No one gives a shit about Cryptsy.  I don't think there was single moment in time where they weren't a shit hole experiencing problems.  Also, they were hacked a year and a half ago, and the coins have been sitting since.

Hearn, Cryptsy, NYT article, Bitcoin "Classic" fud, constantly spamming blockchain to reach the 1MB limit and mobilize XT altcon suckers and want-free-bitcoin-space crowd, and finally dumping stolen bitcoins from Cryptsy. It is well coordinated attack. But... thanks for the cheap coins!

I don't think its going to be a hard crash. I think are many seeing it as a good time to buy a little BTC. Not sure how much of this dip in price is really about Mike Hearn ( if any) anyways. I see more of it as a reaction with Cryptsy (and the bad press it always brings) and the stock market crashing today. Come  Monday make that Tuesday lol, Monday is a U.S holiday.....things will be back swinging upwards probably on all fronts...  

Its a ratio thing  

Let's think logic, my local bank in my country invested around 1 million $ in bitcoins last year. Do you think banks will allow for bitcoins to disappear?!

Causing a fall of $ 430 to $ 370, loss of 1 billion dollars in marketcap, in 1 single day? I don't think so.

sAt0sHiFanClub - Without meaning to seem rude, you're coming across as a bit of a shill. Paid by any chance are you?

Go get a small loan from banks or your relatives ...

Poor people debating their inabilities of letting go couple dollars fees for their groceries, hoping bitcoin and its technology cares about them. pathetic. ^^

...
For a hundred bucks it goes up to 5,4%+ which is nearing western union level.

ooooh, shorts. trolls and haters whipping up fork FUD ... looks like a boring old movie on repeat from early 2015.

If he did not expect that to be part of the behavior, then he was completely stupid about markets, and I rather doubt that.

Once the possibility that it can someday replace VISA exists (or alternately function alongside VISA at a similar scale), people will speculatively trade on that possibility. Markets do not function in a manner where the value is in any way proportionate with number of current users. To the extent that value is proportionate with number of users at all, the basis for that proportionality is expected future users, a quantity that will certainly be highly volatile as current developments influence market consensus expectations of future outcomes.

How people on a trading thread could be so completely clueless about that is a mystery to me.

Anyway, block rewards will not necessarily increase nor decrease in USD value, it just depends on future market conditions. Either is possible. I certainly expect that this upcoming halving will see a decrease in USD value, but I can't be sure of that of course. As for future ones, nobody has any clue, whether they claim to or not.

Regarding signatures, I agree with JorgeStolfi that the simple measure of just limiting transactions to some reasonable size (at least temporarily) is easy and sufficient.

EDIT: He seems not clueless about markets, so we can rule out that he didn't expect and accept that speculation would occur

Very much worth reading. Thanks.

I've had some reservations against Falkvinge previously, not even entirely sure why - there's something vaguely pompous about his online writing I've read before - but this post of his is quite different. Fully agreed with what he writes, how he writes it <>

Good point! Let's get back to what we do best!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!

Break through that bloody $390 yet!!!!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!

<>
The devs are moving forward with blocksize slowly to avoid half-measures / band-aids.
They want a solution they can all agree is THE SOLUTION.

^Lambie the way you trolled CIYAM today was horrible. Just horrible!

You're a bad influence on me. You don't really think Classic is a good idea? Do you?

Hey, it is possible. That is another way of saying Bitcoin fails, which I don't consider unlikely necessarily.

I do think there is a significant incentive on the part of payment recipients to mitigate counterparty settlement risk by accepting payment on collateralized channels. In finance (outside of low-value consumer, and sovereign debt), collateral is the rule not the exception. Naked credit is the exception.

Well see how it works out. It is a certainty that LN will be deployed. It is not a certainty that it will work well or that people will use it.

No difference than moving the decimal still. ...

If it is given to existing holders in proportion to their holdings, yes, it is the same.

If you print fiat out of thin air and give it to Jamie Dimon then no.

AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.

25% of the remaining supply is designated to go to miners. It still does after any such fork (as long as the issuance rules are not changed).

