No? But you merely claimed that Bitcoin "bilaterally split into Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash", right? Therefore making Bitcoin Cash as rightful as having to be considered also Bitcoin? You further said that it's like the "Dollar". There's the U.S. Dollar, the Australian Dollar and the other "Dollars". What was that? Your attempt to make what is considered Bitcoin worth less?


To be called a troll by you is an honor. That means I'm doing something right. But you, why would trustworthy developers like gmaxwell and Achow give you a negative trust-rating?


He's gaslighting. It's actually to confuse the newbies reading our debates.

It's so moronic that the forum vote for him as the "anti-hero", giving him recognition. It probably means that a majority of people in BitcoinTalk don't truly have a grasp of basic concepts about Bitcoin or what's happening around it.

What's that? Haha. I know there are some smart developers who are right to criticize some aspects of the Lightning Network, but from a troll like you saying that it should be "scrapped"?

The developers working on Lightning are doing a better job in REAL scaling if you look and compare it with a coin like BCash. You laugh at the people in this forum because they support Lightning? Look at your community in BCash, believing that the solution to real scaling is by making blocks bigger and bigger forever, without any consideration for the limitations of bandwidth and hardware.

I'm tired of wasting time making the same debate like a broken record. Read the hypothesis in OP about Gold's ETF and just connect the effect of an ETF in Bitcoin's own market.

 


I actually don't know, but if BlackRock was correctly and accurately described in this post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5459385.msg62598645#msg62598645

Therefore I truly believe BlackRock will make the largest investment by an institution/asset manager in Bitcoin's history. How much is Chad Saylor's Bitcoin investment? 0.05% of Total Supply?

Like now StopAndDecrypt's write up says that the term "on-chain scaling" gets used many times without context, I believe it's the same with us in the forum.

For context, the post in this quote is REAL on-chain scaling,


We can't have a proper debate and we can't learn from each other if we don't have the real, common definition of on-chain scaling. Plus there's another concern, that's if the other party of the debate is a troll who is merely misinforming and gaslighting the public.

Read "The Long Road To Segwit: How Bitcoin's Biggest Protocol Upgrade Became A Reality" by Aaron Van Wirdum. He's definitely the most trustworthy person you can find that wrote about the subject-matter.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

That write up will give you the history, what caused the "Scaling Debate", the context why, and why the the Core Developers chose the path where we are today.

No frankandbeans, it's you. You're the one obsessed about making the Core developers look "evil" by accusing them that they're keeping the blocks small so they could promote their, what is it? Their "alt-subnetwork"? Without taking into account about the technical debate that they've presented. But once presented with a technical debate, the big blockers start to use big walls of texts made up of ad hominem, straw man fallacies, and disinformation to confuse and gaslight everyone.

 

For under-capitalized plebs like many of us are, you won't have to find quality "trading resources". It would be a waste of our already limited capital. The best use for it is merely to buy the Bitcoin DIP, and HODLing it as a store of value, then DCA any additional capital that you earn.

Plus instead of wasting your time in trading, just find a job, a second job, or other ways to earn extra money.

I made these posts about the issue,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456494.msg62417885#msg62417885

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456494.msg62452869#msg62452869

I asked in one of them what's BlackRock's stance on E.S.G. - Environmental, Social, and Governance.



I have no fascination. Simply noticed the large difference in networth between Chad Saylor and BlackRock. Larger networth = Possibly a larger investment into Bitcoin. It probably might be three times Saylor's investment by BlackRock? More if we consider the investments of the other major asset managers?

No, I literally mean that from a technical perspective - Direct programmability of a digital currency made by a centralized authority should be illegal. CBDC will be MORE tyrannical than the current, ALREADY, tyrannical financial system.

I believe that anyone involved in BitcoinTalk should spread more awareness about the challenges that CBDCs present in our financial freedom. Because it's obviously not just another form of "digital fiat".

They did, as I also mentioned in the same post, which wasn't included in your quote.

It's just part of that cycle of adoption when a new technology starts emerging like the genesis of the internet's popularity. Many people who didn't regularly use the internet during those early days thought it was just a short-lived craze used mainly to post pornographic images. It will be the same for Bitcoin, many people heard a rich old dinosaur say that it's "Rat Poison Squared", and therefore for people who don't use it, it's just a scam.

 

Using Lightning through BlueWallet does not have "remarkably low fees". It was known that it had hidden fees for each LN transaction that would sometimes cost the user high fees than the average, depending on demand and transaction size.


Uninstall the "game"? You mean BlueWallet? They already removed support for LN two months ago, that's why OP must remove it in his list and add another wallet like Mutiny.

I'm sorry ser, but you are very very wrong, and I'd advice you to be very careful in carrying that kind of thinking with you. A CBDC is a centrally programmable digital currency issued and controlled directly by the government itself. It's not like "mobile banking", it bypasses the banking system, and they should actually be made illegal. There should be a separation of Money and State.

No, the point is more like, to start a business you need to borrow money, and to borrow money you need to have something as collateral as an assurance for the borrower, with you knowing that you might lose the collateral if your business fails. That's the gamble, and the probability of success for any new business is only 25% to live for 15 years. 75% of new businesses fail within 15 years.

I'm no expert too, I'm merely a pleb like most people in BitcoinTalk, BUT what I heard is BlackRock has ownership rights in most United States Banks, they own shares in most of U.S. Pharma and they are said to be an administrator of 10% of trading of major stocks WORLDWIDE. The total assets they manage might be half of the United States' GDP, it's said to be worth 10 Trillion United States Dollars.

BlackRock is also the biggest asset manager that owns shares in Amazon, Google, Facebook, other major tech companies, AND currently they want Bitcoin.

To $500,000?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It IS actual gambling, especially for us plebs. I don't care what "skill arguments and justifications" many people post because if there's any possibility that we'll lose money in something, then it's a gamble.

Having said that, even starting a business is a gamble, and a leveraged gamble at that if you, as the entrepreneur, are using borrowed/loaned money.

My advice - BE CAREFUL

Investment and trading books, articles and videos are made by people who might not actually be winning traders. They make their money by writing "investment materials" and sell it to us, the plebs.

Plus "as traders", most of you will lose money and leave. Some of you might return and lose more money. Some might have learned their lesson the hard way and just HODL Bitcoin. The few who actually put in the most time, effort and who are well-capitalized might make it.

Compare with the countries with the highest inflation rates and notice the numbers in Venezuela, Sudan, and Syria.


It doesn't only show that people in countries with the lowest minimum wages take longer to accumulate until they have one whole Bitcoin, it also shows that if you live in one of these countries, you SHOULD own Bitcoin as a store of value.

Because it's closed source doesn't mean that they do not know what caused the hack, they probably do. It should actually be BECAUSE it's closed source that the community should be more suspicious. The Atomic developers can check the code, but the open source community can't. What could go wrong?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well whether that will or won't happen, it's truly out of our control. We will have our differences and our own personal opinions about it, but there's nothing that can be done about it. No one has any right to say how, or who, or where Bitcoin should be used, who should be using it, and where it should be used. Bitcoin itself is neutral.


I know everyone wants Bitcoin to be viewed as something as a net-good for the world, but as technically designed, what does everyone truly and honestly think could happen?