The problem with unconfirmed transactions won't go away anytime soon. If Segwit gets activated, at least the transaction throughput will increase and some pressure will ease on unconfirmed transactions. Bitcoin might die a slow death if segwit doesn't get activated, the block size doesn't increase and transactions keep piling up.
That's why I switched from Core to Bitcoin Unlimited because the latter allows me as a full node operator to define my own maximum block size limit. If everyone set their own maximum block size limit then it's much better than an ugly segwit hack in the code that will scare new coders away from the project. |
|
|
|
we know the segwit is already added but the price will not increase that much.
like so many thing we overestimate the short term and underestimate the long term. if segwit activates that's a huge vote for future adaptability and it's a statement that bitcoin is ready to do more. i think it would convince a lot of people who might be wavering or uninterested right now that this is something that's here to stay and intends to grow. And what if it doesn't? Bigger blocks perhaps? The longer Bitcoin exists, the harder it will be to make (controversial) changes to it's core. And that is how it should be. Don't like it happening but Bitcoin tends to become a store of value over a p2p electronic cash system. Instead of burying gold people store their 12 word seed. Just for the fact being able to control one's own wealth. A basic right you would think. So with or without Segwit, Bitcoin will see many new ATH's. I really hope SegWit won't activate. It would be the beginning of the end of bitcoin then. It's bascially the same thing as to allow one mining pool to have more than 50% of hashing power. Except of a mining pool we'd have one dev team that has more than 50% of central decision making power over Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If they can ban gold, don't you think they will also ban btc? Why would you want to invest in something that you know is going to be banned?
You cant ban bitcoin. Russia already tried and failed. It doesnt work like that. They can search your house all day but they wont find your bitcoins. lol  maybe if they search your house really really hard they might find your BTC |
|
|
|
How would you prevent public officials from receiving kickbacks on a secret address? Enforcing the above idea would be impossible.
Where there is a will, there is a way. The corrupt will find means to receive bribes.
You are looking at it from the wrong side. If the flow of taxes was recorded on a public ledger then everyone could monitor where their taxes end up with. It would be impossible for the politicians to steal tax money for themselves. Also it would be super easy for anyone to demand explanations where the money was spent. |
|
|
|
Yeah but the bogeyman backs gold, and so does the abominable snowman. If we're casting votes for which fictional phenomenon is going no to be correct, I'll go with them. The real question is what does Santa Claus think of Bitcoin.  You mean Satan Claus?  He is obviously aligned with the Illuminati on that. |
|
|
|
YouTube reference here: The Case for $10,000 Gold If the world moves towards pure digital currency economy. What is the purpose of gold then? Something like bitcoin would be created or bitcoin could expand to become global. Nice to see the Illuminati actually mentioning Bitcoin in a rather bullish way. Are there still any illuminati in the world?I though they are all dead and forgotten. Gold will always be used as a currency or accet,a pure digital currency economy is still very unrealistic. You are wrong. A pubic ledger is way better under some circumstances than conventional means of currency. Bitcoin has the capability to eliminate almost all corruption from the government. The public officials would be enforced by law to only transact with Bitcoin from known and published addresses. This way everyone could see what the politicians do with the money they get from the people. |
|
|
|
Well, this statement is based on an axiom which can sound like this: the world will move towards digital currency economy. This is something probable and yet we can't be sure about it. Illuminati should obviously be for Bitcoin, because it is anonymous and mysterious just like they are. However, they are supposed to want to take control, right? How can they control btc? Maybe they don't want to control monetary policy. And it works for them if people lose confidence in government issued fiat currency and move to gold/bitcoin. Bitcoin appeals to anybody who is against the existing establishment. Or perhaps they possess a quantum computer so it is no longer relevant for them whether they can or can't issue new bitcoins. They will just steal all the coins they need and blame it on hacks. One who has quantum computer is able to steal bitcoins without anyone being able to detect that a quantum computer was used. |
|
|
|
Well, this statement is based on an axiom which can sound like this: the world will move towards digital currency economy. This is something probable and yet we can't be sure about it. Illuminati should obviously be for Bitcoin, because it is anonymous and mysterious just like they are. However, they are supposed to want to take control, right? How can they control btc? By owning a large number of coins perhaps? If they are accumulating then it makes sense that the mainstream media is rather silent about Bitcoin. They control 90% of the mainstream media. |
|
|
|
This seems new, does it make bitcoin successful when they back it as most precious than gold?
One is sure, big boys have noticed it and they take it seriously. It's only a matter of time now. HODL |
|
|
|
|
governments are not going to make their own cryptocurrency because they already have it. they want to move towards a cashless society and ban all cash. India was just a test case for the world. a decentralized pubic ledger has nothing to offer to goverments, they would only lose control if they used one. They will stick to banksters' legacy systems.
|
|
|
|
YouTube reference here: The Case for $10,000 Gold If the world moves towards pure digital currency economy. What is the purpose of gold then? Something like bitcoin would be created or bitcoin could expand to become global. Nice to see the Illuminati actually mentioning Bitcoin in a rather bullish way. |
|
|
|
Interesting article, but full of so much bad reporting that I don't trust any of it.
- implication aim of BU is to create a second chain (rather all be on one chain with user-set blocksize)
- implication aim of BU is to increase the 21M emission limit (ummm... no)
Just another poorly-written advocacy piece.
Haha you are right. That article is biased so MUCH it sickens me. I hope this SegWitCoin will be rejected so hard the Core devs get fired by blockstream. |
|
|
|
Good that you feel violated, you should realise that Bitcoin is close to its headshot.