If you one 1 BTC now, then you own 1/21m of the total that will ever exist. You still do if one such fork is created or 100 such forks. No difference. No dilution.

If $9 trillion is given to Jamie Dimon and $0 is given to you, then you have been severely diluted. Your 1/X is now at 10^-10.

How can anyone take btc-e to court over a slight of hand like that? Nobody knows who they are, what country they're from, or what country btc-e operates from. If nobody knows the slightest thing about them there's no legal recourse for anything they do.

 

Why don't we witness what is going around as "growing pains" or to be more context-specific "evolution pains" ?

Mike Hearn very publicly audited BitStamp once.

Whatever it is that the economic majority thinks is more important. If it is sticking with the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. If it is firing the existing miner fleet, that's where the value ends up. There is no answer you or I can state without that information that is more correct than another.

The market.


If you own 90% of the coins, you are the market. Obviously not realistic. In reality there are many participants, and they'll trade with one another and work it out. One fork will be worth more than the other, probably a lot more, but who knows.

<>If I'm just holding the coin (not solding), why do my wishes matter to the miners (I do not buy, only hodl)? To the exchanges (I do not trade, only hodl)?

Hell no, holding is what gives it value.

Assuming anyone else wants to buy, they can only buy from miners which is a limited supply. Welcome moon.

If no one else wants to buy any sort of Bitcoin, then you're screwed. Same as would happen tomorrow if we woke up and no one wanted to buy Bitcoin without a fork. No guarantee that won't happen.

If you want guaranteed store of value, independent of what other people value, too fucking bad. About the best you can do is buy a chocolate bar, at least you can eat it.

Those same participants (fiat buyers, BTC holders/speculators, miners, merchants, users, etc.) are there now, determining the value of the coins you hold.

All of those participants will be there later, determining the value of the coins you hold.

If you disagree with the economic majority (market consensus) then by definition you trade, and thereby your opinion matters. If you don't trade, then your opinion matches the market consensus.

Bull trend confirmed

Ok, so you say you want another mechanism for decision making, so that the decision process is proactive instead of responding to changes that have occurred.  The question is whether such a thing is possible without being very gameable (I have no clue).
But Smooth is completely right that holding affects the market, so you shouldn't debate him on that.

Your whole example is whack because trading markets and voting are two different things. Fail.

If there enough people (economic majority) who want a fork, the fork is going to happen, because it only takes a Gavin or a Mike or a Jon to create one and then it is up to the market whether to put value behind it or not.

If Gavin/Mike/Jon create a fork and no economic value is behind it (XT for example), the fork will whither and die, either before or after birth.

@smooth you are arguing with the multi-account house troll formerly known as NotLambchops (NLC).

In the case you described, holders have the same value too. Your 25 coins become 50 (25 Gavcoins + 25 Gregcoins). No change here. Keep trying.

...
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.

buy or die.

right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?

Technically all that is needed for a hard fork is 51% of sustained hashing power, any number above that is completely arbitrary, but does change the social contract a bit IMHO... when devs choose 75% of the last 1k blocks to execute a countdown for deployment it is more democratic in nature where a majority can coerce or ostracize a minority. Selecting a higher threshold of 95% is much more anarchistic in nature where one needs near complete consensus before the consensus rules are changed in a hardfork.

What I find troubling is I keep hearing many misinformed users who are under the impression that the miners decide on consensus rules when in fact it is the nodes that vote on consensus rules.

The Vote is = The longest valid PoW chain, with an emphasis on valid and only nodes deciding what is and isn't valid. The miners can hash all they want on an invalid chain , but they won't be necessarily following the nodes or economic majority.

This matters because when you look at how the hardforks are rolled out they are not polling the nodes but miners for an rough and indirect means of determining node support. There very well could be a dangerous situation where 75% of miners decide to fork , but over 75% of nodes and the economic consensus decides not to which would be very dangerous.  This is why I recommend that all hardforks have at least 95% consensus of blocks within the last 1k to activate a countdown. Luckily Bitcoin classic still has time to change their minds from 75% to 95% as they have yet to release code.

