I read enough at that point.

Do I need an argument? The guy has no credibility.

Yes, that's the guy who can't prove anything, or was too afraid to try to prove something. Can't even do a simple sign this bitcoin message, or sign this PGP message. So simple, yet can't do it.

The introduction of SegWit would alter the maximum known risk associated with bitcoin from a 51% attack with the ability to censor transactions or to engage in elaborate double-spending attacks, to a catastrophic risk that could possibly and completely destroy the whole ledger and all contained value. The premise that miners will not steal funds at the genesis of SegWit does not address the introduction of new players who are now incentivised more and more each and every day to steal the funds that are locked into the ledger and which are growing daily. These new players and the increasing level of funds place all open areas of the ledger at risk to attack at a later date.

If the core dev team walks for good, I'm walking away from Bitcoin at that point too.

If Core checks out, which isn't really possible as they're a fairly loosely allied bunch, then you'd probably be left with developers in the pockets of miners and economic players.

That smells rather more centralised to me.

I'd like to thank everyone for coming out and contributing to this year's enrich Jihan Wu pump and dump.  Please stop by and attend next year's "let's get this money transported from the Guang Dong province to Vancouver" pump.

Very true. I was sympathetic to the idea of increasing block size until I saw a graphic showing it would reach 1tb for the blockchain to be stored in a computer, in case it would increase block size to 2mb.

Then I remembered Ethereum Mist which I had my computer turned on constantly for two weeks to download its blockchain, and it never completed it, making me drop it. And as you know, Ethereum is supported by big corporations, big banks, oligarchies, even Microsoft. Ethereum is very centralized and its creator dictates what happens in that network.

Then it occurred to me the external hd where I have the blockchain is a very old 640gb Samsung, with a usb 2.0 port. And it occurred to me I would never be able to run a bitcoin node again, if it were to increase block size, since 2mb would be only the beginning of a long centralization process.

Decentralization is determined by the ability of the general public to be able to MINE BITCOIN, NOT run a fucking node!  Therefore it's COMPLETELY centralized.

That's why blocksize increase is an increase in CAPACITY but not a scaling solution, and Segwit+LN is an increase in Scaling (and thus in capacity).

As I have previously said I am pro reasonable block size increases as needed to provide the adequate infraestructure for both on-chain tx's AND LN settlements.

Small tx's, purchases, payments (that morning coffee) using LN. All the rest tx's directly on blockchain. Store of value, on blockchain.

This is what I really love about Bitcoin: Currently, you have cash (FIAT), and you have it on your posesion and control. You have your cash wallet from which you go paying small daily stuff but.... The BIG FIAT stash you have it on banks. You are not in direct possesion of it.

Bitcoin changes that, I want to be in posesion and control of my BIG stash. I don't care if my small wallet is in control of "third parties" ie: LN hubs as long as I posses/control the BIG part of my stash.  And this is completely compatible to the idea of blockchain tx's and LN tx's.

Oh god they're back ... where is it you guys all go to get schooled/programmed with your lies and disinformation bullet points? You're like goddammned bots.
.... visions ... blah-bla-blah ... core limiting bitcoin .... derp-herp-burp ..... core-centralised ... blah-blah-bleep-bop.

Hi. We are here to talk to you about Satoshis vision, do you have a few moments?

Actually you committeth a far greater crime. You have createth a newb troll account with < 50 posts (why is it always so??) and started concerning trolling in WO in a condescending tone.

Welcome to /ignore. Have a nice day.

If they take the crown I will turn into an absolute Litecoiner to never hear of you again.

https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2

All the bigblockers fanboys have been played/fooled by them only to achieve there own agenda aka; more profits/power/control.

Atleast Core works for common interest=for the people.

(...) segwit2x hardfork are a lot of the same small group (...)

So, I think that I kind of do get it, at least in terms of the reality of the various ongoing hostile attacks coming from a relatively small, deceptive and hostile camp.

I'm quite sure I have read at least some of these before. As such, they really aren't new. Not all of them anyway.

I'm guessing Gregory is just pissed and trying to stifle the revelation that Satoshi directly contradicts several of Blockstream/Core's fundamental sacred cow axioms from his very first reply to Mike.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide.  Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost.  It never really hits a scale ceiling.

By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10.  Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

The fee the market would settle on should be minimal.  If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees.  It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can.

The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards.

A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it's working OK.
 
Eventually when we have client-only implementations, the block chain size won't matter much.  Until then, while all users still have to download the entire block chain to start, it's nice if we can keep it down to a reasonable size.
 
[...]
 
Whatever the current capacity of the software is, it automatically grows at the rate of Moore's Law, about 60% per year.

Pumpy, the poor like you that can't afford to pay bitcoin tx fees will use LNs for their payments.

While anyone can setup a second layer on bitcoin -and make money on it-, very few could run a bigblock node "for free".
That's where your bigblocktardness fails.

And that's the reason a blocksize increase WILL be needed. Noone can deny that, it's only the timing, the size of blocksize increase and the process to implement it what is on the table.

I live in a Third World country.
My first computer, purchased in 2010, still supports the bitcoin chain. And it would even with x2 blocks. Today I have a second computer, bought in 2016, that would easily support 4MB block for a few more years.
And it is to be expected in the next 5 years, the capacity and rapidity of hardware will increase exponentially.

Good one. LOL.

The only thing that is growing exponentially here is blockchain size. And that is without a blocksize increase nor mass adoption.

In fact, the 1MB caused the higher fees which made us all be very frugal on our usage of tx's, reduced to the minimum necessary. If it were not for the cap and the high fees I would probably be doing 10x the tx's I am doing now.

Not even Segwit solves the exponential blockchain increase, but it does make it happen via Lighting Network. Yes, we fucking need L2. It's not if we like, don't like, prefer, not prefer, whatever.... IT IS A FUCKING NECESSITY.

Ok, let's say for a moment we don't have L2 for the next 3 years.... And that fees remain low and adoption rate has been growing. That would perfectly mean 100-1000 times more tx's per hour than now. ANd that is a conservative figure.

I will leave as an exercise to the reader to calculate how many 4TB hd's you will need to add EACH YEAR.

In 2009 Moore's law still had some remaining sense.... it is not applicable anymore.

Really, this is absurd. You have BCH or even Litecoin if you want more block space per hour. Or just wait until BITCOIN increases its blocksize when the time comes. It will. In the meantime you can perfectly keep using it with no worries about blocksize.

hey, if you can’t afford a $20.000 node to help this network, piss off

/sarc

And right there is the problem: You are using an obsoleted reference. Find a graph that reflects how hard drive capacity growed from 2010 to 2017. You will be amazed of the trend change.

Why? Because with current technology we have bumped into a wall that makes it very hard to increase capacity per surface unit.

In 2009, Wikibon projected that flash would be the lower cost alternative for active data. Figure 1 shows Wikibon's technology projection for pure capacity data. It shows that flash (the blue line) will become a lower cost media than disk (the red line) for almost all storage in 2016, as scale-out storage technologies enable higher levels of data sharing, and lower storage costs.

it's not just about hard disks. Do you have a fiber connection? How much ram does it takes? Above all: where are the fucking incentives???

Nielsen’s “Law of Internet Bandwidth” says that users’ bandwidth will grow by 50% per year (10% less than Moore’s Law for computer speed). The new law fits data from 1983 to 2014.

The dots in the diagram show the various speeds of the Net ranging from early acoustic 300 bps modems in 1984 to the 120 Mbps lines in 2014. The data points are impressively close to the exponential growth curve for the 50% annualized growth stated by Nielsen’s Law.

NOTE: The y-axis is based on a logarithmic scale, making the straight line in the diagram an exponential growth curve.

