Quote from: amishmanish on January 09, 2020, 04:52:36 AM

Quote from: Khaos77 on January 02, 2020, 05:57:33 PM

--snip--
Due to the reward drop this year and the majority of fees moving to LN, Bitcoin status as the most profitable could decline verses the others.

The reward drop is a phenomena for the BCash and Craig Wright' indulgence coin too. That does not take the matter in favor of them. The fees that will love to LN does not limit the settlement fees for On-chain transactions.

In a scenario where LN is the norm for micropayments, higher value on-chain transactions will still serve as fee source for miners.

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 08, 2020, 09:44:22 PM

Bitcoin has risks. Bitcoin has potential. From everything I've seen and heard over the past 8 years since I discovered Bitcoin, I beleive the potential VASTLY outweighs the risks.

If you have 0 bitcoin and it lives up to its potential, you've suffered a disaster (because you've missed out on an amazing opportunity).
If you have your entire life savings in bitcoin and it falls to its risks, then you've suffered a disaster (because you no longer have the resources to take advantage of other opportunities).

It seems obvious to me, that the right answer is to manage your risk based on your personal risk tolerance. Own enough bitcoin that you'll reap worthwhile benefits if bitcoin lives up to its potential, but not so much that you'll suffer significantly if it falls to its risks.

That is the sanest advice for people who are new to seeing cryptocurrency as an investment opportunity.

The self imposed file size limits the amount miners can make from onchain fees.

Ignoring Bitcoin Potential Flaws makes you a fanatic not a wise sage.

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on January 08, 2020, 07:09:35 PM

Quote from: Khaos77 on January 08, 2020, 03:33:38 AM

* If Attackers are earning money by doublespending, then they can continue indefinitely by using their ill-gotten gains to fund future attacks.

Double-spend isn't something you could do continuously, the receiver eventually will reject all payment/deposit and waiting the attack stopped.
Additionally, Bitcoin price would crash which makes attacker's "earned" Bitcoin have less worth.

Kind of single minded in your old age their ETF.
How many exchanges are there, and how many possible recipients and you think someone that could doublespend on that scale would limit themselves to only 1 recipient, you know better.
After a few successful attacks, No one in their right mind would accept bitcoins as payment,
and then everyone crashes the market price, when the markets refuse to accept new coins because of the doublespends.
Not Worth less but worthless. Tongue