The only way bitcoin can compete with visa is through the second layer solutions, there is no other way to do it, so we can only hope that we get LN as soon as possible, and segwit too since segwit improves the LN experience.
We will see what happens, but either BTC gets second layer solved appropriately or it will remain a better gold.
If we have both the big block size increase and segwit, that will be excellent. We should not have SegWit, never. Instead we should have the following features as proper and clean protocol upgrade: * TX malleability fix * payment channels * fix to signature verification DOS attack vector * block size dictated by the free market SegWit as soft fork should be rejected at all cost, it's pure evil. However, all the features in this ugly hack SegWit should be implemented independently of each other and elegantly code-wise. The only reason Core devs mixed all these fixes together in the abomination they call SegWit is to obfuscate the codebase of Bitcoin so that they would expand their control over Bitcoin even more. And the worst part about obscure code is that it could contain vulnerabilities (possibly deliberately injected). Heartbleed of OpenSSL anyone? Do you really want it to happen to Bitcoin too? It's much easier to review new features that are implemented independently of each other. So why didn't Core add them as such? Because soft fork is so much better? Yeah right, backwards compatibility is false advertising because SegWit isn't really backwards compatible since it requires super consensus to activate. So does a proper protocol upgrade. |
|
|
|
Ok, the concept is good .. but this will spam the Blockchain with tx's and we cannot handle loads of tx's that are not related to financial purposes. I think SatoshiDice or one of these gambling sites, did the same back in the day and everyone complained about that. Why put the Blockchain under unnecessary strain? { How would this work with LN? ... because you need this to be linked directly with the Blockchain. }  bitcoin devs would have to find a way how to make the network handle an ever-increasing number of UTXOs. If this really is a threat to Bitcoin then the adversaries of Bitcoin would be doing this for long time already. So no worries here. Lightning network has nothing to do with it. TXs made in the LN won't be saved on the block chain. Lightning network is bullshit anyway because lightning is a code word for banking. It's the banking network that they want to turn Bitcoin into. So that eventually only banks would be able to make bitcoin transactions and therefore have absolute control over Bitcoin. The block size should be increased so that Bitcoin would scale on-chain. Payment channels are a good idea and should be properly implemented as part of the Bitcoin protocol not in an ugly hack known as SegWit. I'd suggest everyone to reject SegWit, stop using bitcoin-core and instead switch to either Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Unlimited. |
|
|
|
from the end user's perspective it doesn't matter very much. but the implementation will be way more complex if you wanted to support multiple block chains
Thank you for reply! Logical. It throws the question, though: Would we need a "blockchain management" software that helps manage multiple blockchain in the same project? I am visualising a software such as "version management software" and I want to point out how it became part of our professional development environment. Could a "blockchain management software" be the next element in our toolbox? Well it could turn useful but we'd need a practical example first. If you can't come up with a problem where a block chain management software is the solution then it is probably not a viable idea. Also, ever since ByteBall was launched the block chain tech is no longer the coolest thing out there. Turns out that now we don't even need a block chain for consensus tracking. ByteBall is the first cryptocurrency that does not depend on a block chain and thus does not need to be mined and does not have an issue of blocks getting full. For that reason I wouldn't invest into block chain tech any more. It is already becoming obsolete  |
|
|
|
|
Everything SegWit claims to accomplish can be accomplished without SegWit. What is more, it can be done in a clean and elegant manner. For some reason Core devs have taken a route to implement all those nice features in a really ugly and disgusting manner, all messed up in some freakish pseudo-soft-fork. This is not how Bitcoin should be developed. A proper protocol upgrade is needed which would not be backwards compatible with the old protocol. SegWit isn't backwards compatible anyway, they just deceivingly call it as such.
Anti SegWit position does not equate to anti Lightning Network.
Lightning Network can be enabled in way that it would not depend on an ugly hack called SegWit. Bitcoin protocol should be correctly upgraded to support payment channels. This should be done separately from other features. All the fixes and enhancements SegWit has bundled should be delivered to the community one-by-one. That way the Core devs would have no excuse to write ugly and unmaintainable hacks in the code. They would be forced to actually improve the architecture of Bitcoin properly. If you care about the future of Bitcoin, reject SegWit. SegWit is not the only solution to Transaction Malleability. It is just one of the many ways how to do it and it is one of the worst ways for sure.
Just because we don't have better alternatives right now on the table does not mean we should accept such an abomination. It is critical not to accept SegWit because that step cannot be taken back. In these kinds of situations where steps cannot be taken back later on it is absolutely vital to take the best possible step. SegWit is not the best possible step. It's too big of a bite and it's ugly as hell. I'd suggest taking smaller steps and being more sure that what we do does not need to be reverted in the future. For that reason I suggest raising the block size limit with the help of Bitcoin Unlimited while proper and elegant fixes are developed for TX malleability.
|
|
|
|
SegWit and technologies built on it are grossly oversold (Posted on February 27, 2017) Final nail to the coffin of SegWit. It is now proven to be not delivering on its promises. Check out the above article. I hope SegWit gets rejected fast because it's holding back bitcoin from boosting into 5 figures. SegWit is like a sore loser who is unwilling to get out of the way when obviously the majority does not like it and wants it gone. It will never get activated it will just sit on there and hold everything back like a douchebag.