You are generally a troll and "cunt" that I ignore but I will make an exception because this appears to be a valid question :

What is of importance is the economic majority that backs those nodes. A node is only as secure and useful to the network insomuch as it has unique and active users behind such nodes. Thus nodes that are in control of exchanges/merchants/processors/Wallets are typically more important than regular nodes and nodes without active users can be malicious.

Case in point -  A certain btc company recently decided to assist the community with a PR stunt by deploying hundreds of nodes with multiple amazon Ec2 instances without users actively securing them and using them. This type of deployment hurts the bitcoin ecosystem and makes it less decentralized.

No. He suggests that a naive attack that succeeds to only create a majority in the least capital intensive of the three areas (nodes, mining, capital/economic majority) in isolation is doomed to fail -- due to a reaction of the rest of the network out of pure self-interest.

If a majority of the economic majority or nodes broke away from the majority of the hash power than they better quickly switch PoW algo's as they would indeed be susceptible to a 51% attack.

Yes, devs and people who actually understand bitcoin corrected the company and educated the errors in their ways. Simply deploying hundreds of nodes without active users securing them with economic interests isn't extremely dangerous in itself because wallets still check for the longest PoW chain and not just the rules from the corresponding nodes. It is dangerous in a sense that those nodes could falsely give the impression that our ecosystem was more decentralized and it could introduce some potential non-consensus bugs but any nodes that were compromised and didn't follow the consensus rules would simply be an ignored alt.

You aren't realizing that full nodes validate both the longest PoW chain and if the valid rules are being followed. What you are describing is the creation of an alt , which is fine and has no direct impact on bitcoin. Nodes that don't have economic interests behind them are of little value. Not all nodes are equal!

Here is an analogy to consider:

What is worth more: 5 large fortune 500 companies and their userbase that enjoys their products and services or 100 shell companies with no capital, no products, and no users? What happens in an ecosystem when these 100 shell companies are introduced to a location and the general public chooses to ignore them because they don't like their product?

Your question is generic and open ended and can be interpreted in multiple ways. So I will take a stab at explaining different aspects. A node is indeed relatively cheap to produce and maintain, but nodes without economic intrest are valueless just like anything in life - fiat, assets, stocks, ect..).The reason why certain nodes are more valuable than others is because the network effect. A single user behind a full node with an active wallet is more valuable than a userless ec2 node because the node is being tested for bugs and has a real economic actor behind it that can make both economic decisions as to assigning value to items and the consensus rules within his wallet. A node controlled by a processor /wallet/ merchant has a greater value as they have a pool of users interacting with their node and thus conforming to their consensus rules.

When there are human beings on the other end of the nodes , those human beings have agency to value one node over another. They can value a full node or a SPV node differently because one offers better security and the other requires less resources(Fraud proofs and pruned full nodes will offer a greater variety.) Nodes that are controlled by merchants/exchanges ect have more value because the users and businesses value them.

The Code doesn't have any AI in it that makes a conscious assessment as to its relative value. The humans at the other end of the nodes are merely an extension of the network that place value on the nodes and the rules behind the code.

...
There are at least 4 choices that can be made in the event of a hardfork between competing chains -

1) Quickly move over to the longest chain with the most hashing power out of security fears

2) Stay on their chain with less hashing power and hope the other chain doesn't become hostile and conduct a 51% attack. Notice there are now two chains , each with equal length , and each following the same principle of the logest valid PoW chain. One simply has more hashing power over the other, which can quickly and dynamically adjust as miners move back and forth between chains or one group ramps up ASICs that use their consensus code.

3) Nodes can choose to give up the PoW algo altogether and fork off with one of many PoS / or hybrid algos.

4) Nodes can choose another PoW algo and make the existing miners irrelevant to themselves.(There is already code in place ready for this if needed).

Why not millions of nodes wasting money?... It still doesn't change the fact that everyone will ignore those nodes. You are talking about weaknesses that apply more to PoS than PoW ... and I'm tired of educating you ... as it is apparent you are incapable of understanding the distinctions or just trolling.

Bitfury [...] is meeting Core this weekend.

...
Hope you're right brg444, I think this is the best & least disruptive solution for all of us (well except big block paid shills & the dev defecters).

