I doubt that Bitcoin will become the One World Currency so that people won't have any other methods of payment.
The point being that if you want to design a crytocurrency which people would want to spend, it actually has to have some kind of "demurrage" feature like Freicoin.
It sounds as if you believe that Bitcoin _cannot_ become the default currency of the world _because_ it has a built-in incentive to hold. I have heard this position asserted several times, and I have never understood it.
I get that more spending means 'more jobs' (though only to a first-level approximation). However, one cannot eat Bitcoin. And one needs to eat. Regardless of the incentive to hold money, people still want to eat. And house themselves. And get from point A to point B. And...
Bottom line, all these require spending.
Yes, an economy dictated by a deflationary money would be radically different than the one we have today. But is this a bad thing? Being more
frugal efficient with the Earth's resources may be a good idea.
And the machines are coming for our jobs anyhow. We are going to need to sort out how each human fits into an economy of abundance anyhow.
Boat.
It could buy me a truck to pull it
It could buy me a Yeti 110 iced down with some silver bullets
Yeah, and I know what they say,
Money can’t buy everything
Well, maybe so,
But it could buy me a boat
I see you bumbling imbeciles haff not yet completed vave 5.
Prost!
busted. edited my post
Prost!
Ending the Fed has been the goal from the beginning.
https://www.facebook.com/Kill-The-Fed-181798821860025/
Recovery phase of altcoins just started...., while bitcoin being kept within $7500.
In the wasteland of altcoins, hope springs eternal.
When it forks the value of the other will go down while the new one takes a bit away from
In theory. However, such has not seemed to have been borne out in practice.
Somebody knows how the hell S2X (futures) managed to get to 2k+?
Umm... it's a more capable version of S1X? Inherently more utility usually goes hand-in-hand with more concrete value.
Though it is interesting that it is hitting this, given each so-called 'futures market' I am familiar with includes an asymmetric advantage to the legacy choice.
Why the fuck are [Bitcoin Cashes] up so much ? The hell is up with that shit ?
I am surprised you find it necessary to ask this.
Cheers!
(I been tryin' ta tell ya)
((all y'all))
Jimbo and jbreher may well turn out to be the smartest guys among us.
XD
I simply believe that price follows value follows utility. And vote accordingly with my wallet.
S1X -- in comparison -- is lacking along several axes.
BCH is still on sale. Just sayin'
Do you agree that malleability is a "non problem",
Absolutely. I've yet to see a verifiable claim that malleability has resulted in actual loss. I mean, it is a possible vector, so I'm willing to grant that actual cases do exist. But avoiding loss by malleability is trivial with due diligence.
MtGox? Bitch, please. Proven to be nothing but a MagicalTux deflection smokescreen.
are lighting solutions are really "patented"?
I don't know. I don't really care either. I don't mind letting innovative companies profit off 2nd-layer solutions, patented or not. What I mind is making base protocol changes to provide them with preferential incentives.
Further, Lightning whether or not centralized or corporate-owned contains security threats that on chain transactions do not possess. I'm fine with Lightning, as long as on-chain is accessible for reasonable valued transactions.
And i can't even understand (but may be my problem) why he says that zero-conf is bad and "robbing bitcoin.
I've not read the letter as of yet (I'll get to it shortly). I'm guessing that your paraphrasing is slightly off? RBF is bad - it makes acceptance of zero-conf transactions inherently _very_ dangerous. While it is true that there is always some element of risk in accepting a zero-conf payment, it used to be a manageable risk (i.e., losses less than the cost of credit card processing - by far). However, in the era of full blocks, that business model was thrown out the window. Even without full blocks, accepting zero-conf payments is untenable in an RBF environment.
Might that be what the letter is trying to convey?
I guess Peter Todd didn't get the memo when he double spent coinbase's zero-conf, without RBF...
If you are looking for absolute guarantees, you're gonna have a bad time. The world just doesn't work that way.
I note publicly -- with no lack of irony -- that Coinbase is still a viable entity. Profitable even.
I think Bitcoin Cash will continue to gain steam up until the fork,
Funny. I expect BCH to fall against BTC up until just before the fork, and skyrocket thereafter.
Don't worry, it's not the miners that decide, it's the users.
Well, actually, everyone's opinion is factored in.
Do you think no miners are users?
Do you think all non-mining users are united behind S1X?
If you've ever used BCH ..
-There are virtually no nodes to sync - you connect to bitcoin-core of the BTC chain and you get disconnected all the time.
That is inconsistent with my experience. I've had no issues whatsoever in syncing.
Which client have you used? Oh. No, I don't remember 0.14 being bad. I'm running 0.15.0.0-unk. Maybe give it another try?
-Blocks can take hours.
While this is true, I am unaware of a single case of any transaction -- no matter the fee -- taking longer than two blocks to confirm. Certainly can't make that claim for segwit.
BTC has just 4 mn coins to mine and that's it.
...aaaas opposed to the 4M coins Bitcoin Segwit Core has to go? I fail to see your point.
except the 2MB typo for BCH, 8, but otherwise spot on
Further, you realize that the 8MB 'limit' is merely a setting, right?
Poll
