What Aggo doesn't appear to consider is that not every node needs to validate every transaction.

Another genius. Words, what do they mean?
plummet plʌmɪt verb 1. fall or drop straight down at high speed.

The implication of "plummet" is that if an ETF didn't happen, it would drop very quickly.

I never said any such thing. In fact, I said the opposite. In the short and medium term it was a strong buy because the illegal economy formed a base, but eventually if it didn't attract mainstream investment vehicles (like an ETF) it would go to zero because a competitor would pop up that didn't have bitcoin's flaws. That is the direct opposite of plummet.

Moreover, the context was that this is something I'd been proven wrong on; this was also false, since I a) never made the statement claimed about it "plummeting" and in fact said the opposite and b) I was in fact was bullish over the medium term.

Since you want me banned, I'll gladly bet you on something you claimed I lied about - that I was 100m from the truck attack in Nice. Loser eats a ban. Want to back up your personal attacks, or are you a coward?

Tell me when you want to stop with your stupid bull**** zero content personal attacks that are clogging up this thread.

There have been some theoretical developments since the paper I linked.
The issue with someone being unreachable (intentionally or unintentionally) has been mostly solved. It will be possible to just exclude them within the Channel Factory.
Cascading settlements of all the inner anchoring transactions are not necessary, as all of them can be done using one transaction.

But those are just mitigating some of the problems. I agree with you in general, that it is an inferior solution to regular Lightning funding, except for price.

And on another note, unlike most people in this thread that don't agree with your longer term predictions, I think you are one of the posters that provide the most value with your posts.

Toothsayer value is drown in 70% of trash he posts making his post too noisy to be read.

The whole thread is like that anyway. As with the rest of the thread, I skip the nonsense and repeat parts.

Ts is 50% why the thread is like that, i cannot why for elon musk to do his first TESLA ICO

So what? It's still what brings about much of the meaningful discussion. He is also by far the most knowledgeable bear. If I want to learn something new, or have my own hypotheses tested, I would much rather argue with someone of the opposing opinion. At least if they know enough to hold a meaningful discussion, but that goes for bulls as well.

If you can't stand the poster, or find his posts valueless, or truly believe he's a troll, then ****ing put him on ignore. You guys all keep paying attention to him and not the topic or the content and it's ****ing childish. You're obsessed with him. Really, it's not that hard. Scroll past and ignore, or literally use the ignore function. It blows my mind how stupid the collective of TS gotcha guys look, continually hunting down every possible instance of when he's even a fraction of wrong. HE'S A LIAR ZOMG! Relax. Go live your life. He's going to be wrong and it's obvious he's not like most people. Get over it. It's not a big deal. In fact, it says more about you guys that you seem to care so much than it does about TS.

Far be it for me to peg posters on an internet forum, but I said it before and I'll say it again. Some of you, TS included, seem to light up the DSM-V like a pinball machine.

Bolded is a prime example. So many people can't stand his personality to the point that they don't care about discussing the topic anymore. They just want so badly for him to be wrong and think they'll end up dunking on him. Like he's gonna have some ****ing meltdown. Obviously that is not out of the realm of possibility, but I think it wouldn't be too crazy to think that he'll be wrong, about whatever, and just shrug his shoulders.

At the very least, take it from Mat Cauthon. He seems to be the most reserved poster ITT and his content is respected by everyone, including TS. And he, in his ever so reserved manner, just went to bat for him. Yet posters have veins popping out of their foreheads because god forbid an abrasive personality could be right...

For real thi, Musk ICO would be such a brilliant cash grab I’m amazed he hasn’t rolled one out yet.

Thoughts, opinions?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/forme...131756819.html

we're all gonna get rich on fedcoin

TimSawyer would have you believe that only Group B exists. However, Groups A, C, and D clearly are involved as well.

What, if anything, does this mean for Bitcoin going forward?

Link to full article on CNBC

i really love to watch you squirm and write paragraphs upon paragraphs attempting to explain the simple sentence: "without an ETF, this thing goes to zero."

this post is even better because it has you digging your hole further by trying to redefine ETF to mean futures offered by CME/CBOE and the largely irrelevant GBTC.

thanks for the links, i found something else here that is really interesting:

but just a few posts earlier, you say this:

collapse
[kuh-laps]

verb (used without object), col·lapsed, col·laps·ing.
1. to fall or cave in; crumble suddenly:
The roof collapsed and buried the crowd.
2. to be made so that sections or parts can be folded up, as for convenient storage:
This bridge table collapses.
3. to break down; come to nothing; fail:
Despite all their efforts the peace talks collapsed.

words. what do they mean?

For investing purposes alone a lot of mainstream people looking to get in can buy the BTC tracker right on the exchange

This is an interesting consideration. For me, an increase in speculators rather than HODLers and users is problematic as it maintains the volatility that is a barrier to many adopting the currency. This is why we need to increase the numbers of users (merchants/consumers) to balance out the speculators. Adoption is everything.

Transactional fraud is $0 for bitcoin?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

The lack of reversibility for fraudulent transactions is like the #1 thing that would keep me from ever transacting with bitcoin vs. a credit card.

I mean, I'm open to being wrong about bitcoin in general, but the bull arguments in this thread are so bad that it's hard to take them seriously.

Transactional fraud means double spent money, akin to counterfeiting

I think this thread would be improved if everyone's posts didn't spend so many words laughing at opinions that are different to their own. It doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

Ok, where on that table would you include the cost of fraudulent transactions that can't be reversed? Like, you buy a TV online, send bitcoin, and receive an empty box. You have no recourse. Where does that cost show up?

(And if you make the claim that there's no aggregate cost, because the purchaser's loss is offset by the seller's gain, then where is the deadweight loss that comes from consumers not being willing to transact with a currency that's non-recourse?)

Why close now?

What do you see in this volume pattern?

It's the same as cash. If you buy something with cash directly, person to person, then it's up to you as the buyer to ensure you receive what you are paying for. If you go through a third party (like ebay) then you have recourse with that third party usually.

It would also be the case if you made a direct transfer via your bank for a purchase made online. Sure credit cards offer extra protection in this regard but you pay a hefty premium for this. Also, the dark markets have proved that this problem is not hard to overcome.

I see bears running out of steam.

Most transactions are pretty safe and a credit card protection cost you for no purpose.
On the other hand the risk for the vendor is pretty high.

If anything the risk to the vendor is much lower. They can wait for however many confirmations they need for their comfort before shipping any product. There are no chargebacks with bitcoin, and chargebacks are something that eats into pretty much every vendor's profit margin.