<>

This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model.

There are many things that motivate me , but I am definitely willing to risk or throw away my complete investment.
Study Maslov's Hierarchy of needs or research into the psychology of ideals or religion to understand what truly motivates many humans.

Why would a big drop in difficulty be harmful? They adjust 4x downwards/upwards within 1000 blocks or something. That's a week.

...
Ahh, you clearly don't understand how consensus is found in anarchistic systems. It is a gross misrepresentation you are making to those unfamiliar with anarchistic politics. I don't have time to give you a whole lecture (and don't think you even care to learn) but for the edification of others-

Anarchism does not mean chaos. Most Anarchists believe in a society of laws. These laws are just devised through other consensus mechanisms than democratic or republic forms of representations. The minority doesn't prevail over the majority, as we are all individuals and a group/state/society doesn't actually exists in reality except as a concept. This means we understand that there is no evil illuminati or group of lizard people controlling our own fate but we are collectively responsible for both the good deeds and crimes in society and we must have solidarity with each other.  

It is great that there are many different schools of anarchism. There are similarities between all groups as well.

Isn't that true of any generic socio-political term?

'Socialism' can mean anything from Nazis to Communists to European social Democrats.

The point is simply that if you choose to use imprecise terminology, you should not be surprised if your meaning is ambiguously interpreted.  It's not a unique quality of 'anarchy'.

...
There won't be a "congestion failure". If blocks are full a order of importance builds itself, those TXs that are more important are paying more and those that are not important are paying less/nothing. You dont have to agree with this fee market evolving and its perfectly fine to be in the bigblockers-camp, but this "congestion failure" is just bullshit cause it paints a situation that will never occur.

Bitcoin was interesting when it was an experiment, when it ran. It’s crawling now, crawling toward instability.

http://www.coindesk.com/is-bitcoin-for-the-masses-or-against-the-state/

Even the cheap rags are onto us. 

... The mempool has already been over 10MB for two days straight. We are looking at a permanent and growing backlog of transactions.  ...

#1 BTC = Global, not a single country.

#2 BTC = Public Ledger and distributed, Unlike banks that don't even trust one another's books.

#3 BTC and its participants can migrate to a better horizon solution at a moments notice. Unlike bank that don't have a trusted backup that they would ever agree on due to political situations and commitments.

...
If you are referring to pool and network computation share of the pie than what you see are the results of pool participants that can easily direct their hardware at other locations if the need arises. That hash-power is migratory.  

The changing landscape of the infrastructure that supports bitcoin is constantly evolving and to think the old rules apply is short sighted understanding.

...
i hope it gets clearer now.

...
So... Each time I transact via Bitcoin, I make a wager (that the tx fee I paid is sufficient to have my transaction included)?
Sort of like a blind auction?
On that like white on rice, the wackier & more probabilistic my money is, the better

I think you may be trolling however for those that may be reading your reply then please indulge further.

#1 The "hashpower" is migratory and can move in less time than it takes for you to wire funds to your exchange of choice and get transferred to BTC.

#2 Anyone including you can step up to the plate and provide a solution that will attain consensus

#3  "Bitcoin can't even agre"? Bitcoin is not an individual there fore no agreement necessary. What you mention is the different perspectives that people have to resolve issues that may or may not fit into their expectations of what Bitcoin is or should do.

No attempt to present disingenuous views

It is true that mining has been a community service for-profit business more than a self sustaining endeavor that would result in long turn profit.

The sooner people recognize that mining profitably and mining to get a lions share of the daily bitcoin subsidy pool the richer the local economy in that area will be.

For instance if a government or corporation recognized the value of mining bitcoin they would subsidies hardware development and support building infrastructures that would employ members of the local community.

For one example would be to use bitcoin mining as a way to subsidies operating costs of a power plant.

Why have simply the local community pay for the electricity, why not get the global population that use BTC to pay for the power plant operating costs... Wind solar and so on. Many options have presented themselves in China but due to the ever changing landscape of the technology that is used to mine bitcoin being competitive only lasts on average 3 to 6 months before your initial investment costs are no longer recouped and you are forced to "UPGRADE".