If I understand what you are saying, that would injtroduce additional latencies, complexity of code, etc etc.....

There are many possible "solutions", but I am convinced the best one is to have an L2 which process most of the tx's.

People that talks about blocksize increase are not ambitious enough. For Bitcoin to truly sucess we are talking about several orders of magnitude more tx's than now. There is no fucking way all that can be stored in a single blockchain.

L2 is the only way. That said, I want to have enough blocksize space to move my whole (or significant fractions) Bitcoins directly on the blockchain. For most of the payments I am ok with L2.

Shit, MEMpool is really high, now ...  be carefull with yours fees.

I have a transaction in waiting list (with 25 sat/B   Yeah, i'm a cheater, stuck since 5 days) ... and i have made one with 560 sat/B (next block OK).

I don't buy this "attack on Bitcoin" argument. So what if the chain gets spammed? That's exposing a weakness. What if Bitcoin actually got the mainstream adoption all these sycophants are constantly proclaiming? That spam would be replaced with "real" transactions. Old dice websites and others used to do 1 satoshi transactions all the time, there are legitimate reasons to send low value high volume transactions that aren't intentionally "malicious".

If core don't like the mempool being filled, they should alter their code to handle this. Unfortunately, they prefer to limit the block size and ensure that fees continue to rise, going so far to say $1,000 fees would be acceptable. Pushing transactions off chain is like a toddler pushing their toys under the bed to clean their room. They say things like it would be fine if it took as long as a year for a payment to settle as long as you could ensure it would eventually settle. That completely changes the fundamental currency claim of Bitcoin. It's not a settlement network.

News flash asshole: No one gives a shit. No one cares. No one gives a shit about XT, BU, Bitcoin Cash, 2X, or any other future fork that you trolls can cook up. Your forked shitcoins will never go anywhere, they are not supported by merchants. They are not supported by the economic majority of users. You can't buy anything with that shit. All you can do is trade it back and forth to yourself. Have fun with that.

Not to mention, that SegWit and Lightning Network are absolutely going to DESTROY all your silly arguments about transactions fees. As if you were actually trying to buy something with Bitcoin Cash anyway. Oh that's right I forgot, you can't.  

GIVE IT UP DUDE. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT. QUIT WASTING OUR TIME. STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF. PLEASE GO AWAY.


Back to /ignore

Jbreher:

You seem to be devolving into a nearly constant altcoin pumper who is attempting to act like the various alt coins are actually bitcoin.  Seems like you are the one who no longer fits in this thread, rather than trying to suggest that your ideas are reflective of the true vision of bitcoin or the current rule sets of bitcoin...

in other words, you are trolling bitcoin rather than being representative of the current bitcoin direction, which includes segwit and small blocks..   which you fail and refuse to concede such actual facts.

Which represents, according to other metrics, less than 5% of the userbase consensus.

Sorry can't help this, but it's on my mind.

Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas. Thick plate glass, tinted windows that can't be opened from the inside. Completely sealed. For climate control purposes as well as to deter jumpers. For someone to shoot out or smash those windows, it would make one hell of a noise. Not to mention the shards of glass raining down into the streets below, hitting anyone in it's path. At least someone would see it or hear it, either inside the hotel or on the street. But no one did.

But what if... the window was still completely intact during the shooting?

Photo from the night during the shooting:
https://i.imgur.com/A2PDtbQ.jpg

Photo of the next morning:
http://i.imgur.com/jbyxsnO.jpg

And if there was only one shooter, then why are there two windows smashed?  

So in your mind then, which 'corporation' is being greedy here and stands to gain from all of these forks? And how do they stand to gain?

They want to pay the least fees possible of course, hence the lobbying for 2x.

Selling more forks of Bitcoin doesn't sound seem like a sound business model for future gains to me. Does it to you? Is their future goal to have like 5-10 forks of bitcoin available for buy/sell? Does that sound like a good strategy?

Sure logically it may not make sense. But then riddle me this: Why are corporate suits working as heads of Bitcoin brokers (Coinbase, BitPay, Shapeshift, etc.) LOBBYING for a block size increase, which presumably only benefits the miners, a portion industry that these brokers supposedly have no direct involvement with? Why would they gather and collude in a hotel room to hash out the NYA, when they have no direct involvement in the Bitcoin development roadmap?

Why would they push this agenda? Why would they care so much?

For altruistic reasons? For the good of the network? Pffft. I highly doubt it.

And if second layer solutions like LN are outside the chain, then why are these brokers not announcing their firm support? Their entire businesses (broker, trading, etc.) lie outside the chain.

For one, I don't believe everything in life is a conspiracy.
But hey, maybe you're right that conspiracies don't exist at all and it's all in people's minds.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/03/irs-involved-in-5-million-push-to-press-americans-to-buy-obamacare.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibbi-is-libor-crucial-financial-benchmark-a-lie-w497305

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

― Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto

Do not apologize.

Many people here speak other languages natively. The only way they will learn proper English is if people teach them.

Intentional colloquialisms in spelling and grammar are acceptable. Simple ignorance should be corrected.

Pardon me if I also prefer correct punctuation.

Keep up the good work.
____

P.S. That should be "phenomena". 

I've been around the incessant march of technology long enough to know the it will indeed solve the issue in the long term. There may be some points where demand outstrips technical limits. But now is not such a time, and neither is the long term. LN may be am important component of the ultimate solution set. But it is in no way sufficient. There is no technology proposed that eliminates this fundamental bottleneck. Block size needs to be increased. Period.


No. It absolutely does not. You are not yet processing what I wrote. For a person who does not yet have Bitcoin, at least two on-chain transactions are required. One to get Bitcoin into his possession, and another to make his one and only lifetime channel funding (how likely is this limit?). Now, it is possible -- however implausible -- that the initial purchase of Bitcoin might be combined with others in a single transaction that can take advantage of Segwit. However, it is impossible for his channel funding transaction to be reduced in block consumption via segwit. The smallest it can be is one input and one output. So that latter set of transactions (the channel fundings) is a minimum of 30 years at 1MB. Plus whatever it takes to get the Bitcoin into peoples hands to begin with (another 30 years in the natural transaction/person case).

Great. So you have your coin BCH, which you say is the one. You have your 8MB large blocks.  And you have your little tribe of supporters. You should be happy. But for some reason you aren't. Because you keep coming back, trying to argue for more changes to Bitcoin. Trying to change Bitcoin into BCH.

So again. what . the fk. is. YOUR. problem?

I have no problem at all with the exchange/sharing of ideas and non-confrontational debate. It's healthy and should be applauded.

But c'mon, this whole block size thing? FFS, it's getting really old guys. Like for years and years now has this topic been discussed and debated ad nauseam. By internet armchair warrior geniuses who have no computer programming or blockchain coding expertise, but somehow think they know better than the very people involved with the project, the Bitcoin Core dev team. The block size debate is a dead horse that has been beaten so much over the years, it's been pounded into complete dust.

And then these same people, after years and years of flooding the forums with teeth gnashing, circular and confrontational debate, FINALLY get what they want (BCH w/ 8MB block limit) and their own dev team separate from Core, and then they have the audacity to dismiss it lightly and come back and continue the debate around shoving bigger blocks into Bitcoin? Like now BCH wasn't somehow good enough, wasn't what they wanted after all? I thought that bigger blocks was the answer to all of Bitcoin's problems? Wasn't BCH supposed to solve everything?

These people aren't just debating and discussing ideas. They are trolling.

80925  unconfirmed transactions

bitcoin will crash  

Why do you bother, just repeating all the lies.

There is lots of spam in the mempool you can see the transactions, look at what they contain.

There is no such thing as lightning coins, and it won't support fractional reservere.

