Topic: Bitcoin has disappeared - page 2. (Read 488 times)

I don't understand how you made that assumption. The coins will always be 21 million. Who said that segwit removed the signature data? How's that possible and how is it related with buying half of the goods?

So you're saying that only traders need this "byte" to confirm the transaction? The others don't?

Why segwit increases the rights of miners? It reduces the fee of the payer. Miners "print" money from the block reward, not from the transactions' fees. I guess this is what you meant.

This is clearly a subjective perspective. You can either spend your money and "let the dollar circulate", as would happen on a healthy capitalism, or keep them on your closet as a store of value. Although, last time I checked, store of value assets don't tend to inflate.

The "buying-coffee-with-bitcoin" dream has been forgotten years now. Especially to a coffee shop you've never entered before. The payee must ensure that you'll not double spend, so you'll have to wait for a confirmation. Even if you'd paid $50 as a fee, which would have very high priority right now, you'd still have to wait for 5-10 minutes on average to be confirmed. The lightning network, on the other hand can only work if you buy from that coffee shop everyday and close the channel at the end of the month (for example).

First of all, Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin's client. The way you've written it, is like it's another fork. Secondly, you're naming Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash "modified versions of bitcoin". This is false. Bitcoin Core is being developed from the Bitcoin Developers. Those who were chosen after Satoshi Nakamoto, the person(s) that began the so-called "Original Bitcoin". On the other hand, on Bitcoin Cash, some other developers decided that they don't like the way Bitcoin works and started a new chain in which its units aren't bitcoins.

The price of commodity on a completely free market, where the only rule is demand and supply is its value that has been given to it by the majority of those who sell it. This is my opinion. I'll agree with you that it can't look as a currency this way.

Investors don't change bitcoin. They try to make profit from it since it's a free market competition which means that it fluctuates a lot. There are people who invest in fiat too, but its price doesn't get affected that much, because it's not a free market competition. As for the investors' influence to other people: It has nothing to do with Bitcoin's "disappearance".

I already told you about the "coffee" dream. I want you, though, to notice something. Once you make a transaction it gets broadcasted to all these thousands of nodes. All these computers will save on their disk that you sent some satoshis to someone else and that you want it to be confirmed fast. How can this be cheap? I mentioned this, because that was the idea of bitcoin pre-segwit. When it "was" "still" "original". You'd have to understand that it'd be a matter of time before transaction cost became higher even if we're still on v0.1 with satoshi being active everyday.

If the user doesn't know about it, then he/she ought to learn! Except if he/she does not care about the funds' protection that much. Some things in life aren't simple, those are usually the most interesting.

So you're saying that you're wrong?

I think this is what it all boils down to. The OP probably sold his Bitcoin betting on a shit-alternative like Bitcoin Gold and all that blather he writes is an after-the-fact rationalization to try to justify why he is right (despite the price) and those of us who sold the shitcoins in the forks to buy more Bitcoin are wrong.

I seem to offend you, Bitcoin Gold is a joke, I never said that SHA-256 is a problem

but, the transaction signature is not in the block or the block is big than 1M.
backward compatibility: bitcoin adress is called legacy

What is legacy?

sorry for that,is Segwit

2, Blocks that do not contain signatures should not be blocks of the original Bitcoin.
3,you are wrong

yes, for sure Sgewit isn't bitcoin. this is my first time i heard about Sgewit. where you find it?

If disappeared, Block doesn't continue to #478560,

Look like you have been sold out of your bitcoin.

As speculated by many people, bitcoin will not be used primarily as a currency. It will be used as a store of value. It is much better than gold therefore people call it a digital gold.
On the other hand ethereum along with defi will be used for day to day transactions. With eth2.0 the high fee issue of eth will be resolved too. We are silently moving into digital era. 

1. Lightning network is not a Bitcoin transaction way
2. Segwit is not a Bitcoin transaction way
3. Blocks larger than 1M are not Bitcoin blocks
4. The rapidly increasing price is a sharp knife to Bitcoin

I was shocked that during the hard fork of bitcoin cash, there was no bitcoin that rejected segwit and refused to expand the block. At this time, bitcoin became not bitcoin.

Transaction volume and fees are not the flaws of the original Bitcoin.

I can understand that the user pays transaction fees to buy the bytes of the block, so the byte of the block is a commodity, and the quantity of this commodity is fixed. The demand comes from the fact that the trader needs this byte to confirm the transaction.

Therefore, expanding the block is like increasing the Bitcoin limit of 21 million, and segwit removing the signature data is like buying half of the goods. This is cheating, deceiving, not innovating. As for the lightning network, I can’t understand everyone looking forward to the lightning network

lightning network

This is to fundamentally change Bitcoin and reconsolidate the decentralized rights into the hands of a few people. Segwit is increasing the rights of miners, and expanding blocks is to issue more commodities to miners, just like the right to print money for miners.

