Nope

Every piece of information you posted is wrong

Please search for information before you post topics that contain totally incorrect information

Apparently, that's a bad idea. There's a way of figuring out that passphrases exist for a given Trezor seed, whereas if you don't use a passphrase, then it can be proved that you don't have any passphrased accounts pertaining to the same seed mnemonic.

We're both wwwwwwwway off topic. Jut throwing that out there

I think it's pretty likely.

The Chinese government know this sub-culture all too well. The system there is that all large businesses must have at least 1 board member from the Communist Party, maybe more for the largest firms (and likely state espionage agents get sent in to be extra watchful over sensitive companies like cryptocurrency related ones). So all that corruption that allowed all those scandals at chinese exchanges? Probably done with Chinese government approval most of the time. So if you think Huobi, OKCoin or BTCC (or any miner manufacturers...) got an easy ride, it's pretty obvious why.

High fees have only ever been needed to make ASAP transactions, you could always pay less than the most expensive fee, just with a delayed confirmation depending on how little you paid.

Anyone who paid high fees in the past thought it was worth it, they needed a fast payment. They would find a way to wait otherwise.

And it'll always be like that, there will be quiet times (when it's a good time to set up payment channels or tidy up dusty outputs in your wallet), and there will be super busy times, when you sit back and let everyone do what they should've done months ago. Bitcoin network congestion is a bit like Christmas shopping lol, there's always plenty of masochistic people who just love to all go together on Christmas Eve.

Never mind that, the Euro (and every other fiat currency, and gold/silver/platinum etc) have lost an infinite % of value against Bitcoin since the genesis block, which was valued at a big fat zero until the year 2010.

Even if we start the comparison from when 1 BTC = 0.005 pizzas (the legendary 5000 BTC/pizza deal, made here on Bitcointalk.org), Bitcoin has still risen many thousands of percentage points in value against fiat currencies (currently BTC is around 150,000% up against the USD, if measured from the pizza deal)


The Euro started around 9 years before Bitcoin, and it's still worth a little more than 1$. Maybe it'll get a boost from the talked-about settling of oil deals with the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement countries in Euros, but it's hard to see how it can possibly compete with Bitcoin's growth in value.

What would you all say if China were to have a sudden change of mind, and reallow Chinese crypto exchanges "to fight the black market" Imagine if they did this just a few weeks (or even days) after a consensus market bottom?

I'm not saying it's definitely gonna happen, but I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if it did.

It's still very early days for eltoo (still being discussed informally, which is the source of this story). But it'll be a nice alternative to the original Lightning protocol stack if it becomes available (I say "alternative" because there are apparently some trade-offs)

Also, the article is a bit confusing, there's an implication that stale channel states will no longer be an issue, but from what I read about eltoo, that isn't totally true.

Eventually, so many people will probably be more familiar with Lightning than they are with the main chain¹ that even those that don't care about technical arguments will know these claims about Bitcoin's capacity are just plain wrong

¹once Lightning is mature, there's much less incentive to use on-chain transactions to introduce people to Bitcoin with the typical low amounts of BTC, which Lightning is better suited to providing

Netflix's business model is to borrow loads of money, then charge users less than their costs. They never made any profit on streaming; they're in huge, ever increasing debt.

(the idea is to establish themselves in the streaming marketplace, then massively ramp up the subscription fees later)


There's no reason why a Netflix-like company wouldn't add pay-per-view to their model, but only when they're sufficiently dominant in the overall pay-TV market (i.e. once they've eclipsed cable providers altogether, and once their customers feel reliant on their service)

It's not as simple as that.

Charging more than 50% tax on any taxable event drives up the non-compliance rate. What rate of compliance do you think governments get if they charge 101% tax rates? (clue: it's not 101%)


I agree with all of that, except "They will make you pay what's due in every possible way". If you keep your crypto in your own custody as much as you can, there's literally nothing any government can do to stealcollect.

This puts everyone on the same level as the government cronies, who don't pay any taxes at all.

Your tribalism is blinding you.

If the trademark holder's case is "I own the trademark to `Bitcoin` in it's entirety" then you might have a point, but it's unlikely that such a vague definition would be accepted as a trademark to begin with. Common knowledge of Bitcoin's existence was in place in 2016 when the trademark was granted, as well as in any court cases in 2018 or thereafter. This is without even broaching the issue of the integrity of the British legal system (which has been variously very corrupt in instances where the interests of the *ahem* richest pockets was in question)

Ok, so I'll attempt to clarify

BTCpay is designed as a drop-in replacement for Bitpay, that way merchants can ditch Bitpay with minimal difficulty (hence the API compatibility).

