Leaving your absolutely nonsense remark regarding "buying" uk or germany citizenships aside (you really have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about), apparently nobody here bothered to read the actual article, let alone the article this article referred to. Of course the price is not "43Bitcoins which is currently around $200,000" as the OP falsely claims but "one-time payment of $200,000 – or its cryptocurrency equivalent".

$200k for a citizenship is not a lot but there are multiple significantly cheaper alternatives, although Vanuatu's visa-free travel to Russia is rather unique.

What's happening 12/18/2017?

Surely it would have been better if you were -30% with only one of them (sorry, couldn't resist).

Before which hardfork? Before the segwit2x hardfork that won't happen for another month? Or before the gold hardfork that won't happen for another 2 weeks? Either way your theory doesn't make much sense.

So you just revealed that this mysterious list of alleged 480.000+ bitcoin users' emails is in fact full of disposable email addresses, in other words totally absolutely worthless and unrelated to any actual person. Nice try, little scammer.

Now rinse and repeat! Make a new account, fabricate a new (most probably equally idiotic) sales pitch, pretend you are somebody else and try again like a good little scammer.

There are several reliable long-term established AWS code sellers on this forum, no need to make a WTB thread.

What happened to the turtles?

The difference is negligible in your case.

You are not correcting anyone, you only just ridiculed yourself so much and on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin.

You not only didn't understand what I said but not even what I was responding to, and not even what they were talking about.

The first person was talking about bitcoin cash saying that most blocks are under 0.1MB and that there was only one 8MB block and it's not a proof of 8MB blocks working. The correct response to that is that if there ever was even one single 8MB block mined/stored/transported then that exactly is the proof of 8MB blocks working and the fact that there weren't/aren't more has nothing to do with the software, network or miners, because the blocks logically cannot be bigger than how many transactions exist in the mempool at the moment the block is mined. This is such a simple logic that even a 10-year-old would understand that and the fact that he seems to not get it was the DUH moment.

The second person didn't use any of the above valid arguments in his response and instead said that the miners only use bigger blocks when it's needed otherwise they use smaller blocksizes, to which I said that this line of reasoning is nonsense because he is basically saying that the miners could make 8MB blocks but they don't "use" them because it's not needed, implying they have a choice. That is simply not true. The miners don't have such a choice. The only thing miners can decide is to exclude some transactions, so in effect, indirectly, they can make the block smaller than it could be given the number of available mempool transactions. But they absolutely cannot make the block bigger. The miners don't "use" big blocks, the miners don't "use" smaller blocksizes, they don't "use" anything. The only thing that's happening is that the software automatically writes the mempool transactions into the newly discovered block and the only thing that miners can possibly do in this matter is to exclude some of them, that's all that they can do, nothing else. They don't choose any blocksize, they don't use any blocksize, they don't get to decide anything except excluding transactions. Again, I think this, too, is an elementary school logic but maybe I am wrong here, maybe the nuances and semantics are too subtle for young people brains, or maybe it's a language issue.

Now you pompously come here, apparently having no clue what any of us was talking about, irrelevantly showing some line of code that doesn't even exist in any of all 4 bitcoin implementations (it did exist in the bitcoin-core source code but was removed almost 2 years ago - "read the code bro") and has absolutely nothing to do with the matter anyway, and thinking that you are actually correcting anyone? Well, your arrogant and disrespectful behavior just won you a place on my ignore list, kiddo, and I won't even comment on the fact that I am most probably older than your parents.

What are you both talking about? They don't "use smaller blocksizes". It's not like they have a choice to make a bigger block. New blocks are mined at a relatively constant rate and whatever amount of transactions is at that moment in mempool can then be stored in the block. They may decide to not write all transactions and thus make the block smaller but they definitely cannot artificially make the block larger. So saying "they only need to use it when it is needed" is nonsense.

This idiotic idea was mentioned here several times: "oh, whinny, whinny, there are only small tiny blocks in bitcoin cash, where are all those promised glorious 8 MB blocks?" Well, if there are not many transactions to write in those blocks then the blocks can't be bigger, DUH.

If people use something that hasn't proven itself yet for anything more than small amounts then it's their own stupidity and they ought to be robbed, it's the only way they will (maybe) learn. The only point of using superfast transactions is when you are not willing to wait. That makes sense to me when standing in a queue and paying for an ice cream, maybe jeans, not even dinner really fits here. But if it's anything more expensive ($100+) how can you not be willing to wait 10 minutes? That just isn't rational. And even for those small amounts it might be safer/simpler to just use something like a Xapo card and a good old ATM.

But I am pretty sure that in time those potential issues you mentioned will be dealt with, one way or another. However if someone doesn't wanna wait for the test of time then they should be robbed and (however cruel and extreme this sounds) possibly killed because stupid people are danger to themselves and everybody else. Most of the harm in the whole history of human kind was caused by human stupidity.

