Frogolocalypse

Sounds like a justification for seizing it. For safety and security. But the government wouldn't do that, would they?

Hey you know what, you've shown a bias of me.

I come from a construction background (big stuff) and it hadn't occurred to me that people would not get my connotative understanding of 'safety'. For me, safety is about risk minimization. If you haven't considered actual risk when you investigate doing something that could hurt you, it isn't 'safe'.

So thanks for helping me recognize that.

Using the blockchain for one-off payments between participants is never a viable solution. The establishment of lightning allows commits to be aligned with the long term relationship between two participants. Even after that relationship ends, a completely unrelated payment may be routed through your channel, earning you a micropayment. There was never a solution to that type of functionality with a 10 minute block creation schedule.

That went live on main chain two days ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a73Gz3Tvx3k

I don't mind eth. I hope they can solve their problems. But they have problems, and they are running out of time to work them out. Their blockchain is out of control size. Nodes are dropping and they aren't coming back up. I've heard about sharding and pos, but i haven't seen anything approaching a solution yet. It's an issue.

Edit: > Why would anyone ever use rsk?

ICO. Share offer.

Feel free to implement your code changes on the alt of your choice. Bitcoin node users remain unaffected.

It's over right? The whole attempt to sideline the bitcoin development team failed, and now that uncertainty has been removed, the price of bitcoin is skyrocketing. That's because bitcoin is valuable for what it is, not for unproven use-cases that decrease bitcoin security. We will get to those use-cases through layering bitcoin, and will not have to sacrifice security to do it.

Accept it. Move on.

Balance budgets. Invest in productivity improvements. Buy back debt. Then the currency being devalued against the deflationary currency of bitcoin becomes worth more in comparison.

Can't see it happening though. I believe that bitcoin is going to swallow all of the fixed-asset debt in the world. It is the pin that pricks that bubble. Consumer banks are dead and they don't even know it yet. Investment bankers are going to make out like bandits.

I completely agree. That why the money on my bitcoin debit card is only a fraction of the total amount of bitcoin I own, and I put money on the card when I want to. Because I understand the risk of putting bitcoin on an exchange, and am prepared to accept that risk for that amount, for the convenience of being able to spend my bitcoin whenever I choose.

Nothing wrong with my memory

http://bitcoinist.com/coinbase-ceo-brian-armstrong-announces...

Not to mention being a signatory to the nya, being the attempted hostile takeover of bitcoin via 2x that crashed one block before the fork. And let's not forget :

http://www.coinfox.info/news/persons/5012-brian-armstrong-ca...

Losing side. Every time.

And no one is interested in a centralized alt like bch, which is why it has virtually no traffic. If people were interested in that use case, they'd be using litecoin, having double the capacity of bch, as well as having segwit, and atomic swaps with bitcoin.

That makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. By your logic, people using coinbase to hold their coins aren't holding bitcoin. It is exactly the same.

Bitcoin from my wallet is being spent. It is increasing in value while i don't spend it, because it is in bitcoin. It is no different than an American using their cc in europe.

"It's safe as long as i think it's safe." Gotcha.

Let's just store all of our money with the government then, eh?

So not safe but just say it is.

I have a bitcoin debit card. It works just fine thanks. I can spend it anywhere that accepts a card.

Completely false. The number one rule of bitcoin is never store your bitcoin on an exchange.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

You wait and see what happens when coinbase has 500 billion or a trillion dollars worth of hard currency on their platform, and the us dollar is three years into its slide. The temptation to raid that will be far too great.

Brian Armstrong has quite the history of being on the wrong side of every argument to do with safe and scalable crypto implementation. He has been a champion of centralization and attacks on bitcoin governance. He was a vocal proponent of four out of the five failed fork attempts of bitcoin over the past couple of years. He, and coinbase investors, are very lucky they had people like Charlie Lee managing the technical parts of coinbase.

Abstract.

The Bitcoin network has scalability problems. To increase its transaction rate and speed, micropayment channel networks have been proposed, however these require to lock funds into specific channels. Moreover, the available space in the blockchain does not allow scaling to a world wide payment system. We propose a new layer that sits in between the blockchain and the payment channels. The new layer addresses the scalability problem by enabling trust-less off-blockchain channel funding. It consists of shared accounts of groups of nodes that flexibly create one-to-one channels for the payment network. The new system allows rapid changes of the allocation of funds to channels and reduces the cost of opening new channels. Instead of one blockchain transaction per channel, each user only needs one transaction to enter a group of nodes – within the group the user can create arbitrary many channels. For a group of 20 users with 100 intra-group channels, the cost of the blockchain transactions is reduced by 90% compared to 100 regular micropayment channels opened on the blockchain. This can be increased further to 96% if Bitcoin introduces Schnorr signatures with signature aggregation.

