alot of people think that health records cant be decentralised because there is so much data and it just cant fit on a blockchain.

this is because most people only see the data within a blockchain in the format of a financial transaction:
[in: 1Fr0m4p3r50n value: 0.01btc]
[out: 1t04p3r50n value: 0.01btc]
[signed: 1Fr0m4p3r50n5sign4tur3]

now imagine
[Doctor: 1Fr0m4p3r50n patient: 1t04p3r50n symptom: insomnia result: yes]
[signed: 1Fr0m4p3r50n5sign4tur3]

[Doctor: 1Fr0m4p3r50n patient: 1t04p3r50n symptom: pregnant result: yes]
[signed: 1Fr0m4p3r50n5sign4tur3]

[Doctor: 1Fr0m4p3r50n patient: 1t04p3r50n symptom: HIV result: no]
[signed: 1Fr0m4p3r50n5sign4tur3]

theres already some open source platforms for people to make a prototype smart watch
http://smartwatches.org/learn/make-your-own-smartwatch-open-source-smartwatch-project/

you can even buy 'programmable' smart watches that are already in a final design
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/programmable-smart-watch.html

"pebble" seem to offer everything from the programmable watch to the SDK to program it
https://www.pebble.com/watches
https://developer.pebble.com/sdk/

though i linked some examples to show the watches can be programmed. im not sure if any have NFC included as that would be the important part that makes it the 'killer app' for bitcoin

i already thought about that. i think "hardware wallets" are a little cumbersome. and require a computer to USB port the hardware wallet. and downloading electrum or a browser add-on/extension just to make it functional.

the future "killer app" for bitcoin will definitely be a wristband.

why do you desire monero..

oh wait. the ties to Gmaxwell.. and the blockstream team

can i tell you something..
if bitcoin fails because of blockstreams banker contracts to commercialise bitcoin, going for monero is not freeing you away from this, its just re-rinsing the same plan, by going full circle into yet another currency owned by the same group that may cause bitcoin to fail.

i laugh at anyone thinking that bitcoin is ok to fail, and then mention monero as plan B.. as its obvious those people are happy with letting the banks fail a currency, and they are happy to let it happen over and over again.. which is completely the opposite of satoshi's vision (read the quote in the genesis block to know why bitcoin was invented)

as for the other part of the OP's scenario.. a NFC chip in someones arm..
well first:
they developed the NFC visa debit card 'touchless technology'
next its the NFC wristband. UK barclays is already developed this and will get people used to swiping their wrist across a machine.
https://www.shop.bpay.co.uk/categories/buy-bpay/product/wristband/wristband

even "dudeperfect" highlighted via the ted talk video he linked that disney are also going for the wristband concept to get kids used to paying by swiping their wrist. i set the time in this link to get to that section of the ted talk
https://youtu.be/_VB39Jo8mAQ?t=3m17s

so it is plausable that 'for convenience' people will opt for an implant so they never lose, drop, or have their 'wallet'(wristband) stolen/lost because it will always be available to them, implanted as oppose to worn.

what if i told you that those making LN dont want you to settle funds. they are already highly attracted to channels that never close and penalties for closing channels abruptly. translation: once your in your locked in if you want to change 'banks' closing your account will cost you.

to play on the OP's scenario

what if i told you that the 'phoenix' is an LN hub, where everyone's funds are locked into LN multisigs where the counterparty is a hub manager called the Global Banking Group

though i think that the phoenix is going to be what hyperledger is doing. based on the video linked.

but lets see how people feel about bitcoin being twisted into the commercial LN system where the hub owner is the bankers getting their fee's to recoup their investments they handed to devs in 2014-2016

i highlighted the fatal flaw in hardware wallets.

by the way can you sig spammers stop bringing necro-ed topics back to life just to spam nonsense.
can someone lock these threads or can forum mods stop spammers from bringing dead topics back to life

ways to avoid tax whether its fiat or any other currency
1. never "live" in the same country for more than a few months of the year - you will learn why people have holiday homes, winter cabins and timeshares know this trick, david beckham (UK football/soccer) done this for years.

2. financial trusts - if you dont have yourself as a beneficiary and instead you set up a couple shell companies as trustee's and then you take a fee as an administrator and travel/accommodation expenses as a trustee.. then whats inside the trust technically doesnt belong to you, but you can as both the administrator and trustee, grant payment to yourself.

