You should also buy some Bitcoin. Just saying... It's your call.... But don't come here whining later.

Good, please tell it to me, because I don't really get what my own point was. I was just being funny. Or trying to. Whatever comes first. YMMV.

Now that I really think about it... I could have a point... Litecoin halving is coming in a few months and no matter if you do or don't have any significant amount of LTC.... It will be an interesting event to watch and try to extrapolate to next Bitcoin halving.

Get used to it... not yet, not now, but it will come soon.

^ Sarcasm? So you are denying that Litecoin doesn't have faster blocks? Are you?

Get the fuck out of here with your seemingly core crippled bullshit!


P.S.: I am amazed by my magistral usage of (seemingly) confusing double negation above.

If you guys don't stop bashing Litecoin I will start shilling for it, because.... uhmmmm.... you know... faster blocks!!!

The thing is that if any new coin just by being "technologically superior" (not the case of BSVlol) would *easily* replace Bitcoin then crypto (all of it) as a store of value would be RIP.

How could we argue we won't need *some* blocksize increase in the near future if demand keeps growing?

Yeah, LN still need to start absorbing more Tx's which would free some blockspace but... still.

Well, I am not really POOR. But I recognise I am a very small fish in this pond.

Good thing is that living in (south) Spain vs UK plus my (current) frugal lifestyle I don't need that much to make it for life. Yeah, $100K would surely do. Maybe even $50K if I don't change my lifestyle in a significant way.

To make it very clear, even at $100K I would be just barely multimillionaire. LFC has a more healthy stash than me, let's just say like double than me, maybe even more.

That being said, my expenses are very little as I am usually very frugal, so I can really live way better with less than people with way more than me.

I am poor, but proud.

I would need to read the EXACT contract in FULL. I don't believe a word of what that guy says. Anyway... good publicity stunt, that's all it matters to me.

P.S.: Oh, and I DON'T think the guy is a BILLIONAIRE. I mean, REALLY??!?!

Not only that. The property is also collateral... Plus all his net worth... present and future income. It's all just a publicity stunt. A good one though.

When exchanges started to request KYC I always thought it was some kind of joke or April's fool, so this time was no different for me.

Had I not immediately realised it was April's 1st I would have started withdrawing all of my posts

Maybe... except we haven't really "ceded" anything as "we" didn't have any real influence over that outcome.

Also I am not completely sure about how much real influence they do or not have. I mean, they for sure do have a lot but.... too much? Donno.

I will be clear... I am 100% for L2 as a scaling solution, but I am also advocating for a CONSENSUATED linear blocksize increase in the near future.

For full disclosure: I was even pro Segwit2X at the time..... *if* it have had CONSENSUS, which it didn't.

And I still think that had Segwit2X went thru, all other forks would already be in the grave instead of just agonizing.

I am not sure what you mean. Some say blockstream wants to focus on L2 (something that I consider extremely important for scaling) and also that they won't ever allow a block size increase (something that I am not sure if it is just FUD, because that sounds simply stupid).

My point of view is that Bitcoin needs both L2 and a gradual blocksize increase, being L2 responsible for most of the massive scaling and block size increase enough to support L2 and bigger/not so frequent tx's directly on-chain.

Also I am pretty sure whatever is done need to be done via CONSENSUS. Other than that would not be Bitcoin, but just a worthless copycat (and we already have enough of those, don't we?)

He is technically right in that BTC should increase its blocksize soon. He is wrong in that any of the forks have anything to do with Bitcoin nor will ever do. There is only one Bitcoin and that is BTC. If that ever changes, say goodbye to crypto (all of it) as a store of value.

He is also wrong in that scaling should come on blocksize alone. The only functional way to really scale massively is via L2. You can increase capacity by increasing blocksize, but you can only SCALE by L2.

He is right in some things, wrong in others.... why are we still discussing this over and over?

BCH, BSV, etc etc are not and will not ever be Bitcoin. Same as LTC (for which I have some preference) won't be either, nor DOGE or BTG. There is nothing to argue about that.

I would prefer if we started discussing about a (reasonable and linear ie 2x, maybe even 4x) block size increase of *Bitcoin*. That would be way more productive, if at all.

Can we just not let the arguing with jbreher polarize sides as if there was no middle more reasonable field?

Bitcoin is scaling the right way. But that doesn't mean it won't have a moderate and reasonable block size increase in the (near?) future.

L2 is the way to go, but block size will also need some (linear, not exponential as that's what L2 is for) capacity upgrade sometime.

Yup, that's more like it.

Also, what he isn't probably telling is that even if she put some BTC (probably an oversized amount for higher margin) as collateral, he also proved his net worth to the bank. And banks make you sign that even if you stop paying the mortgage and the collateral (the home, the btc, etc) is insufficient, they can go against the rest of your net worth... present and future.

So it is just a publicity stunt. I would like to see some guy with 0 IRL net worth, no income, no anything, but just some BTC stash to get a mortgage using it as the sole collateral (and without being a highly oversized amount of it).

Weeee weeeeeeee?!?

We all are. Which leads me to think that the next "bubble" will not be as much explosive as the previous ones.

Who knows.... Bitcoin never stops to surprise us in every possible way.

Well, even at todays prices she is more than 2000% up on her initial investment. Smaller than mine, which I kept increasing over the time, but higher ROI for sure.


P.S.: Also she doesn't really need that money, as she is more wealthy than me, otherwise I would have let her pull the trigger. It just doesn't make sense in her case... and she knows it.