31–40 of 381 posts
Well, that's a remarkably uninformative announcement. Here's an attempt at a neutral tl;dr from a Bitcoin amateur. Bitcoin is currently suffering from significant scaling problems, which lead to high transaction fees. Numerous proposals to fix the scaling issue have been proposed, the two main camps being "increase the block size" and "muddle through by discarding less useful data" (aka Segregated Witness/SegWit). Ho…
Do any significant number of people genuinely take Bitcoin to be the future of currency at this point?
Many people simply believe there is a need for a digital censorship resistant currency like physical cash. I don't think it'll replace currencies, but I think it will serve a purpose as a means to transfer value when authorities don't want you to transfer value. Not saying if this is a good or bad thing, but it is a real value proposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The million dollar question. If you look back at what the Ethereum split did for the market, maybe it'll give you some ideas. Remember though- if you don't have any Bitcoin under your own control (non-custodial wallet) you might not be able to trade between chains if there's a split. There are only two exchanges with announced pairs AFAIK- BitFinex and ViaBTC both have futures contracts set up.
I actually moved to altcoins already but just curious if I should move out completely.
But, eh, if crypto ever completely replaces raw mineral as a trading mechanism, I guess there's still 200x potential there. https://howmuch.net/articles/worlds-money-in-perspective
Well, that's a remarkably uninformative announcement. Here's an attempt at a neutral tl;dr from a Bitcoin amateur. Bitcoin is currently suffering from significant scaling problems, which lead to high transaction fees. Numerous proposals to fix the scaling issue have been proposed, the two main camps being "increase the block size" and "muddle through by discarding less useful data" (aka Segregated Witness/SegWit). Ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called User Activated Soft Fork or UASF for short. It could end up being nothing but it's worth noting the date. There are currently two main ideas on how to scale Bitcoin. One camp is the called Bitcoin Unlimited and it's a proposal that allows the miners to adjust the block size as needed. The other idea is called Segregated Witness or Segwit. This is a change in the way bitcoin transactions are counted toward…
> Some people in the Segwit camp are tired of waiting so they are attempting to force the issue without the support of most miners. The date they picked is Aug 1. I don't understand why the bitcoin.org page sounds so alarmist. If the miners are not in on it why would some special Bitcoin blockchain (with alternative rules) matter, since miners could easily DoS this chain, if they wanted to, in case they don't support…
If the community is behind it, then a POW change would render the 10s/hundreds of millions of dollars in mining equipment worthless.
So the real question is whether or not the UASF side has the support of the community or economic majority.
"After the event you might end up with gold or lead it all depends if your banker believe in transmutation or not (and if transmutation is actually achievable which will be determined by the best alchemists of the kingdom that need to agree together).
So all in all the guild of merchants recommend that you don't accept gold as a payement on the last day before new moon (and for a few day after that), because you wil not be able to tell if you are getting real gold or lead during that period.
Well to be honest it won't technically be lead you would get but forked gold, a gold that could be gold but isn't until the alchemists say so. But you shall still be able to use it in a limited way with people who believe in the same alchemists dissidents.
It's totally normal if it's sound complicated, it's magic after all!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 2 competing proposals on how to scale up bitcoin/blockchain and this is the day that the community/miners have to decide what side they will continue using: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/countdown-segwit-these-...
I still don't get it. As long as a reasonable majority of hashing power stays on one chain, there shouldn't be any symptoms except increased confirmation times. The bitcoin.org page says: > Do not trust any payments you receive after Tue Aug 01 2017 02:00:00 GMT+0200 (CEST) until the situation is resolved. No matter how many confirmations the new payment says it has, it can disappear from your wallet at any point up…
There is nothing that prevents 2 forks from existing for an indefinite amount of time, just look at ethereum and ethereum classic.
The question of the year is whether one side will suddenly crash down to a price of 0.
Ok just another proof that bitcoin can definitely not be compared to gold. Or maybe it could? "After the event you might end up with gold or lead it all depends if your banker believe in transmutation or not (and if transmutation is actually achievable which will be determined by the best alchemists of the kingdom that need to agree together). So all in all the guild of merchants recommend that you don't accept gold…
Nobody can steal your gold, but lets say the entire world gets together at once, and decides that gold is worthless and that they are moving over to lead as the new currency. But they are keeping the name "gold". Everyone now uses the name "gold" to refer to what was previously known as "lead".
Your pile of "real gold" wasn't stolen, but it may as well have been, because now it is just a bunch of heavy, worthless, shiny, rocks. (yes, yes, there are industrial uses, but the price is way way higher than what industry justifies alone)
And it really doesn't matter that you are strenuously arguing about how this "new gold" is actually lead, because nobody cares about your opinion.
That is a similar enough analogy to how bitcoin forks work.
Well, that's a remarkably uninformative announcement. Here's an attempt at a neutral tl;dr from a Bitcoin amateur. Bitcoin is currently suffering from significant scaling problems, which lead to high transaction fees. Numerous proposals to fix the scaling issue have been proposed, the two main camps being "increase the block size" and "muddle through by discarding less useful data" (aka Segregated Witness/SegWit). Ho…
That's a much more informative post than the link, and yet, I still don't really understand all the jargon. But it also reinforces for me just how not ready for primetime BTC is, and it makes me think the appreciation over the past year is truly insane.