Most Core Devs believe that the block size will increase when its actually necessary.

The more people who run a node the better, strength of the network comes from everyone having a stake and not just relying on miners to protect us.

These are not even points for debate, your statements are just lies.

I'll speak more generally, we all want Bitcoin to scale, eventually to probably millions of transactions every few minutes.
If transactions are extremely cheap (such as $0.01) the blocks will be full of spam, some jerk will fill them up. So we need a fee market to find an equilibrium between cheapest fees and spam prevention.

Although it is probably technically possible, it seems excessive to require a payments system to remember & process every single transaction, I mean if I buy a coffee in Tokyo, do I really need to send that information to 1000's of nodes around the world. Can we achieve security & decentralised consensus of my holdings without that?

So this is where lightning comes in, you get all the benefits of Bitcoin without the on-chain foot print. I'm not sure how lightning will develop but I can imagine you will  occasionally create an on chain transaction to open the channel, it will have a some of your coins in, and this last you days/weeks/months before you need to close it.
One of my biggest issues with Bitcoin has been the 10 minute confirmation time, 0-conf is insecure, so how do I reliably buy a something in say a shop  without waiting for confirmation, L2 is the answer.

So rather than perpetually increasing the block size, which is the lazy approach to scaling, I think the Core Dev's are trying to implement a bunch of other optimisations and improvements to maximise the efficiency of the network.

I don't have references to Core Dev's saying they would like a block size increase to happen at some point, but the only Dev I know who wants small blocks (actually he wants a reduction in size to 300k) is Luke-jr. I believe we will need to increase the block size, probably very substantially at some point, but first we need to optimise the entire system, MAST, Schnorr, side chains etc. Then we can scale the blocks as required.

If you want Bitcoin to improve rapidly in a co-ordinated and efficient approach then a centralised power structure would be far better.  Bitcoin is  the first de-centralised system, we are all learning how its going to work (or fail). The best hope we have of retaining a non-centralised power structure is by fighting to keep it away from corporations and other powerful entities. If we fail to do this, it just becomes just another payments system and loses all it's value.
Throughout history centralised power structures have emerged from almost every situation, but Bitcoin is hopefully different. It's going to take time, but we have time, lets not rush it, let's get it right. The people desperate to fix the block size are those who are financially invested, they need these upgrades to support their businesses. They think Bitcoin should adjust to fit in with what they need so they can build faster and therefore Bitcoin can
grow faster.  If we placate these businesses, Bitcoin will grow faster, but it will be at the expense of de-centralisation.

This fork is not about 2x block size increase, it is about sacking core and replacing them with dev's who will conform. I know high fees are painful, but if the miners hadn't resisted segwit a couple of years ago we would be a lot further down the road of Bitcoin improvements. It is not the Core Devs who are holding back development. This is illustrated by the 'no replay protection' in 2x, clearly this is designed to attack the existing chain and destroy it, thereby sacking the Core devs.
I believe the best solution for those who don't like Segwit and the current chain is to go to BCash, we can then compete in the market without the war.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-needs-new-proof-of-work-chain-after-segwit2x-says-bitcoinorg-co-owner

Not 2 but 3 bitcoins after the HF! I've expected that core team is secretly developing an emergency nuke POW change in case 2x wins. I know that some still think the legacy chain can survive with 20% hash support but it is not realistic. In this case unfortunatelly the original bitcoin will die and everyone will say: "The king is dead. Long live the king!" It remains to believe that by some magic wand the current price is transferred to one of the forks.

“We won’t surrender and we won’t compromise. A new hard fork will be released with a new PoW algorithm and we’ll carry on as normal.”

[...]

“The market and exchanges should be prepared to support three different forks of Bitcoin this November. The original chain, the 2x chain, and the new Bitcoin chain with a better PoW,” he concludes.

“As soon as the new PoW hard fork binaries are released on Bitcoin.org, I intend to fully commit to supporting that chain and calling it “Bitcoin,” even if hash rate returns to the original chain at a later date.”

And how about we add the non-existent 2x dev team? One lone wolf idiot programmer that has already abandoned the project is neither a 'dev' or a 'dev team'. How anyone with a brain would see this as the future version of Bitcoin is beyond logic or reason.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/segwit2x-hard-fork-could-have-devastating-consequences-for-bitcoin

I am still wondering whether the risk of hodling through the fork is worth the nerves

Bitcoin’s network is going to work exactly as Satoshi programmed it. At present, miner support for the 2x hard fork is running around 83 percent. Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song made some rough calculations, based on 90 percent miner support for the fork. This is reasonable since statistical variance causes miner support to fluctuate.

Song reasoned that, if 90 percent of Bitcoin’s miners follow through with their current plan to mine SegWit2x, then:

“ Block 494784 splits to 1X and 2X. Initially, 1X has 100 minute blocks, 2X has 11 minute blocks on average. 1X and 2X have the exact same difficulty.”

Legacy Bitcoin (which Song calls “1X”) would have 100 minute blocks. This means a single transaction with a high enough fee to make it into the next block would require 10 hours to receive six confirmations. It would take nearly half a day to fully confirm a transaction on the 1X chain!

How is the ecosystem going to react to a nearly two hour block time? Given the great slowness of the network - an order of magnitude slower than pre-fork--how high will fees rise? If the block size remains the same (on the 1X chain) but there are only a tenth as many blocks, fees will have to rise to monstrous levels since there will be 10 times the competition for space in a block.

This will be no brief inconvenience, either. Song estimates that if the mining split remains as it is today, the 1X chain won’t experience a difficulty drop until Feb. 3, and block times won’t return completely to normal until March 10. Die-hard supporters of the legacy chain will be contending with nearly two hour block times and sky-high fees for about three months!

Bitcoin’s core devs, who unanimously support the 1X chain, have said that in the event of any attacks, they will simply change the proof-of-work algorithm. While this could work, it would require yet another hard fork.

It should be remembered that part of Core’s opposition to SegWit2x is because hard forks are dangerous, yet these same developers propose to foist a risky hard fork on an already unstable 1X network that’s under attack by a larger chain. This seems unwise in the extreme. Not only that, but changing 1X’s proof-of-work algorithm would tend to undermine its assertion that it’s the “true” heir to Satoshi’s original Bitcoin network.

The thing that the fuckwitted autists who squeal about this never, ever, ever, ever seem to bother to mention is a small group of people known as...

wait for it....

users.

There are millions of them who wield staggering and overwhelming power. Miners can posture all they like. If they attempt to fuck the users then they triple entry buttfuck themselves with razorwire dildos.

Every single doomsday scenario has been played out ad nauseam. We've been told were going to be murdered by everything the tossers who FUD laid out in loving detail.

When it came to actual reality the risk of pissing off the users outweighed anything else and nothing happened.

What does tech have to do with anything?

Bitcoin’s network is going to work exactly as Satoshi programmed it. At present, miner support for the 2x hard fork is running around 83 percent. Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song made some rough calculations, based on 90 percent miner support for the fork. This is reasonable since statistical variance causes miner support to fluctuate.

Song reasoned that, if 90 percent of Bitcoin’s miners follow through with their current plan to mine SegWit2x, then:

“ Block 494784 splits to 1X and 2X. Initially, 1X has 100 minute blocks, 2X has 11 minute blocks on average. 1X and 2X have the exact same difficulty.”

Legacy Bitcoin (which Song calls “1X”) would have 100 minute blocks. This means a single transaction with a high enough fee to make it into the next block would require 10 hours to receive six confirmations. It would take nearly half a day to fully confirm a transaction on the 1X chain!