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for this project and i look forward to it .but i have one question . Will the messages during the communication is totally secured?
message integrity is protected by the most powerful computing network on Earth. message confidentiality is up to the users but all messages are public by default. |
|
|
|
Also I dont get how this is censorship resistant if it relies on 1 central server. Just beacause it is on "muh blockchain" doesnt make it censorphip resistant.
what 1 server are you referring to? You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The messages are stored in all bitcoin full nodes because they are part of the block chain. you can take the source code I linked in the OP and run the software on your computer if you want. you can check out https://bitcoinstrings.com/ if you want to view the messages in some other server. |
|
|
|
It's not really a "chan" if the posts last forever on the blockchain.
Why not? it is a channel of one-way communication much like radio channels are. except here erryone can broadcast their messages in any channel they wish |
|
|
|
Inspiring, it is. Thank you for contributing Us! This project could be a neat component of any blog. My question: Is it a good practice to combine components that use different blockchains in the same project? Or should I stick with components using the same blockchain?
from the end user's perspective it doesn't matter very much. but the implementation will be way more complex if you wanted to support multiple block chains |
|
|
|
I am curious to know how this validates messages using the Blockchain? Would you have to make a tx every time you make a entry on this message board? I am looking for a easy method to include messages for the general public onto the Blockchain and something that would validate that those messages cannot be erased or tampered with. Good work.  1 message = 1 new bitcoin transaction the number of confirmations for the respective transaction is all the validation that you need |
|
|
|
The price will go vertically up after that, dwarfing the 2013 high.
This sound really positive attitude but i will wait for some dump rather than jumping in this bull run right now. I think we will see some correction upto 1050$ from current price range.  Oh yes there will be many corrections on the way to the peak. |
|
|
|
This is a quick side-project of mine, mainly developed as a template/example for other developers who want to save custom messages on the block chain. The base functionality is derived from CryptoGraffiti.info. Source code: https://github.com/1Hyena/blockchanPossible use cases include censorship resistant commenting under any keyword. For example, let's say you have a blog but you want to enable censorship resistant commenting for your site. Then you would simply include BlockChan in an IFRAME sandbox below your blog with the following source: http://cryptograffiti.info/chan#myblog.com/blogpost123The iframe will display all the messages written under the "myblog.com/blogpost123" category (case sensitive). I will gladly explain the technical details when asked. Just let me know if you have any questions. Here are some screenshots:   |
|
|
|
1 Bitcoin currently costs 1182$
An ounce of gold is currently 1256$
Only 74$ to go. After that expect mainstream media news "Bitcoin is now more expensive than gold"
I doubt so. Bitcoin reached over $1200 and the mainstream media news channels/sites have not said a single word about it. Only small hobby/less professional news sites have reported about Bitcoin having set a record price. But then again, this will obviously get seen by traditional/high level investors, which I consider to be more of importance. Just wait for the next week. Most of the working class will require a weekend to get themselves up to date to the events that happened this week. The mainstream media will react after that. |
|
|
|
1 Bitcoin currently costs 1182$ An ounce of gold is currently 1256$ Only 74$ to go. After that expect mainstream media news "Bitcoin is now more expensive than gold" The price will go vertically up after that, dwarfing the 2013 high.  |
|
|
|
i would not get overexcited as usual to only discover that i was only a delusional, when the dump will begin again
a reasonable target is now 1500, or the next mental barrier, i can safely say that there will be a play in the $1200-$1500 range
i understand that here the big pump is always possible, but if we can really go that high it will fall even quickly later, i don't like that, but i guess it's good if you can predict it and sell at the top...
A big pump really? Don't know, the up trend has been rather slow If it was a pump that was a slow but powerful one! Usually pumps go much faster no? This seems... Natural and stable to me :/ Amph is simply wrong here. I am here since 2011. I have personally witnessed all the big bubbles except the first one. ATH territory is where shit goes crazy. Expect 10x returns in a couple of months. People who are sceptical during ATH times are simply inexperienced. They don't have first hand experience with Bitcoin bubbles. Don't listen to them, they are the guys who later become sore duckfuckers because they sold all their coins at 50$ when BTC was heading for 270$. Same here, if you sell at 5000$ you will probably end up regretting it for the rest of your life. |
|
|
|
|
Feels good to have the last laugh and smear Bitcoin's success in the faces of all those non-believers.
Hey non-believers, how does it feel like? How does it feel to be a loser? Does it burn? Don't worry, it will get worse. Bitcoin is heading to 17 777$.
|
|
|
|
Well that didn't last long.  Everybody, stop dancing. nah, offloading few last non-believers before the take off. those suckers will only buy back in at higher prices |
|
|
|
|
Okey let me correct: although the bubble started in 2016, it is officially confirmed as of yesterday when we established a new ATH. Before yesterday there was still chance for a bearish double top. It is known from the history of cryptocurrency bubbles that whenever the old ATH gets surpassed the market goes crazy and full blown FOMO kicks in. It has always been like that, very profitable if you can spot these opportunities. It is safe to buy bitcoins or any altcoin immediately after the old ATH is broken because it will rise a lot after that.
|
|
|
|
Satoshi must be celebrating right about now! good for him, but now there is a foot on the brake and holding this machine to take off, miners not activating segwit. we need to sail in oceans please stop keeping bitcoin at bay.
segwit must not be activated!!! It is a trojan horse designed to obfuscate the source code of Bitcoin deliberately so that only a select few would be able to post further changed to Bitcoin. If you care about Bitcoin REJECT SEGWIT. There are way better alternatives out there. SegWit is funded by banksters and their agenda is to gradually gain control over Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
2017 bubble has officially begun now. Prepare for mainstream news next week, FOMO, my prediction of 5000$ BTC is manifesting.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