3. foundations - ever watch them posh people who arrange large banquets in the name of a foundation, or why the linux, hyperledger, etc all used foundation status.. (clinton foundation.. but shhh dont mention the clinton foundation)

4. offshore business.. this is a commercial method that mixed points 1 and 2, but done so using commercial entities rather than personal entities

5. not have funds available to be frozen by probate. by giving 'gifts' to relatives before you die thus having nothing in your 'estate' to be taxed

sig spammers boring... time to lock the thread.

i actually tried to delete it as it was out dated news of no importance.
anyways

LOCKED

if it were just $50 then yea everyone would be doing it.

its not something you do just to protect your second hand car, LCD tv and apple ipad.. but if you have a new car or a house its more worth it.

see.. this UK Duke got away with £0 tax on £9billion inheritance
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions

put the deed in the name of a trust.
make sure you are not the beneficiary of the trust. but another trust is the beneficiary.
you then set yourself up as just an administrator of both trusts and take a fee for services rendered from the trust.

oh and make sure the bank accounts are set up under a foundation too. that way the fiat can flow without it evaporating. and because the funds dont legally belong to you no one will knock at your door

its how the fat cats get away with not paying tax.

looking at the actual numbers.
we have slushpool.. sheep think they are chinese but the pool manager is in thailand.
we have BTCC.. sheep think they are chinese but they have offices and stratums all over the world
we have antpool.. sheep think they are chinese but they have stratums all over the world and farms outside of china.

the actual percentage that are chinese is far far far less than say Ghash.io of 2013.

and out of those 'chinese' numbers you have to realise that they are not colluding.

there are over a billion chinese people. so saying that just because they are chinese is more fictional than saying Ghash was colluding with eligius
there are over a billion chinese people. so saying that just because they are chinese is more fictional than saying Gmaxwell was colluding with hashfast

why would i presume ghash and eligius were tied together... nothing more than both being white.
why would i presume gmaxwell and hashfast were colluding together.. nothing more then being corporate schemers.

but hey if anyone thinks all the chinese are all, yes all >1 billion of them are all in the same boys club.. then those of you that think this must have subscribed to youtube channels that promote that the earth is flat also.

all this "chinese miner" debate is doing is sidetracking the drama and trying to sway peoples gaze away from the real threat.. developer centralization, removing node diversity, and basically handing bitcoin rule creation to a handful of well paid devs that are contracted to make financial profit for the banks

lol you have no clue the link you provided. you seemed to have read the title but you didnt read it all to understand the context

unlimited is about scaling bitcoin.. LN is about commercializing offchains and pushing people away from bitcoin. open your mind beyond the sheep stories. its like you sheep only have one story to tell. and that story is in the fantasy section.

its core that developed locking funds for x days (like bankers business days) -CLTV
its core that developed revoking payments (like bankers chargebacks) - CSV
its core that have flipped fee's from reactive to exponential (like inflation) - fee average

you need to look passed the spoonfed info handed to you on a plate and actually read, research learn, understand and make an informed and independent opinion. the trouble is when i see you and the other sheep repeat the same crap over and over it begins to sound like a script. a pre-rehersed chorus to a song celebrating blockstreams takeover of bitcoin.

core 2013-2017 is not the same bitcoin ethos of bitcoin-qt 2009-2013, stop deluding yourself that those in core 2017 are the same people of 2009+.. since blockstream entered the arena and sidetracked development via showing bitcoin dev's millions of corporate dollars fanned infront of their faces.. bitcoin has changed. even the 90+ unpaid devs have turned into blockstream interns hoping to impress blockstream with blind allegiance hoping to oneday get part of that fiat cashpot blockstream has.

if your only real devotion to core is the past. then its time to wake up and realise that the past does not have influence over the future. so "trusting" devs based on the past and ignoring what they are doing in the present, and want to do for the future.. is foolish.


atleast take a day and really try to learn things beyond whats been prepared and handed to you on a plate.

1. even upto 8mb blocks are not an issue for the network or home computing.. the chinese firewall limitation is a myth, the datacentre requirement is a myth.. but even knowing 8mb is acceptable. the community think that 2-4mb is more than acceptable and even compromised down to 2mb base block to overturn the fake doomsdays.

anyone arguing about data costs/bloat are late to the party and just shouting out fantasy scripts of yesteryear. every time i see someone say 2mb is bad, i facepalm them that they are soo ill informed and so scripted with their rhetoric that i begin feeling sorry for them

core refused 2mb until they realised for their confidential bloat making fee increasing transactions to have a chance of forcing people offchain they need to bait the community with fake promises of more transactions just so they can push upto 4mb of bloated fat transactions.
but even knowing they had to push the bloat to 4mb with bloated future features of confidential transactions that are over 1kb a tx.. they had to keep legacy (old lean) transactions at a limitation. so they decided to keep base block at 1mb. instead of opening up scaling onchain properly.

2. other implementations want bitcoin to hold lean transactions where increasing the 'weight' actually causes real and positive scaling. not one time boosts that become diminished after the bait has been successful to then switch them over to bloated tx's that dilute the transaction count again.

