Part of the Core Developers' argument was that it was a compromise for the block size increase, because Segwit did increase the network's capacity a little.


No, defintely Luke Dashjr was an ardent supporter of BIP-148/UASF, and Eric Lombrozo later showing support by wearing a UASF hat that was given by Francis Pouliot during a talk in a conference.

List of Core Developers and important people that supported Segwit and different activation methods, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

It's the same news, read the post when I bumped this topic, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5377182.msg61609872#msg61609872


Because Russia and China are going against the West, they actually do need decentralization and censorship-resistance, but they don't know it yet. They probably just choose to ignore Bitcoin because "reasons".


It will merely be another permissioned ledger controlled by a centralized entity, or a federation of centralized entities. Nothing ground-breaking/nothing new, making Bitcoin more valuable from a practical standpoint.

What casino games are you playing, how much capital are you using to clear it, and how much are your bets? I have 1.73 mBTC in my bonus wallet, with just 8.52% unlocked through playing Craps $0.50 per roll, the minimum bet. Hahaha.

It will probably be very slow clearing it, but I'm enjoying Craps during lunch breaks from work, or when I'm in the toilet doing my "business".

Perhaps not, but that's also the question. It won't matter if the price is manipulated, because technically and politically, if it gives its participants the advantage of breaking down, and weakening political strongholds implemented by the West, it probably could be a more feasible solution to their problem. I believe they have deep knowledge of Bitcoin, and that it could be useful for what they want to do, but they will never admit it.

In the United States, and other regions that have high inflation/price instability, that would definitely make it easier for the cabal behind Central Banks to do more rate hikes/QT. The POINT of tightening, to end inflation, is to keep removing liquidity from the system and cause a recession. The cabal would never admit that, but that's the effect of QT. It's a necessary effect to lower demand. Plus IF the Federal Reserve/Central Banks give in prematurely and actually GIVE the "children" their ice cream, it would cause higher inflation which would cause another round of QT/tightening/rate hikes.

A pump and dump scheme that's merely taking advantage of the fact that Bitcoin is surging. It would be very laughable if ANYONE who posted in the topic actually believes that FTT is a "good long term investment". The exchange is bankrupt, the owner is a fraudster, and owner's co-founders are giving the government the information needed to put him in jail.

I don't know what you're trying to argue, but the scaling debate was between the Core Developers who were debating for Segwit/Soft Fork, and the Big Blockers who were debating for a block size increase/Hard Fork.


Core Developers Eric Lombrozo and Luke Dashjr supported the UASF, and thought it was a necessary move to pressure the miners to activate Segwit.


If that's what you believe, OK. I personally believe that it was an educating, and eye-opening event in Bitcoin.

Shaolinfry's proposal for BIP-148/UASF, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

I believe it's part of the experiment, and I don't think everything will fall apart especially in this part of Bitcoin's evolution when the self-interest of each participant must find some balance with the interests of the group. Eventually, the participants will come into consensus to find the balance where everyone is incentivized to keep everything running, and to keep everyone participating.


In the context of the scaling debate and the proposal of BIP-148 by Shaolinfry, full nodes = users.

Anyone can spin up a thousand nodes, BUT what matters is the economic majority which includes Bitcoin users, merchants, exchanges, services = REAL USERS that can influence Bitcoin. That's different from a mere troll who spun a thousand nodes and went to fork "his network" alone.

OP, it's probably not very good news in regions where there's price instability and high inflation. The growth in the stock market indicates that there's more tightening to go, and in fact, makes the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank's jobs easier. The jobs increase also is another indication that more tightening should be done. But the cabal behind the Federal Reserve and the Central Banks are stupid, and would probably pivot prematurely. They should stick to the plan.

 

There's nothing that you can say or tell me that would remove that negative trust-rating in your profile. You brought this to yourself because you truly gaslighting people, and spread disinformation, then when it doesn't work, you start name-calling and tell lies about the person and put words in their mouths. That's franky 101. Haha.


 

franky 101.


What you are not realising is that after the tightening and a cycle of deflation, GIGANTIC QE and expansion will be coming, another overadjustment, making everything surge like it was 2015 - 2017, or maybe 2011 - 2013?

Back on topic, https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/auto-market-weekly-summary-january-13/

That's probably showing that deflation is starting, no?