How is the ecosystem going to react to a nearly two hour block time? Given the great slowness of the network - an order of magnitude slower than pre-fork--how high will fees rise? If the block size remains the same (on the 1X chain) but there are only a tenth as many blocks, fees will have to rise to monstrous levels since there will be 10 times the competition for space in a block.

This will be no brief inconvenience, either. Song estimates that if the mining split remains as it is today, the 1X chain won’t experience a difficulty drop until Feb. 3, and block times won’t return completely to normal until March 10. Die-hard supporters of the legacy chain will be contending with nearly two hour block times and sky-high fees for about three months!

They will not do what is described because they will severely damage their ability to make money by pissing off the users. Hence my lengthy point.

Tech is irrelevant.

The highlighted aspect says to me - fear of being poor. That's why they won't disrupt how Bitcoin is operating and that informs all behaviour in this space.

Exactly, that's what people don't seem to understand. Bitcoin is going to get to 2x or some other increase in the future but not now and not like this.

You achieve that with consensus and a smooth upgrade that carries everyone along with you. Not detonating a bomb which kills half the crowd you depend on to eat which is what 2X is.

I did 6 btc tx yesterday with electrum using dynamic fees within 2 blocks. They averaged 3$ each.
Is that too damn high?

How often does one open and close a credit card in their lifetime?

Quantum will kill all hash functions. the thing is we are still > 10 years from home quantum. Currently, it only works in the lab near absolute 0

edit: I a word

It's still peer to peer (no central authority), but not one-to-one. There will be multiple routes. Irregular mesh topology over Tor.


Right, not much need for on-chain stuff except opening/closing channels. Or possibly topping them up, I am still not clear on what will happen with "refill" operations as the protocol evolves. The hubs will be "central" only in the sense of "hyperconnected, with lots of money at stake in multiple channels". They won't be able to censor transactions or tamper with the protocol - or even figure out where the coins ultimately go. Hubs can be routed around if desired or necessary. Someone else will get the fees - if any. Not that shabby, is it?

The true irony is that the BCH supporters demand lower transaction fees, but they can't spend BCH at any merchants other than maybe a few obscure ones. Lol. That reality seems to be completely lost on them.

Why BTC devs dont change the PoW so that BTC depend less from miners than now?

as it has been a load of times in past and we all know who's doing it and why they're doing it.

it is. come back next week

BCH is dead. [....]

https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/

---

Probably an overestimation. Just wait until the hashrate is back up as it should be.

Just a little reminder about what Bitcoin was originally planned to be:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

And then think again which of the lately numerous Bitcoin-versions comes closest to this vision and therefore would rightly deserve to call itself "Bitcoin".

Hint. It may eventually not be the version you are prefering.

ask the guy who's paying your wages to go easy on the spamming.

Those Bitcoin Unlimited guys measured the mempool performance and found out it was not the protocol issue, it is protocol implementation issue. Currently transactions commit to the mempool in the single thread exclusively, so it doesn't matter if you have 4 core, 8 core or 32 core processor once the mempool gets saturated it falls apart completely, not being able to process new transactions. They found about this empirically, through watching measurement charts. There is a video from Stanford conference held a week ago where they explained the details, link to Youtube is posted in this thread few pages ago. They wrote a multi-threaded implementation and then (surprise, surprise) made some additional "improvements" on the process, so even if their code will be opensourced it can not be patched directly to Bitcoin Core codebase, developers will have to do some of they own work on it. I'm surprised no one cached this long time ago.

This is why I don't see any problem with the fees. If you can't afford those fees just use fiat banking. Bitcoin is for people that do value their money, financial freedom and privacy.

Fees are high - apart from the spam attack -, because demand for blockspace is higher than the supply (and always will be). 2MB/4MB/1024MB wouldn't change it, there are near infinite demand for using the blockchain's utilities; time will always be an unchangeable limit for competing transactions, no matter the blocksize.

Stop bitching about it, that is what called free market, those who value the utility/time/cost of their transactions will outcompete those who do not, same as with every goods/services with free market valuation.

Also, how are high fees a sign of failure?
Classic socialist person thinking:
"this restaurant is full, it is clearly failing because I can not eat here, RIGHT NOW, for the price i esteem "FAIR" for a table, bruh bruh "
Sorry, you just got outpriced by the market.

wat the derp

Fees are high because there's a spam attack. There's no trick to it. It's just a simple trick.

You are saying, literally: "nobody uses it, because so many users use it and that makes it costly.

Can you not see the cognitive dissonance in that?
That was my restaurant analogy, and it is a perfect fit. Also, there is a logical fallacy arguing that "the free market rule" and "oh but what about the poor people" in the same sentence.

Pick one, because the laws of economics - just like the laws of physics - doesn't give a shit about human's subjective concepts like "fairness".

It's the wrong angle.

What counts for networks is network effect. The bigger the network, the more valuable the network. High fees discourage new users from joining, hence, high fees are detrimental to network effect, and to network value.

We need more throughput. We needed it a year ago.

The eventual solution is to not care how big blocks get.  

When the demand arrives (which will be decades from now), 10 GB and even 100 GB blocks will be feasible.  This is fairly straightforward engineering.

But for now, our research shows that the throughput capacity of a global network of bitcoin nodes is limited to about 100 transactions per second (30x times the current throughput), due to the single-threaded mempool code path of Satoshi-derived clients.  After Andrew Stone's parallelization of mempool, the capacity was increased to about 500 transactions per second (150x the current throughput).  At this point, block propagation becomes the bottleneck.  There is still lots of work to be done.

.

I realize that you're being sarcastic, but you couldn't actually scale bitcoin to a galactic payment system due to speed-of-light constraints.  Happily, since all our world is reachable by an electromagnetic signal in less than 100 ms, the actual bitcoin network doesn't have this physical scaling limitation.

Gab0 all these points were addressed back in 2015. You are making the mistake of thinking you are bringing fresh insight or points to the thread when in fact you are rehashing very old, answered points. Ibian didn't help you any, but then he's a known complete fucking idiot. Suggest you read a whole lot more and put your points in the newbie section. Just because we entertain the odd troll doesn't mean we mean to go on doing so.

One shill kissing another shill's ass. How cute.
Can you two guys take your lovefest elsewhere, like the big blocker shill forum?

With simplified payment verification technology (Section 8 of white paper), users can be their own banks, verify their own transactions, and send payments to anyone, trustlessly and without a middleman.  Users do not need to run network nodes.

Here are slides from a talk I gave this summer explaining how this brilliant technique created by Satoshi works:

https://www.slideshare.net/peter_r/scaling-bitcoin-to-a-billion-users?qid=3e0b7061-f29b-4a6c-bc5b-ee6b59fffe49&v=&b=&from_search=1

Satoshi's design is massively scalable.

The design of Bitcoin is such that users can just be users.  

For example, if I transfer a coin to you, you can immediately verify my signature.  You do not need to trust me or trust anyone else -- the transaction itself contains cryptographic proof that I transferred ownership of my coin to you.  You can even follow the chain of signatures backwards and confirm that the person who I received the coin from also signed the transfer, and so on and so forth, as far back as you want to go.  You do not need a network node to do this!

The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.  This is the double-spend problem that had not been solved until Satoshi.  Satoshi's revolutionary solution was to use proof-of-work to time stamp transactions into a chain such that -- if his proof-of-work conjecture held --  that the same coin could not be spent twice.

As a user then, the only additional piece of information you need, is whether the transaction I gave to you was accepted into the blockchain.  A network node can provide you this proof (that you can trustlessly verify for yourself!) with a few kilobytes of information.

Here is a talk I gave (only about 10 min long) that explains how SPV works in more detail (sorry about the crappy audio!)  

https://youtu.be/m7cvPvtGIUI?t=459

Someone wrote an entire article based on a single tweet. Ok.

we could see $8000 in the next few hours
edit: make that 1hour

I have 2 fairly large transactions totally stuck - even though I put them through as 'fast' by believing my BTC Core wallet's advice.