...
From what I can tell and what I perceive, is that you have a greater understanding to the whole spectrum of what Bitcoin consists of and how each part makes up the project as a hole.

However the points you harp on and the way you present them leaves me with the impressions that you are attempting to get people to ignore the important points that should be considered.

The way you go on is as a disingenuous person "pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

... I have lived in many and currently do live in a mostly anarcho-cap community. (The only reason it isn't completely an-cap is because we do have to pay a small tribute to for land to prevent the state from attacking us) .... but we built and maintain the roads , we built the electrical infrastructure, we built and maintain the water treatment and sewage treatment, we put out our own forest fires, we have our own private community watch program and local DRO for security, and we do not call the cops for assistance. These "public" services are all done without taxes and voluntarily without coercion. No this isn't Somalia either ...

So... Where & what is it? Or do I gotta "respect ur privacy" because jackbooted banksters are about?

In all seriousness apart from the mining hardware race. Mining was a voluntary service given to use bitcoin much like any distributed computing projects that you can participate on using BOINC clients.

Back when CPU's was the thing everyone and their dog would run nodes and self mine before pools.

Simply before the migration from solo mining to pools and CPU's to GPU's and GPU's to FPGA and later ASIC's.

...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...

Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something?  

Jefferson intentionally used the word "Creator" and not "God" because he was a Deist as was Thomas Paine.
You don't have to believe in God to have Natural Rights. We all have those rights because of our humanity regardless of how we acquired that humanity. Regardless, the overt stated claim of the Founding Fathers was that Governments exist for the purpose of securing rights that predated government, Rights that exist independent of the State. According to the Founders, governments do not grant Natural Rights. They either recognize them and secure them or they fail to do so and have no just power.  This is based on Enlightenment philosophy articulated by John Locke, only Lock used the word "property" and not "happiness".  

Look, I'm not going to prove Natural Rights exist with words. I do it with actions, as did the Founding Fathers. We hold those rights to be "self-evident", meaning we are not going to ask anyone to respect them. We will demand that they be respected by what we do.  If we make no such demands, then by default we consent to the government we have. It's not an "ought" argument. It's an "is" argument. You don't have to like it just like you don't have to like the Law of Gravity, but ignore it at your peril.

People who don't love freedom don't really understand those of us who do.

If they weren't criminals, then we could possibly overthrow our government and not be criminals.

If you are suggesting Might makes Right and they are not criminals only by virtue of winning, you have the bulk of Western Philosophy against you.

Wrong. They are exactly the same rights I am talking about.

It's about consistency. One can error by saying something inconsistent with what they do or say two things inconsistent with each other.  Someone can be consistent and be wrong, but they can't be inconsistent and be right. Square circles don't exist.

If the State claim it's just power to rule comes from the consent of the governed, then it cannot use that power to violate that consent.  It simply can't. It can use other power, coercive power, but in doing so it is no longer just and by it's own reasoning loses it's right to govern, even if it doesn't yet lose the ability.

Words mean things. You implicitly acknowledge this or you wouldn't be writing here. There's no argument you can make with words to prove me wrong, because the mere attempt is implicitly admitting that I am right.

That is more like the definition of "communism".  

To me, socialism is more general term that contrasts to "capitalism", in the sense of bein more society-oriented rather than individual-oriented.  Among other things:

(1) each individual should be rewarded by society in proportion to what he does for society, rather than by his possestions, descent, titles, intelligence, shrewdness, etc.;  

(2) property and economical rights of the individual are not absolute but are subordinate to the interests of society as a whole,

(3) the state is supposed to provide public services like health care, education, social security, transportation infrastructure, emergency and security services, etc.;

(4) the state should try to ensure equal opportunities to everybody and ensure that everybody has a decent minimal living conditions.

Socialism definitely does not imply state ownership of the means of production;

but it implies state regulation, e.g. to force companies who provide vital services like water or electricity to charge reasonable prices, respect quality standards, provide basic service even to unprofitable areas, etc..  It admits, but does not require, that such services be provided directly by the state, by civil servants or through state-owned companies.

