you mean there Development & Technical Discussion
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0 ?
because I only see one post about another proposition on top. no need to be rude, it's a serious question...
$800 soon...
Then $200
Just my opinion
It's only going to stay in the $950-$1100 range until the Chinese stuff chills down. People will still find a way to get Bitcoin without identification. Why would they need to be identified? If a million people are going to buy BTC they're going to enter a database.. and what can they do after that? Lol, this is the process of de-anonymization created by them.
- Xi Jinping said he wants to be the New World Order's boss
- China investigated BTC months ago over 2 times
- China now imposes a new rule making the exchanges ask people to identify themselves
As the New World Order "conspiracy theory" says, they do NOT like anonymity. They want everything under control to manipulate us and to give us orders, not the opposite. If everyone used Bitcoin it'd be
way better in this world. As a coincidence, all this "New World Order"
invented stuff is just becoming more and more real..
Just don't identify yourself. If you can't go to exchanges to buy BTC without identification, find someone in your area that wants to sell their Bitcoin and trade with him.
We probably won't see a $200 price anymore. That would mean a BIG scare for traders and investors, and the possible fail of Bitcoin. It's just going to keep rising.
social engineers see others humans as the clay they must mold to achieve their utopia... they forget that they may too be manipulated.
Yeah, you can twist it anyway you want. Semantics of mining node vs a regular node. Most miners are in China yet most non-mining nodes
are in the US (United States--1814 =27.87%). The point is that the mining nodes will determine whether the code gets forked, not the regular nodes.
Boom
/debate
always true. Could the real btc exists along side the forks with a lot of the hashing power in the forks?
Yeah, you can twist it anyway you want. Semantics of mining node vs a regular node. Most miners are in China yet most non-mining nodes
are in the US (United States--1814 =27.87%). The point is that the mining nodes will determine whether the code gets forked, not the regular nodes.
And the users determine which fork has value, not the miners.
Now you can argue whether node count is a good metric of where the users stand or not.
The miners have always determined the value, hence why they are mining. Not many altruistic miners out there only concerned with supporting the network.
few supports p2p mining...
Sorry to ask but where to read more about BU and Segwit? there is not much info here... and even a big nothing in the mining section.
It is very difficult to find anyone that will discuss BU or Segwit. I wish there was more discussion about it but nobody has an opinion for one or the other.
Isn't that the truth. I think most of the people bitching about it really don't fully understand either of the options. (me included lol)
Both hope to solve the same issue however. Just BU at some point could trigger the hard fork. Segwit would only be a soft fork. Just the sounds of a hard fork spooks people as it probably should lol
BU is a stupid solution anyway. If BTC ever wants to scale on something that would compete with Visa and Paypal, we'd need to increase the blocksize to 1GB+. Problem is, such a large block would take so long to verify, there would end up being a lot of empty block mined, and the large 1GB+ blocks would end up getting orphaned, anyway. IF BTC wants to even come close to scaling like the big boys, an off chain solution like LN is our only hope.
if I get it BU is unlimited... thx for your comment anyway.
Yes, BU is unlimited, but you ever notice from time to time an empty block gets mined? Why does this usually happen? Well, each node has to verify all the transactions of a block. So miners don't lose hash while the block is getting validated, the miner begins mining an empty block. The validation process currently take less than a minute for most nodes. To compete with someone like Visa, we need to validate like a 1000x more transactions than currently can be done. This would require 1GB blocks. However, that block would also take 1000 times longer to validate. Therefore, you would get a lot of empty blocks being mined since validate the block with lots of transaction in it would take a whole lot longer than 10 minutes. Since a lot of empty blocks would be mined, the blocks with actual transaction would have to get bigger and bigger. BU is fine if we want to keep the capability down to 50 transactions per second or less. But if BTC wants to get huge, an off chain solution makes more sense.
I knew that, but I didn't realized it was that long to verify the txs. thx again for your inputs. And why not simply a 10mb block? it wouldn't be that big a difference from now...
) 