Nothing confirmed for hours - what fees actually WORK right now - anyone recommend a site to suggest accurate fee requirements?

Feeling very stupid...

If you decide to go Rhine->Danube route give me a PM, I'm on the route, maybe we can meet for a drink.

Transaction costs spiked from $2 to around $30 per transaction in late 2010 just before bitcoin prices suffered a 93% collapse.  As bitcoin transaction costs subsequently fell, another bull market developed.  Transaction costs edged higher in 2012 and then soared to over $80 by early 2013, which coincided with another collapse in bitcoin prices. By 2015, transaction costs eased toward $8 when another bull market began. Starting in late 2016, they began to rise again and are now nearing $60-$70 per transaction (Figure 6).  Will this limit demand growth and provoke another bitcoin crash? If so, to what level will transaction cost have to rise in order to provoke such a correction?

While we don’t know the answers to these questions, we can make the following observations:
In 2010, bitcoin prices were around $30 and the cost of transaction rose to $30.
In 2013, bitcoin prices rose to around $1,000 and transaction costs got to $80.

With the price of bitcoin now around $10,000 as of this writing, could the market sustain transaction costs of $80, $100 or more without demand and prices collapsing?

Yes, and it appears his friend, Jihan Wu is sticking it to the people using their Hashnest cloud mining. They set a really lowball fee for BTC withdrawals, so it is taking days for people's withdrawals to finally get confirmed. It appears Bitmain's response to a support ticket is that their transaction fee is fixed at 20,000 sats.

dude

nobody cares

$20?  WTAF?  $50...$100 who cares?

Will I gladly pay a $100 fee on a $100,000 transaction?

ALL

DAY

LONG!

and twice on Sundays

BTC is not for pissant transactions, get it through your head...jesus

The problem is, the world is one of INSTANT GRATIFICATION. People like you are not patient. Right now BTC is not good as a means of micro transactions. It is better as a store of wealth.

Give bitcoin another 5+ YEARS.  The internet was not built in a day.

There are very few people in the world that don't want to see bitcoin be able to be used as all sorts of things. But its going to take time.

If you are so impatient that you can't wait, go invest all your money in some altcoin and pray they can figure it all out more quickly for you.

No

I am sorry.

I mistook you for our garden variety troll, and I apologize.  I see now that you have an actual concern, one I share as a matter of fact. 

You bring up a valid point.  I can see how my attitude displayed above could be seen as every bit as distasteful as the bigblocker "if you don't have $20,000 [to spend on a full node] to help this network then fuck you".

I sincerely wish that the scaling debate could have remained civil...but this is the world we live in, and I am not prepared to cede control of the potentially most liberating technology ever conceived to the current big block cabal.

Yes, a microtransaction crypto implementation would be nice, perhaps Litecoin, perhaps L2/offchain solutions...but not shoddy, untested and hastilly implemented code on THIS blockchain...NO, the market has said no.

You need patience.  Lightning Network is already in beta. We will have Lightning within a year.

If you cannot wait a year, then Bitcoin is maybe not the right coin for you.  There are plenty of other coins to choose from.  

If you wish to engage in a long discussion of the merits of large block vs small block, then this thread is not the right place to do it.

That's too much pain, you need to learn about transaction acceleration =>
https://pool.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/

So If I am stuck with a slow transaction, every hour I have 30 seconds to push it through this, so I get it confirmed after a few more hours ?

Ok, good enough for me.

What should we do to solve jam problem?

Essentially, the key to solving jam problem is to increase or even remove block size limit but Bitcoin Core developers keep refusing to do so to allow more people to use Bitcoin, regardless of the Bitcoin white paper and signed consensus.

In this case, a group of big block supporters initiated the first hard fork of Bitcoin increased the block size to 8MB, with a forked digital asset born - Bitcoin Cash (BCH).

BCH does all what Bitcoin can and does it better in a more flexible way. What’s more, much lower fees and faster confirmations makes it more user-friendly, following the core principles of “Bitcoin”.

99.999999999% of transactions are all trading, gambling, wallet moving, and other bullshit. And it's been that way for 8 years, will probably be that way for 8 more...

What if the decimal place was moved in bitcoin to give a 1:1000 split? If collectively everyone used the term bitcoin for the unit of value we currently call a millibit or mBTC making the total eventual supply 21 billion instead of 21 million, the price currently would be ~$16.70.

What, you mean he didn't fork the vastly superior BCash chain? Huh? Wonder why?

Also, you can't make this shit up, lol:

Wow, that twirling effect on that site is mesmerizing!

I think I must have spent at least 10 minutes just staring at it...

Good work Jeff!

142k Unconfirmed transactions and 380 sats/byte recommended fee.
Nothing to see here, Bitcoin is working well.

Gab0:  we agreed less than three days ago that you weren’t going to come here and pretend to be concerned about block size.  How about you fuck off and take your concerns back to r/BTC

I'm getting pretty tired of all this failure.   

They've done nothing to implement Segwit which for all we know might clear up fees completely right now if fully rolled out. Bitmain is in bed with them. That says it all.

ahhh, I see

I wish people would do some math and realize that a block size increase is a temporary solution.

Bitcoin can't be all things to all people. It can't cover all use cases. There will be alts for most use cases. Bitcoin is more likely to be the tool for big transfers and high value smart contracts, even a $1000 fee for a billion dollar asset/transfer is a bargain.

Satoshi never designed bitcoin for micropayments. He knew sending .01 btc wasn't part of the plan.

Sure:

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments.  Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01.  The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods.  Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range.  But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

The "bigger blocks" solution hasn't been tested on a network of the size and load of that of Bitcoin. Bcash is not Bitcoin. "Bigger blocks", will appear to solve the problem for some small amount of time, until the fees will rise again and we'll soon be asking for "even bigger blocks", ad infinitum. A proper scaling solution should be implemented, one that can scale right now to peak-time VISA levels, by design.

If you don/t understand the technicals, you might as well refrain fro postig. This is a matter for engineers, nor for vocal users.

I just had a $65 fee. That is all, carry on.

Mother fucking transaction fees are getting out-of-hand.

Trying to move shit to Gemini for tonight's action, and shit be stalling out, yo.

Current fees estimated at ~343sat/byte for 60 min confirmation.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.

Indeed. If only there was a solution for this.... And even with these fees it doesn't make up for the 25/12.5 halving....

Do the maths on those famous two pizzas. Your head will spin.

Edit: $95million per pizza?

Bitcoin price at 20 000 USD is too high ... too ?  
Bitcoin is a network, if you want it ... pay the fees.

Talking about Blockstream.... What is that business doing? I mean, wasn't LN one of their main "products"? What's their excuse considering that Segwit has been active on mainnet for almost half a year now (and planned for years)?

I can understand most core developers are volunteers and they have done much more than anyone would expect... but don't business have their own hired team of developers? Have they given any approximate ETA?

So as Bitcoiners, do we have a right to be pissed if there are no immediate LN related launches?

I mean, the Core devs and the rest of the community have acted like these LN technologies and apps have been coded, tested, and sitting around ready to go for the better part of a year or two now. And preaching that the miners have been blocking these 'ready-to-go LN apps' for all this time.

If I don't see something around LN immediately launched after SegWit lock-in, I'm gonna get seriously irritated.  

Masterluc said we should test $10.000 in order to go to $100.000 by summer'18. So... wake me up when we hit 100K

Is this what your looking for?

so only "the rich" can cash-out if they want?

If you listen to this debate posted yesterday. You will hear a Core member telling you Bitcoin is working well for institutions and large investors. This is not FUD it is a fact in the interview.