3. core have funnily proposed to actually intentionally split the network just to force in a soft fork, that alone shows how desperate core are


if you cannot see the truth behind what core is doing. then you are a lost sheep stuck in the wolfs pen thinking the wolves are the sheep dogs to protect and guide you. by the time you see and react to the wolfs teeth, it will be too late for you.

wake up

1. the fee is going up because of mechanisms implemented by core to push the prices up. done intentionally
2. they want you to move over to LN, again intentionally
3. they are holding onchain scaling back to push that agenda of intentionally taking away the freedom of bitcoin and reduce it to commercialised permissioned system.
4. the equipment cost to run a node is not anything more than a desktop. infact bitcoin would run on a raspberry pi
5. distribution vs decentralization are 2 separate things.bitcoin is wll distributed, but diverse and decentralized. hell know..
6. by calling everything not core a scam. you are proving bitcoin is not decentralized and proving you dont want decentralization. so how about be honest and just use the word distributed, so you can atleast say one honest thing about the way you see bitcoin

just to clarify some trolls points

bitcoin blocksize has 3 rules

core for instance has:
protocol size 32mb(bet most dont know that)
node preference 1mb base 4mb weight
pool preference 0.7mb base (but the pools have upped this themselves to 0.999mb after release)

while pools are at 0.7-0.999mb,  nodes can actually move their goal posts to anything they please. while still receiving any blocksize below their preference without issue.
we ALREADY have a few hundred nodes with block base sizes above 1mb with the main ones set at 2mb. and they are ALL happily accepting blocks

taking the control away from devs and letting the users control their own settings to show real community desire WONT break bitcoin.
pools wont up their preferential settings unless they see majority acceptance from the community, otherwise their blocks would get orphaned.
the community wont up their preferential settings unless they can handle it.

it does not require dev's to control when and how.. it should be a community consensus that does it.

anyone saying otherwise is just trolling for the banker backed dev's who want to limit bitcoin purely to commercialise it.

most people work out how much money they waste on fast food that literally gets flushed down a toilet 6 hours later.

this disposable income that is used for temporary gluttony but permanently lost is the amount people could/should invest in bitcoin, that way its not deemed a "risk" because when you think about it logically. its going to waste anyway.

so buying bitcoin regularly doesnt 'hurt your pocket'

if you have excess fiat (savings) some people pre-purchase a years worth of bitcoin based on their disposable income for a year, when bitcoin is at a low.. and then 'save' the fiat long term by not getting fast food for the rest of the year to accumulate their fiat back up to the savings level they were accustom to. thus basically not losing out of some good prices

LN has a niche market for gamblers, day traders, adsense and faucets.
but if you look at the stats. most NORMAL people only transact using fiat 42 times a month.
so if normal people swapped using fiat to use bitcoin. they would use bitcoin far less than 42 times a month due to bitcoin not being available for all retail, public services.

LN should be a side solution for the high use people. but NOT forcing everyone to use LN permissioned transactions

the funny thing is core KNOW that 4mb is no issue for the network.
the problem is they want to bloat that 4mb allowance with features like confidential transactions, rather than allowing 2mb-4mb of lean transactions.

plus this fake gesture core want to offer, is a one time boost that depreciates faster than it will boost.
causing effectively no long term benefit. and still requiring us to be spoonfed.

however a dynamic block allows the community to decide when to grow. obviously if nodes cant cope with certain growth, they wont change the setting to flag desire for growth. and consensus wont allow growth unless majority can cope.

we dont need devs to decide what is possible or not. especially when they are biased saying 2mb is too much one day, but suddenly 4mb is ok the next day they suddenly need it for their features.

let me guess though blockstream sheeple will jump in to reply "one billion terrabyte blocks tomorrow" without explaining the rational concept of CONSENSUS and slow NATURAL and PROGRESSIVE growth of time

but core are not devs, they are economists now.
their mindset is less about using code to expand bitcoin, but instead
limit supply of space, increase the price of space and force people into commercial services(charging fe's/penalties to repay blockstream investors)

if anyone thinks the network cant cope with 2mb thus 1mb should remain then why the F**k are core now ok with 4mb to allow extra space to fit their bloated features.

bitcoin should remain as the lean transaction network. let the bloated features go offchain.

and yet core devs think LN hubs (bank2.0/paypal2.0) is the future of bitcoin

imagine your real life. what is the main retailer you use the most often.. using LN will make that retailer becomes the new "BANK" where you will need their signoff on all fund movement requests.

EG
soon starbucks LN hub will be the bank of the future. requiring starbucks to authorise all transactions while starbucks hops the 'funds' to other entities. starbucks will put a 3-5day CLTV on settlements and CSV revoke chargebacks. and administrative penalties. EG not having enough fund available in the LN.(overdraft fee)

onchain should be the only solution. otherwise bitcoin is not solving anything, but just pushing fund managers into commercial hands

lol solution to sighash scaling is simple.

limit how many sigops a tx can do. no single person needs to ever produce a tx with 80,000 sigops or 20,000 or even 1000..

afterall a LN tx is just a 2in 2out transaction, so thinking that the quadratic/linear doomsday impacts LN is false

also LN requires 2 signatures so one party would refuse to sign if they see another party is doing something funky to a tx. so a tx wont even be accepted with only one signature. so that keeps both parties in a 'mutually assured destruction/mutual agreement to benefit' paradigm to not have issues with malleability.

but core devs have forgot how to make code rules. and have put their banker hats on and decided 'market' rules are better.
such as
not making DDoS protection code for LN, but instead give penalty fee's to hub 'customers' if they dont do things a certain way.
not have the onchain tx fee reactive to actual demand of blockspace, but averaged biasedly in an ever increasing amount over x blocks.