But BTCpay isn't a payments processor, just a DIY software interface. The idea is that the merchant gets an account at a BTC exchange, then uses that account to sell BTC from their customers on whatever exchange they like (automated like Bitpay, the customer sends BTC direct to the merchant's exchange account when paying for goods). This has the advantage of getting around Bitpay's cash-out limits, protecting customer privacy and minimising risks (no reason why more than 1 exchange couldn't be used).


BTCpay will likely integrate Lightning payments fairly quickly too, at least 1 BTCpay developer is a frequent contributor to one of the Lightning implementations. How soon Lightning happens with Bitpay is anyone's guess, they have apparently been trying to make life more difficult for their customer base of late. It wouldn't surprise me if Cheapair's action here is a direct consequence of Bitpay's bizarre behaviour (Cheapair made their name accepting Bitcoin, so presumably alot of their customer base depended on being able to use Bitpay, which is no longer easy).

I tend not to even use the expression "altcoin" these days, it's not really meaningful now that there are at least some cryptocurrencies that do a different job to Bitcoin, have a following and are somewhat independent of Bitcoin's price dynamics. Whether those coins are doing their job well is another question, but it shouldn't be decided with perjorative language like "altcoin".

---

To say "something's called Bitcoin when x & y happen" is total nonsense. People can, and will, label any object or phenomenon with any name they like, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that (especially not with childish rules, lol).

Bitcoin is a label, and labels can be either good or bad in connotation. I don't care if the current Bitcoin continues to be called Bitcoin, only that the tech improves to increase everyone's liberty. At some point, it might possibly be useful if Bitcoin became completely rebranded, as the majority of people have a negative impression of Bitcoin as a brand right now.

Yeah, you're right. With this way of life, so much of what would be natural consequences are avoided. All the stored up irresponsibility will eventually have to spill out, and probably all at once (looks like unprecedented war, more problems with the financial system and increasingly authoritarian government are all on the cards). Hopefully some of these drip-nosed 6 foot tall kids will begin to realise they need to start taking ownership of their own problems (and their lives)

"Money laundering" is not the correct way to put it when it's impossible to stop people using it. Money laundering makes sense as a concept in the banking industry, because a bank is obliged to prevent money in their accounts from being used if suspected of being the proceeds of crime. It's not possible to do that with cryptocurrency, the model is completely different.

Talking about "money launderers" in cryptocurrency is like whipping your car to make it go faster, or shooting pizzas out of trees with a bow and arrow: get over it, those days are gone

Well bitcoind is a command line app, but it's still an app and still a client, as it's an executable. If libbitcoin is truly a library, it will be just a bunch of class & header files, with no executables. But I've never used libbitcoin to actually check whether or not it includes an executable.

There's no such thing as a "safe risk", lol


Look, either this is capitalism (where everybody must live by the outcome of their successes and their mistakes), or it's just a free money hyper-inflation system for poor little kiddies who keep falling over and need band-aids for their teeny weeny knees from their dads


What's THE POINT in having markets if everyone expects to get bailed out every time they make a mistake? If someone loses money in an ICO, too bad. There's nothing to stop people launching ICOs, and there's ample warning out there that ICOs are 99.9% scams. Possibly even 100%. If you don't understand what you're doing, and you still make a risky purchase, why should everyone else pay for your mistakes?

Too many people are getting into cryptocurrencies for the wrong reasons, the whole point is that a majority of the supposedly professional finance firms BANKRUPTED THEMSELVES in 2008, then went to the central banks to say "we gambled everyone's deposits away on duds, you're gonna have to print some new money to buy all these garbage assets from us". Irresponsible bail outs (aka "safe" markets) are the antithesis of what Bitcoin & cryptocurrency is supposed to be about.

I would reconsider these two also.

• Bitcoin Knots is not a re-implementation AFAIA, just a forked version of the standard Bitcoin client with additional features (no consensus breaking features)
• Libbitcoin is supposedly just a library, if that's correct then it shouldn't be possible to execute libbitcoin as a client in it's own right

It depends on how specific you want your remit to be.

There are smaller rivals to Bitcoin where it's a publicly known fact that the hashpower is controlled by 1 miner. Apparently, the only thing that's stopping that miner doing similar 51% attacks is how ethical they are