Just how safe is Bitcoin?


The true bitcoin community Top Stories with the Inside take.

Coin Crypto Wallet : most secure and most popular blockchain wallet

World’s most secure wallet With over 20 million wallets, $120B transacted, and the lowest fees in the industry, it’s no wonder we’re the most popular cryptocurrency wallet.

Bitmarkets - Private Decentralized Marketplaces


Why Price Doesn't Matter and What Safe Haven Means: Bitcoiner Prescience is Second to None

A lot of people have noticed that some of the most knowledgeable Bitcoiners have been talking about the risks and dangers of the COVID-19 threat far earlier than most other people. This prescience is a reflection of a deeper understanding of the problems with current societal, financial, and government structures.
True Bitcoiners understand that governments cannot be trusted. They fail, either through corruption or bureaucracy or complacency or ignorance. They are unreliable. And this includes the financial system when tied to government, in the form of money printing. They understand that they are responsible for themselves, to validate the chain with a full node themselves, to not trust anyone else - because of cheating, lying, and general unreliability of others.
If you observe news and politics, you see that a huge number of people in society are just now complaining about a lack of preparation and a poor response by government. Twitter is full of people complaining about Donald Trump and the CDC and debates between Republicans and Democrats. But Bitcoiners never trusted the government to do a good job in the first place.
Bitcoin, as the hardest asset in the world, can create confusion with people who don't understand the difference between price and safe-haven attributes. The ones who are "confused" are not actual Bitcoiners, but rather, mostly "traders" who are looking to make a quick buck. These are the so-called "weak hands" and "investors" and they create a large amount of volatility on top of what is the "base price" of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is NOT a safe-haven against short-term volatility. Nor, is it a safe-haven against irresponsible trading practices, weak hands, and panic selling. However, it remains the BEST safe-haven against government and societal failure.
And that failure is what we're observing now. Governments are scrambling to "save the economy" by destroying the currency. Large scale bail-outs are incoming. Huge amounts of debt, borrowing from our children, and our children's children. On top of that, government response has been lackluster at best. It has been criminal, at worst. Distrust in government will only propel a new system, perhaps an overhaul of a system that has completely failed. A return to principles, separation of money and state. While businesses rapidly adjust to the COVID-19 situation by instituting work-from-home policies and clear communication, government schools are responding extremely slow and in confusing/conflicting ways. Governments are not well-suited for fast response times in emergencies. The bureaucracy, red-tape, and lack of overall incentives result in the problems being exposed now.
Bitcoin is a safe-haven from a failed government fiscal policy. And Bitcoin's "base price" reflects the sum of value of all those who understand that issue - which is guaranteed to grow over time (which is what makes it safe). It is easy to make this claim of guarantee, because people once they understand how bad the system is, will be HIGHLY unlikely to return to trusting the government economic system again.
So, just to repeat, I am not concerned at all by the volatility. Once all the selling is done, we'll know what the real base price is. The price, above the base, is just noise. It's a large pool of a "fluff" of users who don't care about how governments fail us. They just want a quick profit. Bitcoin is a long-term game. It's growth and success is almost as inevitable as the government's consistent ability to drop the ball - over, and over.
submitted by anon517 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why is Bitcoin a safe haven in a financial crisis

Why is Bitcoin a safe haven in a financial crisis submitted by itsblockchain to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Here’s Why Bitcoin is still a Safe Heaven Asset

Here’s Why Bitcoin is still a Safe Heaven Asset submitted by Masteryoda51 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Can’t Be a Safe Haven and 100x Leverage Is the Reason Why

Bitcoin Can’t Be a Safe Haven and 100x Leverage Is the Reason Why submitted by a36 to AllThingsCrypto [link] [comments]

04-08 01:04 - 'Why do you think bitcoin is safe? Sorry Satoshi, is not safe as you think.' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/FrequentAgency removed from /r/Bitcoin within 167-177min

No offense, but in my opinion Bitcoin is no safer than FIAT money. If someone tries to steal your FIAT money, the bank will refund your money. But if someone steals your Bitcoin, no one will refund you.
I used this spare time to learn as much as possible about the security of Bitcoin and came to the conclusion that it was not secure at all. In fact, you play the lottery all the time with people trying to make your private key.
I'm a Python programmer and in 30 days I've created 3 programs that can very easily become bitcoin killers.
Not sure what to do with them. Bitcoin has no owner, so it is not a crime. But there are people who have invested their money in Bitcoin and I really don't know what to do.
What would you do if you had a program that, in 1-2 years with 500,000 - 1,000,000 users, could bring Bitcoin down to $0. Old addresses are becoming less secure and new ones are in increasing danger.
Please don't hate me, try to be constructive in the answers. No one has the code, nor will I until I decide what to do with it. Maybe I'll sell it because I'll obviously get fired at the bank I work for. Try to help me with the price.
Consider this the beginning of the BTC end #SorrySatoshi
I will also share this on Pastebin so you have no reason to delete it [[link]2
Why do you think bitcoin is safe? Sorry Satoshi, is not safe as you think.
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: FrequentAgency
1: paste*i*.co*/a*j*LZYq 2: past*bin.co**a1jwLZYq***1
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Why is Bitcoin a safe haven in a financial crisis