The Debate Within Bitcoin: Jameson Lopp vs. Roger Ver on Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEBkdCdj4FQ

IT'S NOT BCASH

Here's why you're wrong:

Yes I believe Bitcoin is digital gold. That's why I buy and hold it. Rarely spend it. Holding is what gives it value, as well as a store of value.

Even if I thought that BCash was good for spending (which I don't), I don't have to hold it. I can just buy and spend it whenever I want, on the fly, as needed.  But why even do that when fiat will do the same thing.

Gresham's Law at work, dude.

---->  http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hyperbitcoinization/    <----

"The reverse of Gresham's Law, that good money drives out bad money whenever the bad money becomes nearly worthless, has been named "Thiers' Law" by economist Peter Bernholz, in honor of French politician and historian Adolphe Thiers. "Thiers' Law will only operate later [in the inflation] when the increase of the new flexible exchange rate and of the rate of inflation lower the real demand for the inflating money."

But let's be real for a second.

1. e-Commerce is rarely if ever happening with crypto. It just isn't. Even if the coin is supposedly "better or faster" for spending.

2. Traders want lower transaction fees for more trading and no fee friction. That's it.

3. Miners HATE hodlers, because they get no transaction fee revenue if coins just sit.

4. The establishment would love nothing better than HFT on-chain. But of course, they will never ever achieve such a thing.

Well done miners, trying to kill bitcoin. The price dumping hard, the fees very hard... Useless network.

For those who still think that the fee problem will eventually be fixed, read this.  This is from Greg Maxwell, probably the most influential developer within the BS/Core group.  He is so pleased with the high fees and transaction backlog that he is uncorking champagne to celebrate.  The current state of the BTC network is their vision becoming a reality.  

What concerns me is all the people that just got rekt, not the ones that didn't

And the fee is gonna cost 1 fiat.

It was no joke, I actually did the calculation:

Current Bitcoin price: $15.000
Reasonable Average Lambo Price: $300.000

So for 1 BTC to be worth $300.000 we would need a 20x

If you have a somewhat fragmented wallet you can end with a $100 fee right now for "premium delivery". Note: You are a Lambo purchaser, so you don't want to look cheap, you go for premium of course.

$100*20x=$2000

Well, I have seen good condition second hand Fiats for less. So, there you go, 1 Fiat fee for a 1 Lambo purchase.

P.S.: Some figures slightly rounded for easy of comprehension. Some additional factors that could worsen or alleviate network congestion not taken into consideration. No animals were harmed during the making of the calculations. This is not investment advice.

I'm thinking there's a good possibility of some big news around the corner in response to the past several days.

I do agree with most you have said there, but I do have some minor discrepancies:

- LN is the real scaling solution. The only way to compete with other payment systems like paypal (great for online purchses), credit/debit cards (great for in person purchases and also online in some way), or cash. All three are inmediate and the cost is reasonable or even 0.

But.... LN is not ready YET. I think many of us overestimated its development status when -almost half a year ago- thought it be the final push into mainstream readiness for Bitcoin. At the same time, maybe also underestimated the rate of new users/investors that were to come in the following months.

I won't blame the multiple attacks Bitcoin has and keeps receiving because that was something more than expected. Bitcoin has to be resilient to those attacks, to the FUD, to the growth... We can't expect attackers wait till we are ready to fight nor users/adopters to just hold on... not if there are alternative choices that could be taken.

I have always said that whilst LN is the only SCALABLE solution it will also need a *minimal* increase in blocksize of the underlaying blockchain more sooner than later.

IF we can agree with that (maybe some people don't agree, it seems) AND unless LN is already around the corner (which it seems it is not).... why not do that small blocksize increase now as a temporary fix for the current network congestion (a fact... whatever the multiple causes including intentional spam) in the meantime?

No, the fees don't impact me that much.... at least not directly since I am mostly a hodler. But I have run out of arguments to advise people why they should buy Bitcoin instead of some other altcoin UNLESS they plan to buy in big chunks (like at least one full BTC). I can't give anyone some small BTC gift and show them how great and easy it is to USE it. No, if I want someone to show the tech I need to resort to something like LTC or whatever shit so I can show them the process of having a wallet, transfering and controlling their own coins etc...

That's sad. Maybe that is how it need to be. And I can't complain about the gains I have been having even recently... we are doing great yeah... But... is this really sustainable in the long run?

I am worried it isn't.

That said, I will hodl! Because I have hope the current situation will get addressed before its too late.

....

I'm calling $20000 by new year

Among other reasons: because, as our good Mayor implies in his reply, a hardfork is required to increase the block size. A hardfork is not unplanned for, but when it happens it should include a bundle of fixes, not just a quick bandaid.
Besides, the bandaid can't really solve the problem, even momentarily: if the spammers are willing to spam no matter what, they can as easily fill double-sized blocks with 1-satoshi transactions.

The only serious investigation into the matter has proven that your average 'home' computer today can handle a simple block size increase that will net us about 100 tx/s. And with a fix to core's crappy multithreading design, can handle block size increase up to about 500 tx/s. And that is without looking for other sw architecture improvements.

I'm still calling $20000 by new year

Thank you guys for helping me out, Im from the Netherlands..
So Where can i buy it in the best Way..

Thanks for responding 

Yeah they fucked it, no doubt about it.

they won't realize shit, sociopaths never admit they fucked up.

If you think that, you truly are an ignorant idiot.

[...]
You're an idiot....
[...]

All of those people are idiots. Con men tend to appear on the stage quite often.

If you are surviving by spamming sig. campaigns, you're an idiot who deserves to be permanently banned from here.

[...]
You're an idiot.
[...]
Stop shilling and get educated, idiot.

Go away from this thread already, idiot. This thread is only for Bitsend.

[...]
I assume stupidity.

[...]
I'm not sure if you're stupid or trolling.
[...]

[...]
Money hungry? You're an idiot.
[...]

[...]
Shill account created for pumping BCH? I wonder if you're on Roger Ver's payroll or whether you're just a bamboozled idiot.

[...] Please fully read the thread before you ask redundant or stupid questions.

Tu fuente es Jonald? Idiota
[...]
O eres un "paid shill", "bamboozled" o simplemente directamente estúpido.

[...]
Anyone who thinks what Wordpress is secure is an idiot to begin with.
[...]

1) Stupid idea.
[...]
4) Close this stupid thread.

[...]
That is not Lutpin's list, that is the combined SMAS list, idiot.
[...]

You're an idiot, aolley.
[...]

[...]
OP, you're an idiot who is highly unstable. Please go away already and don't come back.

[...]
Whether it is going in the direction that Satoshi envisioned or not is irrelevant and anyone who appeals to that is an idiot.
[...]

[...]
Vitalik is a corporate sellout/idiot, yes.
[...]

[...]
Let me shorten it into layman terms for you, had you not been a idiot and (allegedly) wasted your time with shitcoins, then this would already have been solved (or never happened to begin with).
[...]

[...]
Wrong. We need the idiots out of the way.
[...]

[...]
Anyone knowledgeable enough would simply see the stupidity of that question. Then again, big blockists aren't famous for their intellect nor knowledge.
[...]

[...]
He's stupid enough to realize that agencies such as NSA have infiltrated both sides (especially his) and are manipulating him, as his technical knowledge is very shallow.
[...]

[...]
This statement is completely false on all levels -> you're an idiot. Stop posting bullshit.
[...]

[...]
If your financial life is reliant on bounty campaigns, then you're an idiot and should not have access to those to begin with.
[...]

[...]
You're an idiot. Go away already.

[...]
You're an idiot.

[...]
Stop spamming with your bullshit, idiot.