Why there's two categories at all? Its all about crypto, some alts maybe better in the meantime.
You BTC cowboys got to be shot off your high horse already and get your shit in order.
You're standing in the way of development and evolution, your pissing all over the place.
You've lost it already. You got nothing to do with the BTC market anymore, anyway, thats Chinese, 99%, the rest will follow and then you can start out like every other alt and you can name it Bitcoin Unlimited or whatever and see how far you'll make it with your outdated pile of crap.
Comedy Gold. Butthurt much? Sorry your preferred crypto is but a pimple on Bitcoin's ass. +1 I always chuckle when I see butthurt altcoin boys. They secretly hate themselves for not buying into Bitcoin when it was cheap and then hope to undo their mistake by buying into scammy ICOs. edit: Great News: Bitmain CEO Jihan Wu Will Firmly Support Funding of Bitcoin Unlimited |
|
|
|
A new version of CryptoGraffiti has just been released. Changes in v0.85: - Page loads a bit faster.
- Page footer status message overflowing is now hidden.
- Added the Proof of Existence widget under the tools tab (see screenshot below).
 The Proof of Existence tool provided by CryptoGraffiti.info is way better than competing services as it immediately shows you whether the file hash already exists in the Bitcoin's block chain or not. What is more, it allows proving the existence of multiple files in a single batch. The user can append their custom text message to their proof of existence and even add an additional payment to an arbitrary bitcoin address. At the moment proofofexistence.com asks 0.005 bitcoins for saving a single file hash on the Bitcoin's block chain. The prices at cryptograffiti.info are much cheaper. A single file hash costs approximately 0.001 BTC at CryptoGraffiti. |
|
|
|
It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin. Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it. Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it. Except this fork is a soft fork, so it is backwards compatible by definition. You're advocating a hard fork, which is not backwards compatible. By definition. So you're wrong. An ugly hack soft fork is no better than a proper and elegant hard fork. So you are wrong. edit: What is more, neither of these options will activate without strong consensus. So if we are going to have a consensus either way then let's do a proper and elegant hard fork (has happened before and worked like a charm). There's absolutely nothing bad about a hard fork if we have a strong consensus. Since SegWit won't activate without consensus there is no point to have it in the first place. |
|
|
|
Network speed cap is the maximum block size that can travel through the network fast enough so that it would not be orphaned. Miners are never going to mine blocks that are so large that they will be orphaned (another miner mining a much smaller block will get to propagate it faster,
If any any point miners find that blocks are being orphaned because they are too slow to propagate then the rational, natural, and previously observed behavior is that miners will simply centralize since doing so eliminates that cost. Because the effect of orphaning can be made arbitrarily small (by centralization or other means), your proposed effect cannot constitute a long term effective control on resource utilization. Oh will they really? You're from the future or something? So you are proposing one form of centralization as a solution to the hypothetical other? Well if that's the choice then I'd still go to the direction of empowering the full nodes and taking power away from the development team of a particular branch of the bitcoin software. We have seen mining centralization in past and it was solved. What gives you the fantasy of it not getting solved in the future? That's right. You've got nothing. It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin. Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it. Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it. |
|
|
|
...
What you just said is simply false and you keep repeating it. I guess this argument leads nowhere. A clear example of argumentum ad lapidem. You have no valid points to defend an invalid stance, hence the dismissal. I don't really care. I'm expressing my opinion for the sake of people who can actually do their own thinking. You clearly cannot (perhaps because you are being paid to lie?) SegWit will eventually lose just like Killary Clinton did. People are waking up to the lies. BTW, you seem to be fanatically holding on to the assumption that I support BU so much. I don't. I don't think BU should even get the majority of nodes because that will lead to more centralization again just like it is the case with Core. Bitcoin Unlimited is currently the best alternative simply because it includes the logic to deal with competing chains. If Core enabled options for the users to disable SegWit on their node and to define my own maximum block size then I would consider using Core. If you oppose decentralization which you clearly do then you do not belong to the Bitcoin community. Why are you here then? Ethereum or Ripple would suit much better to you. Have you heard of them? |
|
|
|
...
What you just said is simply false and you keep repeating it. I guess this argument leads nowhere. |
|
|
|
You are generating nonsense FUD. It does matter what was the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto.
Why? Because some random alias had supreme knowledge of everything ? Appeal to authority. There is no such thing as unlimited blocks because network speed will cap the block size anyway. Eventually the combination of free market and network speed will result in the floating maximum block size. Bitcoin will be more decentralized and thus more trustworthy.
"Network speed will cap"? What kind of ludicrous made up thing is this? With no hard limit, any malicious entity should be able to DOS the network. I am running Bitcoin Unlimited full node and my node is already finding and connecting to other such nodes. You can say what you want but the numbers won't lie. People prefer decentralization and Satoshi's original vision to the corrupt ideas of Bitcoin-core dev team funded by banksters.
What numbers? The minority of nodes and hashrate on BU?
Note: This is all off-topic to this thread. We should stop derailing it. Create a separate thread. It's not off-topic. Since 0.13.1 includes foul code for the first time it is just the right place to discuss it. Network speed cap is the maximum block size that can travel through the network fast enough so that it would not be orphaned. Miners are never going to mine blocks that are so large that they will be orphaned (another miner mining a much smaller block will get to propagate it faster, thus stealing the block reward). There is no way to DOS the network because individual nodes can choose to reject blocks based on their individual preferences. Bitcoin Unlimited allows every node to define their own maximum block size limit. It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin. The Core devs are not authors nor legal owners of the Bitcoin software. For that reason they should not act like ones. This is called theft of intellectual property. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
