A new, great #Bitcoin meme has born today!! #MegalomaniacRoger!!!

This is the first iteration. Please RT and make your own version. A few humble suggestions:

"I'm the reason heliocentrism is so popular today. I did it once, I will do it again with Hollow Earth theories!!!"

"I'm the reason antibiotics are so popular today. I did it once, I will do it again with Healing Crystals!!!"

@MeniRosenfeld @_Kevin_Pham @francispouliot_ @VitalikButerin @TokenHash @StopAndDecrypt @adam3us @DanielKrawisz Thanks for the detailed example, I think I see the disagreement point. Give me a few hours for dinner & I will try to point it out. @MeniRosenfeld @_Kevin_Pham @francispouliot_ @VitalikButerin @TokenHash @StopAndDecrypt @adam3us @DanielKrawisz Sorry for delay.
I think your conservation scenario assumes 2 unrealistic things:
- that you can always keep the same nominal BTC/BCH balance while consolidating, spending & receiving, while at the same time not trading;
- that not only you don't trade, but also nobody else does!

Don't trust Zcash & Mathew Green. They are in bed with the enemy.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @notgrubles view original on Twitter

*Matthew, with double t. The Zcash cryptography expert clearly stating in the "deleted" interview that government backdoors in Zcash are both technically feasible and a desired feature.

You guys know that I have a fetish for analogies, so bear w/ me about this one. Thesis: if Bitcoin is digital Gold, then the (pseudo)"SPV" model for light nodes is digital Coinage, w/ basically the same trade-offs & risks. Argument development following in this tweetstorm: 1) Physical gold was a GREAT form of money for ancient civilizations: great durability in time, good divisibility/density tradeoff, fundamental scarcity (before asteroid/ocean-floor mining), not-too-much-elastic supply due to estraction costs, fair access, recognizability.

1) Bitcoin, right now, is a little bit more "digital gold" than "digital cash" only because of PRICE dynamics (not affected by inflation, monetization driving appreciation, gresham law discouraging spending it instead of fist if not necessary), NOT at all because of tx COSTS! 2) Tx costs for ANY form of "cash" known in human history, while often trivial in face-to-face txs (except for verification costs, often quite high), are always orders of magnitude higher than non-cash scriptural money in every case implying distance or complex interactions.

1) My answer would be: it probably can, though maybe not alone. The first scaling problem would be that, in current design, "everybody" out of those 7 billions (not really: you should discount for newborn babies, Amish people, etc.) should have at least 2 channels w/ enough... 2)...liquidity in both directions. Assuming a more realistic set of about 4 billion (so excluding heavy IoT/M2M scenarios), if anybody funds 1 channel & "receives" funding for another one, that's 4 billion txs. You don't really have to assume many channel closures: that's just...

Ok, here I am. I'll write down some bullet-points. This isn't a rebuttal of your article (no time for that, at least not now): it's just my own list of arguments about what specifically I think makes you, and every other bcasher who isn't intentionally malicious, stupid. 1) Bitcoin is one of the greatest financial opportunities in human history. If anyone interested in wealth & misses it/fucks up w/ it, qualifies as stupid. I get from your other tweets that you're not interested in wealth (I am), so at least this point doesn't really concern you.

It's fashinating: w/ negligible exceptions, almost every single line that you can read on newspapers about Bitcoin & related topics are ABSOLUTELY wrong/false. Not just slightly incorrect or oversimplified: the complete, exact OPPOSITE of reality!
My favourites: 1) "Miners use computers capable of solving VERY COMPLEX computations!"

No, those "computers" solve one of the LEAST COMPLEX you could imagine: just guessing random numbers. Pretty simple. Then they have to check them against a SHA2 function, just like any other non-mining node.

So, a few reasons I don't like Zcash.
1) If you see a great FOSS project, w/ network effects & traction, before you decide to just fork it into your own pet project, I think logic & morality impose you to study the existing one, understand it, try to contribute to it AMAP. 2) That's even more true if we are talking about a project aimed to build an infrastructure-level, open standard, were convergence & stability are paramount, & not about a consumption-layer, proprietary product or service, were competition & (fast) evolution are paramount.

Appreciated. Let's try here.
1st Rule:
You should use hardware wallets (especially if/when) you do move your bitcoins. Yes, hardware wallet security does suck. Except that everything else sucks harder. Almost any attack surface on HWWs is worse on PCs & (worst of all) mobiles! 2nd Rule:
If possible, you should use > 1 HWW solutions. In a multisig if you are a pro (saleemrashid.com/2018/01/27/har…), just splitting your bitcoins if you aren't. It's harder to compromise 3 firms, & different HWWs often leverage different security assumptions/tradeoffs.

1) Tl;dr for this thread:

"I want a cheap and fast system for small/instant transactions in my physical shop!!!"

"Ok, the rational choice is to accept credit cards, applepay and stuff like that."

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @brucefenton view original on Twitter

2) "But...but I want a cheap and fast system for small/instant transactions in my physical shop using Bitcoin, because, even if I don't need censorship resistance, Bitcoin is cool!!!"

"Ok, the rational choice then is to use trusted third parties for bitcoin-nominated tabs."