Why is Bitcoin a safe haven in a financial crisis submitted by itsblockchain to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Why Bitcoin Is Falling Despite Claims That It Was a ‘Safe Haven’ Asset

Why Bitcoin Is Falling Despite Claims That It Was a ‘Safe Haven’ Asset submitted by n4bb to CoinPath [link] [comments]

Core dev Luke-jr: "I've never claimed to be a security expert, which is why I trusted Mark Karpeles (an experienced member of the community with a deep interest and funding for keeping bitcoins secure) to keep most of my bitcoins safe. A mistake I intend never to make again"

Core dev Luke-jr: submitted by cryptorebel to bitcoinfights [link] [comments]

Coinbase to buy bitcoins asks slot of personal info is this safe? And why do they make me wait a week until I can use the coins??

submitted by joeyeee2 to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

This may sound dumb sorry, but why does bitcoin require my ssn,is this safe. I’m starting off the cashapp btw so any advice ?

submitted by gameofusername to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

08-30 20:53 - 'Why use bitcoin instead of fiat currency?' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/tradercash removed from /r/Bitcoin within 363-373min

Why use bitcoin instead of fiat currency? Why buy bitcoin? what's the best bitcoin? Why is bitcoin safe? What about bitcoin for new investors to make their investment?

private blog: [trader cash]1
Why use bitcoin instead of fiat currency?
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: tradercash
1: tra**rcas*.o*g
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Why Inverted Bond Yields Failed To Stroke Bitcoin's Rally? Is it No Longer A Safe Haven Asset?

Why Inverted Bond Yields Failed To Stroke Bitcoin's Rally? Is it No Longer A Safe Haven Asset? submitted by PM_ME_YOUR_THESES to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

CNN: What is the yield curve and why it matters (CNN Video mentions Bitcoin as a safe haven).

CNN: What is the yield curve and why it matters (CNN Video mentions Bitcoin as a safe haven). submitted by simplelifestyle to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Gold Is the Top Safe Haven Asset, but Here's Why Bitcoin Has Appeal | NewsBTC

Gold Is the Top Safe Haven Asset, but Here's Why Bitcoin Has Appeal | NewsBTC submitted by leftok to atbitcoin [link] [comments]

Binance hack: If bitcoin is so safe, why is it a target for thieves?

Binance hack: If bitcoin is so safe, why is it a target for thieves? submitted by Puffin_fan to CashApps [link] [comments]

Why Inverted Bond Yields Failed To Stroke Bitcoin's Rally? Is it No Longer A Safe Haven Asset?

Why Inverted Bond Yields Failed To Stroke Bitcoin's Rally? Is it No Longer A Safe Haven Asset? submitted by leftok to atbitcoin [link] [comments]

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it.
I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater".
SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while.
But then we all learned that:
And we also got much better solutions: such as market-based blocksize with Bitcoin Unlimited - way better than SegWit's arbitrary, random centrally-planned, too-little-too-late 1.7MB "max blocksize".
This is why more and more people are rejecting SegWit - and instead installing Bitcoin Unlimited.
In my case, as I gradually learned about the disastrous consequences which SegWit-as-a-soft-fork-hack would have, my intial single OP in December 2015 expressing outspoken support for SegWit soon turned to an avalanche of outspoken opposition to SegWit.
Core / Blockstream lost my support on SegWit - and it's all their fault.
How did Core / Blockstream turn me from an outspoken SegWit supporter to an outspoken SegWit opponent?
It was simple: They made the totally unnecessary (and dangerous) decision to program SegWit as a messy and dangerous soft-fork which would:
  • create a massive new threat vector by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
  • force yet-another random / arbitrary / centrally planned "max blocksize" on everyone (previously 1 MB, now 1.7MB - still pathetically small and hard-coded!).
Meanwhile, new, independent dev teams which are smaller and much better than the corrupt, fiat-financed Core / Blockstream are offering simpler and safer solutions which are much better than SegWit:
  • For blocksize governance, we now have market-based blocksize based on emergent consensus, provided by Bitcoin Unlimited.
  • For malleability and quadratic hashing time (plus a future-proof, tag-based language similar to JSON or XML supporting much cleaner upgrades long-term), we now have Flexible Transactions (FlexTrans).
This is why We Reject SegWit because "SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history".
My rapid evolution on SegWit - as I discovered its dangers (and as we got much better alternatives, like Bitcoin Unlimited + FlexTrans):
Initially, I was one of the most outspoken supporters of SegWit - raving about it in the following OP which I posted (on Monday, December 7, 2015) immediately after seeing a presentation about it on YouTube by Pieter Wuille at one of the early Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences:
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits).
So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community.
However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
  • trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
  • trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
  • trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year.
So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community.
We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork.
But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork.
The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear:
Bitcoin users are not stupid.
Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork.
And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote.
And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately.
We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack.
If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit).
Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code.
Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago.
But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences.
Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork)
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
  • Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
  • SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
  • But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
  • Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
  • This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
Why are more and more people (including me!) rejecting SegWit?
(1) SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible change ever proposed for Bitcoin:
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
(2) Better solutions than SegWit are now available (Bitcoin Unlimited, FlexTrans):
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
(3) Very few miners actually support SegWit. In fact, over half of SegWit signaling comes from just two fiat-funded miners associated with Core / Blockstream: BitFury and BTCC:
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
(4) Hard forks are simpler and safer than soft forks. Hard forks preserve your "right to vote" - so Core / Blockstream is afraid of hard forks a/k/a "full node refendums" - because they know their code would be rejected:
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
(5) Core / Blockstream's latest propaganda "talking point" proclaims that "SegWit is a blocksize increase". But we don't want "a" random, arbitrary centrally planned blocksize increase (to a tiny 1.7MB) - we want _market-based blocksizes - now and into the future:_
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
(6) Core / Blockstream want to radically change Bitcoin to centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize, and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" semantics. The market wants to go to the moon - with Bitcoin's original security model, and Bitcoin's original market-based (miner-decided) blocksize.
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price!
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
Flipping the Script: It is Core who is proposing a change to Bitcoin, and BU/Classic that is maintaining the status quo.
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream?
Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics.
Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault.
The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