These are not the way of Bitcoin. The transaction volume is a pseudo-demand. This is not a real problem. The real function of money is not to pay the bills. The function of money is to store value.
It is naive to imagine Bitcoin to buy coffee, but people can use Bitcoin to buy coffee consumption cards or coffee points. This is okay, and there is no problem of privacy leakage.

The centralization of small consumption is not a problem, because small consumption itself is decentralized. When gold and silver are currency, no one has ever come out and say, let us change gold, change silver, let us change gold and silver When copper coins are used, they can’t be used as copper coins to buy coffee. Is that still money?

So, the original Bitcoin has disappeared forever on #478559 / 1 August 2017 (3 years ago)

Now that there are bitcoin core and bitcoin cash, they can’t be said to be the original bitcoin, they are modified versions of bitcoin.


As for how Bitcoin disappeared, the reason is the price. The huge price increase created the illusion of success of Bitcoin. But, when Bitcoin and price are closely linked, Bitcoin cannot be used. This price increase is traditional currency issuer attack, no one noticed

The currency issuer has successfully controlled the development of Bitcoin. A few people decide the way forward and change the way Bitcoin is traded. Everyone thinks it is technological advancement?

Bitcoin is just the same ledger shared by many people. Now everyone is discussing, let's change the accounting method. Unfortunately, this proposal has been successful.

I don’t know if someone rejected segwit at the fork and refused to expand the block of Bitcoin. If so, please let me know. I can say loudly that Bitcoin has not disappeared.

How much Bitcoin is worth, the focus has become traditional money, not Bitcoin. The abnormal price growth has attracted a large number of investors, not users.

Investors continue to change Bitcoin, making Bitcoin a perfect story, but it is only a story. Investors say that they want to replace Visa, but they don’t say why they want to replace Visa. It’s just a valuation of Bitcoin based on Visa.

The user looks at the rapidly increasing price and can no longer buy  bitcoin in a short time. The investor said that you can buy 0.00001 bitcoin and it will be very valuable in the future, trying to convince the user to become an investor.

It is the high price that makes Bitcoin unavailable for daily use, not the transaction volume and Bitcoin transaction fees.

It can be said that Bitcoin must have a high price, because as the number of users increases, the demand will rise. This is true, but what is needed is as the number of users increases, not as the price increases. The number of investor will increase.

Traditional currency issuers, using money as a sharp sword, successfully allowed Bitcoin to be used only for large speculation, and then manipulated the market, making Bitcoin a sword that stabs people and harvests people money.

This is not Bitcoin. This is a dog of a traditional currency issuer. The wolf is attracted by the printed food and surrenders the rope to control itself.

This is a sad story. Maybe the price of Bitcoin will get higher and higher in the future, but this is not the success of Bitcoin, it is the success of traditional currency issuers. No matter how much it increases, the only purpose of Bitcoin is to convert it into traditional currency that can be used.

So, Bitcoin will not become money, so how can you buy coffee? In order to allow Bitcoin to buy coffee and change Bitcoin into an investment product, is this a huge joke?

What is the reason why the usage rate of segwit has not been high? It can reduce transaction costs and change the address format.

There is also an HD wallet problem. This thing is also very bad, but it is completely accepted. Use seeds to generate an unlimited number of addresses. You only need to remember a dozen words to use these bitcoins. It looks good, but it will Bring great insecurity.

The developer completely isolates the technology from the user, and the user does not know what address, private key, public key, and signature are. These things should be extremely simple, so that all users understand what is protecting Bitcoin, not a dozen words Protecting the funds they have worked so hard to get.

Human beings are very fragile individuals. They will forget and leak. Even words written on paper are sometimes lost. When HD wallet leaks or is lost, all bitcoins will disappear.

HD wallet does not increase security, but it can reduce the number of wallets. HD wallet can only increase the convenience of multi-account use of transactions.

Multiple accounts and identity isolation

These should be done by users themselves, not by developers instead of users. Users can generate multiple Bitcoin addresses, completely independent, and will not lose all Bitcoin due to the leakage or loss of a dozen words.

Bitcoin does not need frequent upgrades, it is just a shared ledger, but now it is hiding the ledger, changing the ledger, and allowing users to use it without knowing it.

Only when people can understand the private key and public key, and after signing, will they be able to use Bitcoin with confidence, instead of trusting a wallet program and not even knowing what they are backing up.

Anyone can understand Bitcoin. This is not advanced technology. It is just a method of bookkeeping. It does not need to become more and more complicated. Anyone who says that ordinary people cannot understand Bitcoin is wrong.

This is what I said, Bitcoin has disappeared.