Well, I think ordinary people most definitely will use LNs because they will want instant confirmations. Stores and merchants will probably use LNs as well for the same reason. For jeans or dinner worth amounts I suppose it's fine, as long as you keep the rest of your bitcoins safely stored on the (main) blockchain. Which I am afraid is not what most of the ordinary people will be doing - they will move more than necessary to the side channels for convenience reasons and that may or may not turn out to be a problem.



That's great, so they will not try to rob people and then say "your bad, you should have withdrawn by the deadline".

In their announcement they don't say anything about any auto-selling and btc-crediting after the deadline. The only thing they actually say is:

At first he definitely was the real deal. But imagine his situation: he became known and his opinions started to be perceived as something to listen to. Once this happened surely many different forces have been trying to use his voice for their purposes. Maybe he gave in and took the money, maybe they forced him somehow, maybe they tricked and manipulated him and he truly believes what he is saying. Remember he is still just a human, a fugitive, a guest in quite a horrible (human rights wise) country that he basically cannot even leave (nowhere to go). The point is we don't know what's really going on with him and accusing him of bad intentions doesn't seem fair to me.

Sure everybody makes their own security paradigm, but there might be a difference between how you are imagining it now and how it would really be if you were in that situation. It's like those fingerprint sensors that are so popular these days. Many people probably think it's so super secure to authenticate using their fingerprints because they are spoon-fed it by all the advertisement but they don't actually think about it much because they don't really have anything that valuable to protect anyway. So they don't realize that fingerprint auth is the worst possible security scheme as you leave your fingerprints everywhere including on the device itself. A password at least needs to be beaten out of you, a fingerprint can be taken from anything you ever touched and in a few seconds can be used to imitate your finger. But people don't think about it because it doesn't really matter anyway, it's all just a game to them.


I suppose you implying you would be "rich" so some terabyte of wasted storage would be "nothing" (saying in a Tony Montana arrogant voice). And that (this attitude) is exactly why most people who suddenly get rich (like winning a lottery) will lose everything and may end up even worse than they were before. So far I haven't had to touch/sell anything I have, I use a small portion for lending at polo and bitfi and that income alone is enough to live life of leisure and support the whole family. Yet I keep working hard and seemingly there is nothing out of ordinary about me going on. Unless you were into IEMs you wouldn't notice that I am usually wearing SE846 and a few similarly priced small gadgets and you definitely wouldn't notice that that superordinary silverish ring on my finger is in fact made of the most expensive precious metal on this planet. The key is to stay below the radar, from the state, from friends, even (and especially) from your own family. It takes only one single mistake to lose everything and/or to get murdered. And yes I will keep complaining about storage requirements because it's a logical thing to do and how cheap a harddrive is to me has nothing to do with it. Making my wealth obvious either by showing off or arrogant snobbish behavior would be a truly stupid thing to do.

Well I guess it depends on how many bitcoins you actually have. If it's next to nothing then all this is just a game to you, but if you have at least a million usd worth of bitcoins and your whole existence (and possibly of others, too) depends on it, then (again, if you have half a brain) you wouldn't even for a second think about using any light wallet or keeping it at an exchange or doing anything less secure than the best. Then you would keep all your devices encrypted, you would use multi-factor authentication and your main worry would be that you forget your very long and very hard to remember passwords because you of course weren't that stupid to write it down. Then even the "low valued" fork is worth enough to live off it for the rest of your life. Then if there is even a small chance that the new fork might replace the original bitcoin you wouldn't even for a second think about selling it. Then you would think and behave totally differently.


Yes, being able to recover in minutes after a failure instead of many hours, if not days, might be a big difference. Again it depends on the amounts and how much is it worth. If you have a $500 car then you won't probably care about it much, but if you have a $500k car then you will probably polishing it every other day even though there is "no point" - the difference is your perception of it and how you treat it changes.

I am talking about us, the users, the bitcoin holders. If I have bitcoins at the moment of the fork then I have the new bitcoins too, so then naturally I want to have a functional respective wallet software to actually be able to use those new bitcoins.

Oh and I forgot - it's not actually 4x 150 GB but 8x 150 GB because, again, everybody with half a brain keeps a backup

4 different bitcoin forks require 4 different blockchains. The pre-fork data could possibly be stored only once and linked but I am not sure it would actually be possible to run all forks at once (as I do) and have them all read the same block files, so anybody with half a brain will keep a separate blockchain for each.

Lol. But I do hope some of those bitcoin forks will really die, recompiling 4 different bitcoin software almost every day is not fun and forcing us to store 4 different (yet mostly identical) blockchains (4x 150 GB) is basically criminal.

Segwit2x is already dead? That's what various people keep saying about bitcoin. I guess somebody forgot to tell the segwit2x developers that their software is dead because they sure are working on their "dead" bitcoin relentlessly.