Sidechains are alternative blockchains but with coins pegged one-to-one to specific bitcoins. This allows users to effectively “move” bitcoins to chains that operate under entirely different rules and means that Bitcoin and all its sidechains only use the “original” 21 million coins embedded in the Bitcoin protocol. A sidechain could then, for example, allow for faster confirmations, or more privacy, or extended smart contract capabilities, or just about anything else that altcoins are used for today.

The concept was first proposed by Blockstream CEO Dr. Adam Back and others back in 2014; it formed the basis around which Blockstream was first founded.

lol... nice compilation  there bud

and while you're at it, you could do the same with a certain frequent poster in here.
just use "centralized craptocurrrency", "pms", "jews and cuckolds" for search words,
the resulting list would extend thousands of pages....

You are an idiot, Gab0, for spending so much time on a non-substantive and irrelevant personal attack.

I do not consider increasing blocks a good solution. It does not scale while the negative consequences for decentralisation are unclear. Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’, I support not hastily moving away from this core concept just to solve a current - perceived as immediate - issue. There is too much at stake.

Which is why Bitcoin should be considered a decentralized, deflationary crypto asset like digital gold, that also happens to be exchangeable for goods and services like a currency. Notice I said "like a currency" because it is clear that that attribute is not its primary function nor its strength.

The word "crytocurrency" is a complete misnomer. It should have been called a "cryptoasset" from the beginning.

Announcing version 0.3 of Bitcoin, the P2P cryptocurrency!  Bitcoin is a digital currency using cryptography and a distributed network to replace the need for a trusted central server.  Escape the arbitrary inflation risk of centrally managed currencies!  Bitcoin's total circulation is limited to 21 million coins.  The coins are gradually released to the network's nodes based on the CPU power they contribute, so you can get a share of them by contributing your idle CPU time.

[...]

Quit being a trite tool. It's the reason people here don't take you seriously and many have you on ignore.

It doesn't matter what Satoshi originally envisioned as Bitcoin's proposed/intended usage, it only matters how the people that buy it actually use it. It saw almost nil usage as a currency even back when transaction fees were low. Disregarding transaction fees and long confirmation times, it's deflationary nature alone, combined with all the hoop jumping required just to acquire it, nearly kills it as a daily currency. It functions much better as a decentralized digital asset that stores value. That's a fact and nothing you can allude to wrt "Satoshi's original vision" can change that.

Even pre-teens and teens use paper currencies around the world on a daily basis, but hell they can't even purchase Bitcoin without being 18+ yrs old and having a drivers license and a bank account first. How about that fkn irony, Satoshi? Should we add an addendum in the white paper for that too?

Grow the fk up and quit making tool statements.

No me nades en la superficie... adéntrate, sumérgete en la profundidad del planteamiento que te quiero transmitir: El futuro está en la capa 2.

I get what Torque is pointing at.
Here's a quote from Andreas book that lays it out plainly and I tend to agree.
"Bitcoin isn’t currency. That’s a really important thing to realize. Currency is an app that runs on the bitcoin network. Bitcoin is the internet of money, and currency is just the first application."
So... considering this, is everyone right?

Yes.  And it could be sold with him saying that "BTC is digital gold designed to be held and not spent.  Decentralization is critical.  We must retain the 1 MB block size limit to keep the blockchain small and make it easy to verify on low-cost machines.  If you want low fees and payments, use BCH or wait for LN to mature."

Buffet, wrong since 2014: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/26/warren-buffett-says-bitcoin-is-a-mirage-why-marc-andreessen-thinks-hes-wrong/#2c391e827f3c

"So then, the intrinsic value of a BTC is emergent from the functional value of the ledger as a way to exchange value (or, more accurately, emergent from the collective forecast of the future volume and velocity of value that will pass through the ledger). "

You guys still talk about all these various coins in some hypothetical future where you see them being "used" for various things. But without the ONE CRITICAL thing, mass merchant adoption, they won't be used for anything other than trading. That's all. Years and years will pass by, and they won't have achieved merchant adoption on any significant level. So what then?  Just trade?

I know all you guys all want to see a 6-month moonshot straight up to $100k, but I don't. That would be the worst thing to happen to Bitcoin right now. We need to build a super strong base of support.

Honestly if Bitcoin just quietly stayed out of the MSM and slowly crept back up to $20k over the whole course of 2018, I'd be really happy. You guys should too.

Oh sorry, didn't realize that I had my foot on the Bitcoin brake. I guess I'll take my foot off now...   

Take note of something guys, take note.

The trolls and shitcoin shills that plagued this WO thread all last year, posting nearly multiple times per day, are completely gone now.

So what does that tell you? Did they have an agenda for 2017 that had nothing to do with all their shitty talking points?

You bet your ass they did.

They are not innocent zealots (i.e., Satoshi white paper adherers, big blockers, shitcoin lovers, or precious metal enthusiasts).

They are accounts associated with the whale traders, or paid shills, or both.

And when Bitcoin goes on a tear again, they will be back in droves (but likely with brand new account names).

...
3. Another impending bullish development, like a sudden Bitcoin ETF announcement that comes out of nowhere. Though, expect massive FUD and volatility in the months leading up to such a surprise. The insiders will know about it 6-8 months in advance.
...

Can you imagine if btc reaches $1,000,000 and it still crashes to $200,000 and rebounds to $700,000 etc

We lived in tribes, and the top men were warriors followed closely by hunters. The capacity for deadly violence was the single most important trait for a man in pre-agri times, and women are still drawn to men like that.

How much have they paid for it?

Yesterday Segwit at 20%

Today Segwit at 30%  

sorry, but no

Bitcoin follows log trends.

That line is currently at 11,800 GDAX 12,200 stamp

@CobraBitcoin https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/970736614275153926

Increased my holdings of Bitcoin Cash today. There was a long need for a blockchain good for payments, that makes certain tradeoffs to achieve that, and I think from a UX point of view, Bitcoin Cash has much better chances of winning the upcoming payments war than LN.

Why you posting this information without describing the context?

It appears to be an auction that already took place January 18, 19, 2018... right?

What is the point that you are trying to make with this information?

Analysts, institutions, and developers remain incredibly bullish.

Noob speculators, butt-hurt weak hands, and overextended taxpayers who dove head first into the kiddie pool are hemorrhaging bearishness.

OG HODLers won't sell but won't buy either.

Who will make the first move?

Soros: Bitcoin is a bubble, no wait...BTFD, yo:
George Soros Prepares to Trade Cryptocurrencies

Rockefellers extend middle finger to Soros:
First Soros, Now Rockefellers Move into Cryptocurrency

Futures markets hungry for MOAR:
Cboe urges U.S. regulators to move forward with bitcoin ETFs

Japanese Firm paying salaries in crypto (+10% bonus):
Are Bitcoin Salaries the Future? This Japanese Internet Company Thinks So

Established, Regulated Online Brokerage buys exchange:
Japanese Cryptocurrency Exchange Coincheck Accepts Monex Takeover Bid

Mobile Payment Firm buys exchange:
Circle CEO Allaire on Bitcoin, Blockchain & the Bank of the Future

Twitter CEO: Bitcoin will be the world's sole currency:
Lightning Labs just raised millions from Jack Dorsey and others to supercharge blockchain transactions

Elizabeth Stark: It's about Bitcoin, Stupid:
Lightning Labs CEO: We are back to a 'bitcoin, not blockchain' world

Fundstrat Analyst Tom Lee: BTFD:
The Bitcoin Misery Index, BMI, Is Flashing A Buy Signal

Analyst Ronnie Moas 2018 Target: $28,000
Ronnie Moas Thinks $300,000 Is a Realistic Bitcoin Price Target

Analyst Trace Mayer 2018 Target: $115,000
TRACE MAYER: BITCOIN MAY HIT ‘SIGNIFICANTLY OVERVALUED’ $115K IN 2018

Analyst Max Keiser: Bitcoin to $100,000:
'Bitcoin is a gift from God to help humanity sort out mess it has made with its money'

Web Bot Founder: New apps and fresh adopters to propel Bitcoin to $60,000 in 2018:
Clif High and John McAfee drop Bitcoin Price Predictions that may shock you

John McAfee: BTFD or I'll eat a dick!:
$1mn by 2020: John McAfee will still ‘eat his own d*ck’ if he’s wrong about Bitcoin

Actually I retract that, apologies. I think I was getting you mixed up with Gab0. My mistake.