Socialism implies protection of consumer rights and mandatory product quality and safety standards; but is quite compatible with free market economy.  In fact, as part of protecting consumer rights, socialism implies state intervention when needed to keep markets free, by preventing the formation of monopolies and cartels.

... because socialism does not at all imply "social ownership of the means of the means of production". ...

...
The thing that should worry you all is that the Classic team is not much better qualified, although it seems to have better goals (like BitcoinXT had).  fat is, control over the future evolution of your precious coin is being disputed by two bands of amateur hackers. ...

...

That is from the English Wikipedia.  Since your quote comes from a bitcoin site, I suppose that both were written by Libertarians, who obviously thought that they knew all about politics and economics.  

Until I get around to fixing that Wikipedia article, let me quote another paragraph from it, that is somewhat less wrong:


But the Frenck Wikipedia has a better explanation:



By the way, in the English Wikipedia it also says that anarchism and Libertarianism are flavors of Socialism!  So Anarchists are in favor of "social democratic ownership and control of the means of production"?

Yes, communism is a sub-species of socialism, like Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's version.  But socialism is a much wider term than those cases.  Sweden, for example, was widely called a socialist country until some decades ago.

(Another socialist idea that capitalists and neocons hate is the progressive income tax, that in Sweden, IIRC, reched 60% or more for the upper brackets.)

Moreover, just because a country puts "Socialist" in its name, it does not mean that they are really socialist. Ditto for "Democratic", "Free", etc.

So you are a Nazi?

(Did I do that right? :3)

Well, only today I learned that in English the word "socialist" means something quite different than what it means in other languages.  So you are right an I am wrong, sorry.   

I must now go back and translate my posts into italian or something else. 

As a lame of excuse: besides the French wikipedia that I quoted, in several European countries including Italy and France there used to be both a Communist Party and a Socialist Party, who were often bitter rivals.  While the Communist parties AFAIK never got in power, except as part of broader coalition,  and went extinct after the collapse of the USSR, the Socialists were often in power, and are still strong today -- and yet they never tried to "own the methods of production".

Well, that must be the reason why there has never been a significant Socialist Party in the US.

I was aware that a similar thing happens with the word "liberal", which has quite a different meaning in English (in politics) than it has elsewhere.  So much so that King Bush I was fond of saying "the L-word" to refer to leftist things like social security, whereas elsewhere the terms means generally "tolerant" or "supportive of individual freedoms" -- and here in Brazil it even came to mean what "conservative" means in English (so that Reagan and Thatcher were labeled "neo-liberal" down here).


I did not say that it was mistaken. Even in the non-English sense it is correct, since communism is a radical type of socialism.


Who do you think writes those Wikipedia articles, huh? 

<>
Jorge successfully trolled me tho. In my defense, I'm slow.

Not meaning to offend you or anything but is there a hidden reason to calling yourself a chocolate cunt?

Why do birds sing so gay, and lovers await the break of day?

With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.

you pay google by advertisement

maybe we can put some advertisements on every TXs 

"sponsored by Coca-Cola"

...
He's talking about fees.

the important part is: is google free in terms of no revenue? answer is: no. google obv get revenue. no revenue = no service. as simple as that.

This is the text NLC omitted without explanation

57MB in the pool. What did we hit during the epic stress-test of a while ago? Is there a record all time high we should be shooting for?

More explictly: by Greg's argument, the UN should impose a worldwide production limit of 1 million liters of soft drinks per day.  Otherwise, the manufacturers like Coke and Pepsi have to give way their products for free,  they would go broke, and there would not be enough soft drinks for everybody.  

BITCOIN: The world's future global value transmission system, secured by 1000 PH/s of mining power and by a developer team who would bankrupt a homemade lemonade stand on the first day.

[...]
http://i.imgur.com/zWm7QiF.png
http://i.imgur.com/EDloGrT.png
Explanation

...
Have the reasons that satoshi imposed the quota become invalid over time?

Has a solution been found that I'm unaware of?

...
Bitcoin primed and ready for action:
...

...
Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?