Bump.


If only there was a permissionless, decentralized ledger with its own currency that can be used both as Store Of Value and Medium Of Exchange, and the protocol can also be used as a financial network for international settlements that can go around and elude sanctions.

 

How long? How long must Bitcoin run and prove itself before they accept it, and use it?

I'm not very sure about this post, but I believe we might be starting to be in the part of the bear cycle when it's time to BUY EVERY DIP, and HODL. Although, I'm not very confident because of Macro Economic considerations, like Deflation, which could be coming between the start of the second half of 2023 and the end of 2023. But whatever path you decide to take in your current Bitcoin journey, DON'T BE HIM!



 

They don't have to set up a million nodes. It will depend on who is active as the Intolerant Minority, because once you have influential community members, Core Developers, and some of the popular Bitcoin merchants and exchange owners supporting the UASF, the miners must be careful. Miners are also incentivized to do what the community wants. This is debatable but I believe they will have more to lose if they are at the wrong side of the fork.


The UASF was where every belief/assumptions in the politics and incentives in protocol changed. It was also "discovered" that it's the full nodes that create the demand for what the miners produce. Blocks.

Solana, SRM, FTT, and all of the other shitcoins are pumping/surging merely because Bitcoin is surging. I believe OP should be asking WHY Bitcoin's price is starting to rise? Is it a mere pump, or is there probably another Chad investor from legacy who wanted to Buy the DIP, and HODL? Because there's no other reason to buy BITCOIN now except as a long term investment, and who would buy FTT as a long term investment?

It's very simple. In my opinion, the most probable reason is merely always Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the Alpha to all of the other coins' Beta. Many shitcoins surge when Bitcoin surges, and many of them crash when Bitcoin crashes. It's very rare to see an altcoin/shitcoin that surges while Bitcoin is crashing, BUT it's not very rare to see Bitcoin surge while many altcoins/shitcoins are crashing.

It's laughable because the Cat is out of the bag/the Padora's Box is already open. The government can't do anything about the situation whether they ban it or not.

Central Banks don't like to evolve and enter a new age of free banking through cryptocurrencies. They are threatened, and through CBDC they probably believe that they can maintain their role as "central banks". OK, perhaps, but how would that stop Bitcoin?

Do you disagree to the fact that inflation is a, and has always been, a "monetary phenomenon"? I'm truly confused what your viewpoint is, if you can post it with a clearer context, then maybe I could deliver my own viewpoint.

Plus I'm merely talking in a historical sense. The cabal behind the Federal Reserve/other central banks have been incompetent, their policies have been causing the economic boom, bust cycles.


What is the "economical sense"? I don't understand.


For your information QE started probably during 2008 which gave the system so much liquidity that credit was easy to make people buy houses "like candy", with some minor QT in between, until during the fourth quarter of 2021 when the Federal Reserve announced that they would do massive QT because inflation wasn't actually transitory.

It wasn't because people were rich that made them buy house like candy, it was because it was easy to get a mortgage because liquidity was high. Ask those people who bought houses, "like candy", how they're mortgages are today.

It would also probably be worth using different amounts of transfer delay to confuse blockchain scanners/analysis, or bad-actors that have been following your Bitcoin activity. Plus using a randomized amount of onchain transaction fees might probably help too, especially if you're using Electrum or other SPV wallets. We can't truly be sure if the node we have connected to is trustworthy.

Read Aaron Van Wirdum's depiction in "The Long Road to Segwit". I believe it's one of the most accurate retelling on what truly happened, and it also gives everyone the context of WHY and what caused those events to happen. Although the Flat-Earthers/Anti-Core trolls/gaslighters of Bitcoin would tell you that that information is blasphemous.

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

In fact, everyone should read all of Aaron Van Wirdum's writings.

It was called the "Intolerant Minority", mentioned many times as a game-theoretical idea that a minority could force the miners to activate Segwit. It's debatable that UASF was "nothing", because it wasn't just "nothing". It had its role in the activation of Segwit. Eric Lombrozo and Luke Dashjr supported it.

What was truly nothing was the 2X part. It probably had only verbal support from the signers of the New York Agreement, the fork that had very very little support/no support. In fact it was rejected by the community, plebs, influential Bitcoin people, and some Core Developers. The code for "bc1" was also buggy.