Just a reminder to all less experienced speculators out there: never throw good money after bad.
Bitcoin is the
good money!
Google market cap is almost 400.000.000.000,00 USD, so when BTC value will be equal to walue of
Google, BTC value will be approx. 28.000 USD
*shhhh* Stop posting all this bullish facts! How much further do you want to drag out this capitulation phase?
You've just witnessed the most bullish news EVER (Paypal stating officially they bet on BTC)
Methinks you read quite a few paragraphs between the lines there.
Exactly.
Not to mention, remember how Paypal was the enemy not long ago? Are you ready for the first Bitcoin chargebacks?
Actually, Bitcoin chargebacks via PayPal are a good thing. As long as there is the choice to have the protection of chargebacks via PayPal or not (for both, merchant and customer).
Maybe we should stop buying, so the sellers can't sell anymore.
What gives me headaches is, that a few months later we will again have to argue and fight about the hardfork.
I guess, there won't be much fighting about that: With Segwit2x miners are signalling in bit 4, that they activate segwit once it reaches 80% and EXACTLY 3 months later the 2mb part. Miners backing out of the 2mb part risk getting orphaned blocks.
Although I can not believe any smart user is willing to run a client build by Jihan and the Shilbert guys!
You do realize, that the Segwit2x client is mainly built by Jeff Garzik and has also some commits/reviews from Gavin Andresen?
What gives me headaches is, that a few months later we will again have to argue and fight about the hardfork.
I guess, there won't be much fighting about that: With Segwit2x miners are signalling in bit 4, that they activate segwit once it reaches 80% and EXACTLY 3 months later the 2mb part. Miners backing out of the 2mb part risk getting orphaned blocks.
Although I can not believe any smart user is willing to run a client build by Jihan and the Shilbert guys!
You do realize, that the Segwit2x client is mainly built by Jeff Garzik and has also some commits/reviews from Gavin Andresen?
You do realize that these guys built the clients for XT, Classic, and Unlimited as well?
All they do is the same just under another name!
You do realize, that these guys built the original BitcoinQt, which was the basis for Core, as well?
By the way: Jeff Garzik has a lot of code also in the linux kernel. So if you don't trust him, good luck with Microsoft/Apple. But yeah, I guess, that's the main problem here: You are trusting large corporations more than voluntary open development. Why do you even use Bitcoin?! There have been large corporations providing financial services around for years, you know?
You do realize, that the Segwit2x client is mainly built by Jeff Garzik and has also some commits/reviews from Gavin Andresen?
You do realize that these guys built the clients for XT, Classic, and Unlimited as well?
All they do is the same just under another name!
By the way: Jeff Garzik has a lot of code also in the linux kernel. So if you don't trust him, good luck with Microsoft/Apple. But yeah, I guess, that's the main problem here: You are trusting large corporations more than voluntary open development. Why do you even use Bitcoin?! There have been large corporations providing financial services around for years, you know?
You do realize that I can't trust a person that opposed translation of BitcoinQt UI in Farsi language because US gov introduced sanctions against Iran!
Can you explain to me, why you think that Blockstream has to fear less issues with the US government than single individuals around the globe?
Regarding this POW problem, instead of replacing the SHA-256 POW by something else, we could change Bitcoin so it accepts two POW algorithms at a time, lets say a CPU one and we keep SHA256 also, each algo having its own difficulty, a block being valid if signed by either algo.
This way ASICs would have to compete with CPUs with a fair ratio, and probably disappear after some time because of the costs.
Maybe one could even use PoS to vote on the ratio...
Regarding this POW problem, instead of replacing the SHA-256 POW by something else, we could change Bitcoin so it accepts two POW algorithms at a time, lets say a CPU one and we keep SHA256 also, each algo having its own difficulty, a block being valid if signed by either algo.
This way ASICs would have to compete with CPUs with a fair ratio, and probably disappear after some time because of the costs.
Maybe one could even use PoS to vote on the ratio...
If you want an ASIC block every T1 minutes and a CPU block every T2 minutes, the ratio between the two is k=T1/T2
That ratio "k" may be chosen by the community or computed another way.
One k is chosen, this can be proven true :
T1 = 10mn*((1+k)/k) and T2=10mn*(1+k)
with k=1 (as many ASIC blocks than CPU blocks) that gives the obvious result : T1=T2=20mn
with k=2 (twice more CPUs than ASIC) T1=15mn and T2=30mn
Technically no problem.
Yes, I meant to use PoS to vote on the value of k. But setting it to a fixed value could be enough already.