...
That's just 120mn USD for fucking up the blockchain / bloating it 15x upwards, while the marketcap is valued at several billions ...

I think that the below-linked YouTube clip (which is 9911 minutes), kind of relates to parts of my earlier post ...














https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04cF1m6Jxu8

Epilepsy much?

fucking cheap coin if you ask me, and billy being bearish is a pretty darn good indicator, we're going up.

Perhaps you are not considering the tens of thousands of pyramid schemers who still hold coin and are just now wrapping their heads around the concepts of "unscalability", "hard forks,", "consensus determined," "fee market", etc.  You don't have to be a genius stock trader to know that it's a pretty strong "sell" signal when the Board of Directors get into a fist fight.

Adam simply posting is best indicator.
Down we go.

Yah...one problem. They're all nerds. Do you know what that means?

http://thumb101.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/2810074/312323093/stock-photo-two-female-bums-of-young-weman-in-blue-and-black-lace-panties-holding-one-big-fresh-tasty-burger-of-312323093.jpg

do you want it?

Stole this from Masterluc's thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/

Glad to see not everyone on Reddit is retarded. Thanks Greg!

I can't wait for segwit, 4x more capacity is going to make breathing much easier, and with segwit a 2MB block is effectively 8MB, throw in some more optimizations and we are ready for what's coming.

https://stampery.com/ - free notery service

just throwing this out there, the blockchain really is useful.

lol you really think Courts aren't going to accept blockchain tech?

LOL

I thought he put that up for sale a year or two ago (which may not mean he doesn't still have it)

...
It is high time. We have 5 months to find AND implement solution!

Your misinterpretation is crazy, and contrary to the infallible teaching magisterium of the Church!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg2019945#msg2019945

...
the idea is to have enough TX on the network so that fee's replace block subsidy.

i say, let the BMO's blockchain app spam away!

We need the network to fill ~50MB blocks  ( or maybe like 20MB with segwit ) at that point it's going to be generating at least 12.5BTC in fees each block which is more than enough.

...
100MB blocks with segwit = ~2Mbps  ~1400TPS capacity just about the same as Visa's avg TPS.

on avg i guess poeple make 3 TX pre day

that would mean about 256,891TPS on earth

10GB blocks?

Bitcoin is not a business, it is a protocol.

Is "ZOMG BITCOIN IS GOING TO DIE BECAUSE ARROGANCE" really your position?
...

Terry Wogan died, take a look at the norwegian headline: "Terry "Norway Zero points" Wogan er død"

http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Terry-Norway-Zero-points-Wogan-er-dod-8339241.html

...
The problem is from miners, they dont accept it, and the miners control bitcoin...

Add to your "problem" what node-runners want:

Bitcoin Nodes (Core, XT, Unlimited, Classic) https://coin.dance/nodes/share  
[img ]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaDCBArWQAAIRJh.png[/img]

...Please go higher, I am counting on a little pump to open a new short.

...
Playing a dangerous game.
Rocket pile-driver for sub-basement leaving with or without you, don't get left behind.

...
How does Participating in a signature campaign arise to the level of desparation?  About two months ago I started participating in various signature campaigns, which seems to be very useful in obtaining a few bitcoins for free, and I really doubt that it has materially affected the contents of my posts.

For anyone not having seen Lagarde from the IMF @ Davos 2016 yet, take a few minutes to listen. They sure are not laughing anymore, even when knowing how tiny little Bitcoin currently is. The cat is out of the bag and they know it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwkC8WaN5T4&feature=youtu.be&t=242

Lagarde raising her hand thinking that cash will no longer exist in 10 years time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwkC8WaN5T4&feature=youtu.be&t=1822

...
Bitcoin sure helps of course, because it is so transparent by design compared to traditional banking.

Not sure if I agree. Just add a few benefits paying digital and people are easily seduced. Get discount by paying by 'electronic', no fees if paid electronic, simply no register in the bus/train, ATM withdrawal fees, etc. You get the picture. Cash will not be banned from the one day to the other, it will simply slowly disappear. Voluntarily.

... although that is complete speculation .. i have no idea what would happen if we punched through 360...