That transaction fee is too high. I have never been asked such high fees in blockchain.info. Are you sure it is .008 and not .0008? Because the highest fee I had with them is around .0002 or a little bit higher but not over .0003. Today I sent a small transaction to a friend's wallet and blockchain.info asked for a .0001243 transaction fee. So everything is fine in my experience.

How large were your transactions? Also does it really matter much for the miners on how large your transactions are?

I was thinking of giving the Brave Browser a try because I thought that it also pays the users. On the internet the users have now become the product, they follow you and snoop at what you do and record them and then look for patterns in your online activities. So if I choose not to block ads then I should have a share of the pot too, right? What would stop me from using a regular browser + adblocker?

So I am confused with Brave payments for the users. Are they only cashbacks for the Bitcoins you already released or is there really a user's share of 15% from the pot?

I have been using blockchain.info for the longest time and I really have no problems with it except for a few times when I cannot access my wallet. I have heard recently that Green Address is a more secure Bitcoin webwallet so before I start using it regularly for my daily transactions, I would like to ask all of you who have tried it to please share your reviews on it.

Please be honest and it would be better to read about the negatives side by side with the positives. Thank you.

Satoshi Nakamoto once said that he thinks in 20 years Bitcoin will have a huge daily transaction volume or none. The extremism in that quote only reflects the thoughts of a man who does not believe 100% in the viability of Bitcoin when it comes to the test of time. He is being very practical and true to us when he said that the whole experiment he started could also fail.

We are even starting to see Bitcoin's limitations right now. The core developers and contributors, as brilliant as they are, will only try to prolong the life of Bitcoin. But within 50 years it will be replaced by something better.

Ok that makes sense. If he does not mind and he wants to make the market, miners, users and node maintainers decide then he should not criticize anybody if Bitcoin Unlimited or whatever fork he supports is discarded by the majority. He can campaign for his fork and try to take the power of development away from the core developers but first he should show that the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited is very competent.

Are the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited competent?

Why not ask the Dogecoin community for help in organizing a promotion. I am certain that they have really nice ideas in mind. Also it will be easier for the Bitcoin community to promote Bitcoins because it is already proven as the most valuable cryptocurrency.

Maybe also a twin promotion will do the trick. Have the Dogecoiners promote Dogecoin and Bitcoin side by side like a friendly alliance.

If P2P lending is facilitated online then the collateral has to be digital products or goods. The problem is what would make sense to use as collateral? It is very ironic because the only digital entity that will have no problems for a person to hold is already Bitcoin. Also to be honest I would not be willing to lend my Bitcoin to someone else unless the collateral is something physical like a watch or some sort of jewelry. Of course as a lender a person must protect himself at all times.
 
If someone can figure out what digital good or product can be used as collateral that someone will have a successful P2P lending idea.

But what about bandwidth? It will be a real problem starting a Bitcoin node from scratch in the coming future when the blockchain becomes too large and the bandwidth stays the same. There is a reason why there are less and less Bitcoin nodes these days. It is getting harder for someone to start and maintain one regardless of what you say about storage not being a problem. The core developers should find for ways to slow down the bloat.

If you really want to sell your Bitcoins at a more premium price than what the current market is offering then you should use localbitcoins.com. You yourself can choose which payment methods to use and you can even choose to meet up with the one you are transacting with to meet in person. The service allows and gives you the opportunity to act as your own exchange.

First of all do you think that hiding something that is physical like gold will make you get away from your government? It would be a bigger crime to do so. Also remember that you will have to deal with banks to use your physical stash and those banks work with the government to enforce the rules.


It won't make sense to hold them as a store of value. Where would you keep them? In your house? There was a good reason why the financial system evolved and started using paper money. Using gold was not really efficient.


No you will not be safe for eternity because as I said, you will have to deal with the banks or government institutions with your gold. Or you can go to the black market which will be a much bigger crime.

I have received payment. Thank you once again sir.

It is not really shocking for me because I see Schalke as an upper midtable team in the Bundesliga. Why they are starting the season in such bad form is over my head. This should not be happening to them.

What was surprising to me was BVB vs Bayer Leverkusen. I did not expect Leverkusen to play such a physical style. They disrupted BVB's attacks by using a very physical approach. It was also surprising that no one had a red card in that game.

I do not think it is going to happen. The countries that will be affected will not allow it to start another huge financial crisis like the one that happened in 2008. Deutsche bank will be bailed out for sure now that they know that if they want to bail out a bank, they better make sure they print more than enough fiat to do so. And they will have no problem with that as long as the end justifies the means.

If they allow it to collapse then what good will that be to everyone involved?

I agree, that is why in my past posts I believe it would be better for Bitcoin to go down to the lower $500s so that there will be new speculators will be encouraged to start buying again instead of waiting. New speculators in the economy means there is new money coming in. This price today is a sellers market and most traders are not willing to buy at these prices.

I have seen some answers but they do not satisfy what I am trying to find out. So here is a follow up question relating to the topic. If banks already have their implementations of blockchains including their features, would there be a need for the use of alternative cryptocurrencies like LTC?

BTC already seems to have a growing user base so maybe it will survive, but what of the other cryptocurrencies?

As a community member who has been here longer, what is your opinion on what will happen if a fork like Bitcoin Unlimited will gain enough support. Will it split the Bitcoin network in two just like what happened to Ethereum? The supporters of the fork all think it will be ok just like what Vitalik thought with the Ethereum hard fork.

Also if the hard fork does split the network in two, who is liable to be "hanged" by the community? Will Roger Ver step forward and own up to the mistake?

You are wrong on this one. Cryptocurrencies will make it harder for anyone to steal and get anybody's Bitcoins if they know how to secure them correctly. Why don't you try stealing the Bitcoins at Satoshi's wallet or ask your government to do so.


What is your point here? We already are dependent on computers even if Bitcoin was not invented. Bitcoin is not even widely used yet for that to matter if you think deeply about the situation.

It is also impossible for gold or fiat to become worthless just because Bitcoin will rise to your impossible figure of $1m. They could possibly become worthless but not because of Bitcoin.

The core developers should find a way to improve the blockchain pruning methods and also work together with 3rd parties to have a good implementation of off chain transactions. Off chain transactions will hit 2 birds with one stone. It will help scale Bitcoin and it will handle the load away from bloating the blockchain.

There are a lot of people in this forum who deny this as a problem or a potentially serious problem in the future. Yes storage is becoming cheaper and cheaper every year but does that really solve the problem of the bloating blockchain? There is also a concern that bandwidth is a bigger problem than storage.

There should be solutions made in Bitcoin itself and I am confident that the core developers will find a good way.

That is a poor excuse and I hope the Bitcoin core developers are not thinking the same way as you are. Just because hard drives are getting cheap, do you think that the core developers should not find ways to improve pruning and other measures to prevent the blockchain's bloating size? Whatever other people say about offline transactions I still believe it should be one feature that should be explored and tested as soon as possible.

Also please remember that bandwidth is the bigger issue here than storage.