insanity.

I really don't know, and that's a problem when it comes to Bitcoin and the fungibility issue with Bitcoin... Satoshi's BTC stash would garner way more value than the current price tag per bitcoin, because of the history and legacy that comes with that stash.  This is really an issue, because even though Satoshi the "person" or "entity" is anonymous in a way, his wallet isn't.  So if people start seeing that there is some type of movement of Bitcoin's out of his wallet, this creates some sort of unwanted panick... which is absolutely ludicrous.

If Bitcoin is to be regarded as the digital "cash" that it wants to be labeled, then there should be no trace back.  Now that's another topic of whether people really want an anonymous cash like this, but the fact of the matter is that people simply can't say that Bitcoin is internet "cash"... it's more like an internet open ledger where everyone and anyone can see who transacted X amount of money to someone else.  Just think about what kind of shit storm this would bring up if this were to be done with fiat today... absolute insanity.

Since this thread is obviously geared toward talking about altcoins, I think it's best for this thread to be moved to the altcoin section, since this does tend to irritate people here in the main section who are trying to talk about Bitcoin only.

Also it's obvious you are trying to promote Dash. While that's ok and you're entitled to your opinion of what's best to suite your needs alone, it's not ok to create a thread here to recruit people to some extent.

I enjoy reading up on altcoins myself, and while Dash was one of the first cryptonote coins, it's an obvious scam one which was premined/ninjamined... Just saying.

All I'm trying to say is that no one will be able to know what the full effect will be down the road.  It's still all very experimental, and to say that Classic is the only proposal that will ever be needed from here on out is not very smart.  I know that the 2 MB proposal is a "kick the can down the road" approach, nor am I saying that I support that... I just know that as more blocks continue to max out, and confirmation times continually slow down as more people are using bitcoins; the worse it is for bitcoin.

I really wasn't trying to argue necessarily about the block size debate itself... I was just trying to get my point across that governance of Bitcoin is progressively getting more sketchy to me and seems to become more centralized.  I know that word pisses off a lot of people and I'm not necessarily saying that it is full out centralized just yet... but you can't doubt that it has slowly but surely gotten to be that way.

I just don't necessarily like when people say that "X" is the only way to go and there is no other alternative because that is just the way it is.  Even though this problem doesn't seem like much right now, the more people start using bitcoin, the bigger this problem becomes... so it's better to fix it now... am I not right?

1. Really? No issue at all to speak of? ; 2. Agree to disagree ; 3.  If you are saying that 1 & 2 are true, then why would there be a need for a "copy-paste" from Core... What exactly are you talking about?  If there is no issue at hand, then there wouldn't be a "debate" at all...   There is most certainly a debate.


Look, I know this has been discussed for a while... and from what I'm gathering is that you are in support to allow this "round table" to be the only ones who have their voices heard, and to have this "round table" be the only ones to fix and build "the spaceship going to the moon" that you have quoted before, comparing them to the "well informed engineers" and us to "tax payers".

I guess it's really an "agree to disagree" type of thing. 

I've seen that scenario being used a lot, and how I see it is that this isn't the case... Certain issues that need to be fixed can be fixed in a number of different ways, and depending on the situation could call for different tactics to solve it.

So if you want someone to represent you in government, would you want a handful of "informed" government officials to make that decision for you?  Of course not.

If you were one of the well informed engineers building that spaceship to the moon and it needed to be done in a certain amount of time; would you like your well "informed" bosses, that knows they can't afford more engineers, to tell you that you should work overtime to build it without pay? Of course not.

To just simply accept something because your "superiors" should know more than you, and hence need to keep your mouth shut is what a dictatorship is...

Fact of the matter is that there are multiple ways to reach a solution for any problem... I just feel that having this "Satoshi round table" isn't the right way to go about things for this specific problem. So again... agree to disagree.

I think this "industry", that I guess has been created, should propose a certain list of electable proposals that people can vote on.  Now, how we would be able to do this is another topic, and could possibly do this by a form election system that uses a sort of "block chain" as well.  This way people can see, verify, and confirm votes that are being submitted.

I feel the best way to do this is to hold an "election" of some sort, and probably would be better to do all of this before the halving begins in the summer.  I just feel that this is the best solution to all of this... Then, whenever bitcoin reaches another problem in the future, devs can then hold another "election", and so on.

People who are on here and pay attention to bitcoin in general aren't stupid... I feel that when deciding between multiple block size proposals, a democratically elected proposal is the best choice.

Bitcoin wasn't created and intended for only rich people... it was created and intended to allow people to be their own banks and freedom of the Fed.  To say that the only people who can "vote", in a sense, are the people who have acquired the most capital during these years Bitcoin has been around is seriously fucked up.  Also, miners doesn't really seem to "vote" with their hashing power and distribution of nodes... they "vote" by bitching and complaining and holding threats over the Bitcoin community that they will just shut it all down if they don't get their way or reach a compromise... at least that's what I'm understanding from this whole situation, I could very well be wrong... but the whole idea of this type of small group of people/miners making decisions about what should happen with block sizes and all pisses me off just as much as a small group of men in the Fed making crucial decision that will change the whole economy for all of us "ignorant civilians" that can't make a decision for our selves. 

I'll go ahead and disclose that I have stopped and will never get back into mining because of lack of capital, but I think everyone who is in this Bitcoin "economy" should be able to participate and reach a conclusion just as much as the people with the most "capital".

Big time miners seem to have these solutions that will never "fail", but the reality is is that we all don't know what to do in tackling this... and all of what is being proposed to fix the block size is "theoretical" and "philosophical" in a sense.  People forget that this is still a new project that everyone should be a part of, not a fixed system that should be "governed" by the most powerful people in terms of wealth in BTC. 

And this is exactly why I'm not so sure about Bitcoins future in general any more... I mean c'mon... really???  There has to be a better/more democratic way to decide these things, and not have the top tier of miners and devs deciding Bitcoins fate from here on out.  What happened to the idea of getting away from centralization and the Fed?  I guess this ideal doesn't really matter to people any more, and people are only buying into Bitcoin for speculation of making a couple extra dollars...

If you're in the U.S; I think you can also be able to use Circle to complete those transactions, but not quite sure the process you would have to go through if you are a business.

But like everyone was saying above, I think BitPay is a very good choice (I've personally never used it though, and can't personally vouch for it).

Can't really sit on a high horse and call mostly everyone on the forum "spammers" when you are participating in a signature campaign your self.  I know I am too, but still man... this is not a topic that you can easily "spam" about, hence probably haven't gained as much traction.

But here's the thing though... you can't really predict this kind of stuff, because this year is 132 years away.  The governments finally going off of the gold standard is still a pretty new concept and has only been around since the 1970's... so only around 45 years or so.  So in a way, the current monetary system that pretty much every nation goes off of is still relatively "new" in a way.

The bitcoin monetary system has only been around 7 years, which makes it extremely new, and therefor it is pretty much impossible to tell what the best thing would be to do when 2148 comes around... I have a feeling that our kids and their kids will be so so so much smarter than we are, and I feel like they would be able to tackle these problems more adequately.