I think that only people who don't understand that PoS can't be done trustlessly, and don't understand why that is an issue, say that.

Buy gift cards if you like. I'll use bitcoin. Let's compare notes in a year.

Having another delicious beer right now on my bitcoin debit card. It has been a good day.

And you have just had how bitcoin works explained to you, and yet you choose to remain ignorant.

I have no problem energy increasing in price if people think it is an issue. It will have little effect on the architecture of bitcoin. If anything, it will benefit it by increasing decentralization.

There is no known trustless architecture of PoS.

Because bitcoin has a striking lack of middle men, unlike banking.

This seems to be the latest meme for why bitcoin can't work. The reality is that bitcoin uses as much power as it does because it is sought after at the current energy cost. If it is important to you, increase the energy cost. Bitcoin already has a fee market, and incentivized miners. If it is no longer economically feasible to mine at the current price because of energy prices, miners will cease mining until it is economically feasible again.

Bitcoin isn't to blame for cheap energy. If it is too cheap, take it up with the people selling it at that price.

Henceforth be thy lesson :

So let's talk about nodes and consensus as defined in the whitepaper and implemented in nodes.

Let's start with the bitcoin white paper (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) :

> Satoshi from the Bitcoin white-paper chapter 12 'Conclusion' : The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

First, you have to understand what 'consensus' actually means :

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_%28computer_science%...

> A fundamental problem in distributed computing and multi-agent systems is to achieve overall system reliability in the presence of a number of faulty processes. This often requires processes to agree on some data value that is needed during computation. Examples of applications of consensus include whether to commit a transaction to a database (or, for example, committing blocks to a blockchain), agreeing on the identity of a leader, state machine replication, and atomic broadcasts. The real world applications include clock synchronization, PageRank, opinion formation, smart power grids, state estimation, control of UAVs, load balancing and others.

What does this mean if you are but an intrepid traveler amongst the erstwhile numpty-folk?

Nodes are agents in a multi-agent system with an agreed set of consensus rules (https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/how-does-a-bitcoi...), which they and they alone enforce, that ensure that the system functions. Transactions are propagated through the multi-agent network based upon the agreed consensus rules by nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. Miners retrieve valid transactions from any of these nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. They then order the transactions, and perform a hashing function on them until the hashing function returns a value that is suitable to the nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. They then pass the new block that they've created to the nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. The nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system, then validate the block to ensure that each of the transactions within the block agree with the consensus rules. Then the node, which is an agent in a multi-agent system, extends the block-chain by attaching the new block to it. They then pass the new block, if it is valid, to other nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. Then each of these other nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system, each do the same validation on every block.

Nodes accept incoming transactions and validate them. Miners don't. Nodes replicate transactions to other nodes. Miners don't. Miners take transactions from nodes, and order them in a block, and perform a hashing function on them (the only thing they do). Miners pass the new block to the node. The node validates the transactions in the block. Miners don't. The node validates the block. Miners don't. The node extends the blockchain. Miners don't. The node replicates the block to other nodes. Miners don't. It is the validation of the nodes, and their CPU's, that define and police consensus in bitcoin.

There is only one function that miners do. They take transactions, put them in a block, and hash them. As soon as a miner produces a block that nodes don't want, it is rejected. Miners work. Nodes validate. So nodes are the proof in proof-of-work.

Nodes accept the transactions, validate the transactions (using their CPU), replicate the transactions, maintain the mempools, validate the blocks (using their CPU), extend the blockchain (using their CPU), replicate the blocks, serve the blockchain, and store the blockchain. Nodes even define the PoW algorithm that miners have to employ. If you can't convince these node owners that are using their node on a day-to-day basis, to uninstall their node software and install your new node client, especially when that node client decreases their node security and decreases the network security, any change you have is going to go exactly nowhere.

So nodes maintain the protocol, not miners. It is thus. It has always been thus. If you can't convince all of those node owners running their node clients to uninstall one client and re-install another, any change you have to consensus is DOA.

See for yourself. Download it. (https://bitcoin.org/en/download) It's currently at 0.15.1

https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node

> A full node is a program that fully validates transactions and blocks. Almost all full nodes also help the network by accepting transactions and blocks from other full nodes, validating those transactions and blocks, and then relaying them to further full nodes.

Ya need to turn off that rbtc tap. It makes ya stoopid.

Thus endeth thy lesson.

And that is why securities are regulated.

needs moar synergies!!

No it isn't. You can create an ICO with a github account and dodgy php. To create a company and list it, it is a wee bit more complex.

This is going to happen a lot methinks.

cats.com?

Nodes are the peers in peer-to-peer cash. Only if you run a node are you a peer. And that is why bitcoin crushes all competitors. Its node infrastructure. And that is why block size increases beyond segwit have been resisted. To protect that infrastructure and advantage.