things to remember about luke dashjr , UASF promoter : "I've never claimed to be a security expert, which is why I trusted Mark Karpeles (...) to keep most of my bitcoins safe. A mistake I intend never to make again."

things to remember about luke dashjr , UASF promoter : submitted by realistbtc to btc [link] [comments]

If bitcoin is so safe, why does it keep getting hacked?

If bitcoin is so safe, why does it keep getting hacked? submitted by leftok to atbitcoin [link] [comments]

Binance hack: If bitcoin is so safe, why is it a target for thieves?

Binance hack: If bitcoin is so safe, why is it a target for thieves? submitted by swtt to digitalmunition [link] [comments]

@Recode: Thieves have stolen millions of dollars in bitcoin from exchanges. If bitcoin is so safe, why does it keep getting hacked?https://t.co/UddrQb4m1I

submitted by -en- to newsbotbot [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Gold / Verge hacks, and why DigiByte is safe!

The Bitcoin Gold / Verge hacks, and why DigiByte is safe! submitted by Chilling_Silence to Digibyte [link] [comments]

The Case Against Bitcoin: Why Bitcoin Is A Bad Investment What are Bitcoin Wallet ? Keep you Bitcoin Safe from Phishing and Scams. Verifying Electrum Download Signatures via GPG4Win. WARNING: The Truth About Bitcoin Is Bitcoin Safe To Invest In?

3 Reasons Bitcoin is (mostly) Safe by Joseph Regan on February 22, 2019 A lot of people are convinced that digital coins are going to “change” the world, and they’ve “flipped” at the prospect of investing in Bitcoin, the cyber currency that “coined” the idea in the first place. Any thoughts of bitcoin being a safe haven have been put to bed in the past 10 days and can be found there thrashing in their own clammy sweat, racked by fever-nightmares of 2018. The question is Although Bitcoin is a digital currency, it is not recommended to store the Bitcoin online as this poses a security threat. An example is the Inputs.io hack. Bitcoin had a big dip last week, but didn't lose its claim to safe haven status. In a full blown crisis, it will look increasingly attractive. If you’re wondering whether bitcoin is a safe investment, the short answer is no. That’s not necessarily a knock on bitcoin: All investments bring some risk of losing money.

[index] [17777] [29483] [24130] [15428] [13420] [26402] [1083] [12617] [26986] [22032]

The Case Against Bitcoin: Why Bitcoin Is A Bad Investment

Why Bitcoin Is Holding Strong As A Safe Haven Asset The Blockchain Today. ... Bitcoin will be the new store of value and crypto will be the new technology evolution and I want to be a part of that ... Investors should not treat Bitcoin as a safe-haven “too literally” within the current market, says the CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Binance. Speaking to Bloomberg on July 20, Changpeng Zhao ... Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that works without a bank. You may have noticed from the many headlines over the latter part of 2014; Bitcoin is steadily increasing in value and some ... A short guide that demonstrates how keep your Bitcoin safe from scams by taking the time to check the GPG signatures to verify Electrum downloads via GPG4Win. This is an important practice that ... In general, desktop bitcoin wallets are safe, but it is important to make sure that your PC or laptop is free of malware and any viruses before installing and using it. Mobile Wallets A mobile ...

Flag Counter