I didn't say it was approved.... we have been hearing about it waiting to be approved since 2014. So what exactly is new about this:
[...]
Sounds meaningless to me because we have been hearing this since 2014.
[...]
Still waiting..... and 2 years later we have another article that claims it's "still waiting" ...sorry if I'm not excited until we see a confirmation. Anticipation isn't confirmation
The SolidX ETF isn't the Winklevii's COIN ETF. The latter is awaiting comment on a rule change for listing on BATS. NASDAQ never filed for that rule change. There is now a timetable for acceptance, starting with a 45-day period for comment with several possible extensions. I guess it still could all fall apart and be rejected, but it's undeniably further ahead than previously.
Thank you. Now I'm a little more excited.
This seems like a big deal but I haven't heard about this before. I thought LN was something like pipe-dream that isn't possible yet, at least from what I heard. This thunder network is basically a working prototype showing it's possible.
Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the network
Extremely cheap payments: fees will develop naturally, due to the free market in an open and permissionless network and will fundamentally be lower than on-chain payments
Even if limited to transactions in a trusted network right now this is still pretty incredible. If I'm understanding this right, is this going to be applicable and help scaling once CSV and SegWit are implemented?
i think the goal is and always will be to get bitcoin to be able to process all of the worlds TX.
right now poeple have gotten use to the idea that bitcoin will never be able to do that.
when LN comes and changes the game, we will be able to say that "yes bitcoin CAN potentially take over the world."
i agree only LN can achieve this, but i disagree that blocksize can stay at 1MB or that 2MB would have any meaningful centralizing effect. it should have been bumped up already and its sad you small blockers cant see that.
For the love of bitcoin, and all it stands for, we MUST ALL AGREE the fallowing statement is completely INSANE
" Hard forks are evil, and only core dev knows what best for bitcoin. "
It's unfortunate that there's a divide happening in this community between "small blockers" and the other folks. But I don't understand why, didn't Core agree to a segwit softfork + the 2Mb hardfork for a total of 4Mb increase in their roadmap? Is that not happening or are you saying it's taking too long?
SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.i1yfnaja4I'm not sure if I'm a "small blocker" if I'm okay with this roadmap... but to me it seems like the scaling issue is going to be temporary. Once block size is increased, SegWit + LN is out and then the ETF gets approved then what, moon? At least these are the rumors, once they're news it'll be too late
I got my bitcoinz ready.... sick and tired of being in the upper-middle class