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still sideways with a slight upward drift... currently $8510USD/$10822CAD (Bitcoinaverage).

I'm up a little early today but I've got to deposit some cash into my "credit" card to send to Mexico.

I'm buying another property there. Luckily I won't need to sell any bitcoins. I can do it from the cash I'd set aside for the next buyable dip.

Land is cheap in Mexico. Life is good.

Go Bitcoin go.

Bitstamp to be sold to South Korean gaming co

http://cryptocoinjunky.com/bitstamp-will-be-sold-to-south-korean-gaming-company-for-350-million/

Bitcoin Futures Posts Record Daily Volume as Market Recovery Continues.

http://cointhud.com/bitcoin-futures-record-daily-volume/

Especially if the SEC rules that ETH is in fact a security.

Volume droped very low last 2H + big support around 9650$ = over 10K in less than 24H from now.

looks like we are going to go above 10K in 1 to 4 hours from now.

I've been following seasteading for 10 years and this is the closest we've been to actually getting something going.

I prefer the ease of use of the Trezor interface a bit better.

For some reason, the Ledger Nano S has a buggy interface... Perhaps they have fixed their issues, or perhaps they are working on making their interface less clunky?  I do like the idea of a special pizza edition... a great and respectfully marketed contribution.

I’m early to mid 30’s. Won’t reveal my exact age but yeah, those of us with a half decent number of coins do seem to be over 30.

Of course they are bloody well not. They are being stupid teenagers, well into their 20s, just as I was.

Due to the ease and safety we live in, people are staying kids well past when they should or ever did. The few of us here? Either old enough to have lived in a harder time, or extremely fucking lucky to have experienced bad shit that advanced our brain development.

sucks. selective scammers everywhere.

no

GDAX got all buggy there for several minutes and cost me money

A (big) jump from here will make bitcoin have a confirmed:

-three rivers bottom
-giant diamond bottom
-triple bottom

...and bears will have wet-pants bottom

Well I re-read that and seems like you're correct. Today they notified that tomorrow the trading will begin.

I think the next 28 hours can go in a big pump-mode, and then the market will calm down. I still think it can cross $22k to $25k within or right after this period.

Below $7k-$8k, there're heck of buy orders ready, so there's almost no chance of seeing $6xxx again IMO.

Bitcoin seems to be stabilizing at $11,000, and looking bullish. I'd not be surprised if it surpasses $12,000 within the next 2 days.

Ignore the green/red combination of candles, but this is something that's probably gonna happen in next 3 days:

This is probably the last month (*of our lifetimes) which can get you a bitcoin for below $10,000.

We've strong support at around $7800, probably, we're not going below that.

I'm very disheartened today. Lost a major chunk of my bitcoin holdings (almost 0.38 BTC) on Bitmex even though I've been longing since $8000 with just 4x leverage (adding more & more after every dump to average it further down), but still at $6140, I got liquidated. With this, I can pretty much assure that $6140 was actually the bottom. It was only to liquidate me, hard luck. Don't comment that I need to risk only what I can afford to lose, I know that very well, just had some real bad luck (as well as confusion) this time.


I take this advice completely back. I'm not going to open that website ever again. Probably a URL which I'll hate the most after LibertyReserve.com.

Which is exactly how all investments are ie. the best time to invest is right in the middle of a crisis and then wait some years until full recovery. It's during those times poors are more concerned about getting enough money to feed their families and avoid eviction than investing.

It has nothing to do with Bitcoin/crypto. I think Vinny is trolling again there.

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Geeze, guys. We've been discussing these very same aspects of segwit since years. Have you had your fingers in your ears and blinders on up 'til now?

Thanks!

On the Bitcoinwisdom daily chart, it looks like a bullish MA crossover is in place - can anyone with any expertise confirm. 

I am far from an expert, and it feels too early to be optimistic, but I will take any optimistic gloss anyone with the right tint on their spectacles can see.

Here are some links of the most elaborate explanations about the current situation with the CBOE ETF. All of them confirm my belief that the ETF will be approved this time. How much the price will raise is another question. The majority anticipates something like $40K-80K in the following 6 months.
https://cryptoiscoming.com/bitcoin-etf-approval-could-be-huge-for-crypto/
https://nulltx.com/cboes-push-for-an-etf-is-picking-up-steam/
https://globalcoinreport.com/will-bitcoin-skyrocket-as-gold-did-after-2013-etf-approval/
https://hadeplatform.com/articles/2018/07/18/will-the-sec-finally-approve-a-bitcoin-etf-in-august
https://cryptobriefing.com/public-favor-bitcoin-etfs-sec-website/
https://coingape.com/bitcoin-analysis-sec-might-approve-bitcoin-etf/
https://cryptoslate.com/what-is-the-real-probability-of-a-bitcoin-etf/

These sources/websites are actually not reliable/trustworthy at all.

Broadway and 47th. New York City.(Times Square.)

A critical element to price discovery is physical delivery. Specifically, with our solution, the buying and selling of Bitcoin is fully collateralized or pre-funded. As such, our new daily Bitcoin contract will not be traded on margin, use leverage, or serve to create a paper claim on a real asset. This supports market integrity and differentiates our effort from existing futures and crypto exchanges which allow for margin, leverage and cash settlement. Coupled with a secure, regulated warehouse solution, you can begin to see how this market infrastructure can help more institutions and consumers participate in the asset class.

still need to know if they are going to use leverage within their own company
https://twitter.com/CaitlinLong_/status/1031565897167765505

Guys, this doesn't look pretty to me:

As the great contraindicator that you are (no offense), I would expect the market to do the exact opposite of that graph  

Almost there!

In the letter, published late last night, bitcoin core developer Bryan Bishop, former Morgan Stanley managing director Caitlin Long, e-commerce coding pioneer Christopher Allen, founder of Ernst & Young’s blockchain team Angus Champion de Crespigny and fund manager attorney Gavin Fearey warned the SEC against certain types of enterprise adoption.

Long considered a boon to the cryptocurrency space, the letter argues that enterprise adoption could actually corrupt some of bitcoin’s inherent benefits if not properly overseen. Specifically, the letter warns against practices employed by the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which owns the New York Stock Exchange and recently announced its intention to launch a cryptocurrency exchange of its own.

Among a number of recommendations made in the letter, Bryan Bishop, who has been contributing to bitcoin’s core code since 2014, argues that the biggest change the SEC needs to implement is to partner directly with cryptocurrency engineers to develop a new kind of regulation.

...

Specifically, the letter, dated September 19, 2018, argues that restrictions should be put in place on how Bakkt, ICE’s planned cryptocurrency exchange, might handle cryptocurrency when it launches.

In a section headed “We caution against applying rules to digital assets in ways which do not reflect their strengths,” the authors of the letter warn that the traditional financial practice of storing customer funds in a single account would undermine some of the core strengths of cryptocurrency.

Let's be clear as to people's motivations.  DonAlt runs paid groups for noobs.  He doesn't make any money in a bear market.