Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 11, 2017, 09:26:26 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on April 11, 2017, 09:16:46 AM

Quote from: Carlsen on April 11, 2017, 09:14:47 AM

Re: Snapchat first investor thinks bitcoin could realistically be worth $500,000

I have read the article, unfortunatelly I do not agree to their theory.
400 million people using bitcoin in the year 2030 seems very unlikely to me.
I an sure bitcoin will grow, but not in such a magintude.

They don't have to actually be using Bitcoin. They can be using any service for which BTC is the reserve currency that the whales of that services settle their commerce in BTC.

This is why scaling doesn't need to be on Bitcoin in order for Bitcoin to benefit.

The maximum transaction rate is still too low for an effective commercial settlement system. It can't handle SWIFT traffic levels for example, and that is just for settlement between financial institutions. Then its status as a reserve cryptocurrency becomes under threat.

SWIFT is not restricted to power brokers. SWIFT allows any Joe Blow to wire $1000.

Bitcoin's block size is more than sufficient.

The entire point is to keep the riff-raff off of Bitcoin, so it doesn't need to be regulated. And isn't constantly assailed with such nonsense as UASF.

Quote from: Dorky on April 11, 2017, 11:53:26 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on April 11, 2017, 09:33:26 AM

The entire point is to keep the riff-raff off of Bitcoin, so it doesn't need to be regulated. And isn't constantly assailed with such nonsense as UASF.

So if a riff-raff like me (and many others) are still holding onto bitcoins, then what are the shadow elites gonna do about it, in your opinion?

They will raise the transaction fees so high that your BTC isn't even enough to pay the transaction fee, so it will be impossible for you to spend them on chain.

So you'll be forced to move your BTC to an exchange (or off chain in centralized hubs of Lightning Network), so you can be regulated and taxed (maybe even confiscated/hacked/lost in "bank run" on fractional reserves). The blockchain won't be regulated, but you won't be able to afford to transact there, only the $billionaires will.

I think they want the SegWit and Lightning Networks stuff to be not on Bitcoin, so that highly variable block size load doesn't pollute the reliability of Bitcoin. They'd rather push the masses onto another "Lite" blockchain (e.g. Litecoin). This reliability issue is why power brokers will hold their net balances (i.e. reserves) in BTC on the Bitcoin blockchain. This is why I foresee that Bitcoin will still attain huge demand even if scaling is on Litecoin.

I'm included in the "riff-raff".

Quote from: iamnotback on April 11, 2017, 09:25:59 AM

Quote from: sidhujag on April 10, 2017, 04:34:44 PM

Im bearish LTC until sub $1 but i would buy segwit coins that are merge mined. Much profit.

Merge-mining is fundamentally insecure. It is one of the reasons Side-chains are insolubly insecure.