Regardless of what you pay, you would get refunded for the price of the item.

I seriously doubt Bezos is indifferent towards bitcoin. His company is global, so it's very likely that he has personally dealt with the challenges of a highly disjoint legacy financial system.
Bezos understands the value of information networks, and has shown that he's capable of getting on top of core infrastructure shifts. See the electricity metaphor.

If yes, expand a bit. Do you think they're going to convert some cash into BTC, or will they just accumulate by accepting btc as payment?

If no, why not? Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter, Square, Paypal, Visa, etc are all adopting, does the largest ecommerce platform not have anything to gain here? I think they're more likely to have BTC than go out of their way to build their own crypto like facebook.

Energy is a really complicated topic. There's a massive number of ways you can combine production and distribution, and figuring out the optimal balance for any geographic area requires a lot of surveying and understanding of the local environment, natural resources, as well as trade relationships between neighbouring countries.

I think renewables will be forced onto consumers in the developed world, especially in the West. This isn't inherently a bad thing, but depending on some of the factors I mentioned above, there will be pos/neg consequences at smaller geographic scales. For example, NYC just decommisioned a nuclear power planet, leading to blackouts throughout the state and NYC. California also voted to decommission Diablo Canyon, and they have no plan for an alternative source of energy, they just state it has to be carbon neutral. These are (in my opinion) poor choices, and will have extremely negative consequences regardless of the renewable energy source that may or may not fill in the gap.

Poor excuses for switching to renewables aside, there are legitimate problems with renewables. They're still much more unreliable than oil/natural gas, storage of excess energy is an issue (one that Bitcoin mining can actually help alleviate), and the actual production of things like solar panels require rare earth materials and metals which are mined in developing nations with poor regulatory oversight. Often, the extraction and purification of these materials results in environmental degradation that goes unchecked in parts of the world where end consumers tend to not care about (so much for "clean" energy). These issues will be resolved or become insignificant enough to ignore over time, but they exist for now and it's silly to pretend renewable energy is some holy grail that we can just have for free (which is how politicians treat it).

So in the short term, I expect a lot of decommissioning of functioning nuclear plants (bad) and aging coal/gas plants (better). In the medium term, these things will be replaced by renewables where they make sense, some countries/provinces/states may just decide to stop producing energy and start importing it entirely. In the long term, I think we're looking at nuclear, although if people were serious about stopping climate change, we would be building nuclear plants at a monotonically increasing rate.

Note to those of you who struggle with reading comprehension: I'm asking how HAVE you done this. Not how DO/CAN you do it. Stick to your personal experience, we're not giving advice, we're telling stories 

I like giving out OpenDime bearer instruments like pic related:


My technical friends love it, I tell them the funds are theirs if they can move the sats from the stick to their phone, although some of them prefer to keep it on the USB because it gives off a cyberpunk vibe.

I've also brought friends to bitcoin ATMs around my city to show them how easy it is to exchange fiat for BTC, they tend to like that too because it attracts attention to the fact that we're doing something that might seem technically challenging and unusual.

Looking forward to reading about what you guys have done 

I don't think you can justify saying that the price of gold has not actually changed between 1933 and 2020 (after adjusting for inflation in all parts of the economy, not just normalizing against CPI).

Gold itself is inflationary too, so if anything its price would have decreased. Keep in mind that the right side being $500 simply means that in 2020, you would need $500USD to buy 1oz of gold at 1933 prices (~20USD from 1933 = ~500 usd from 2020).

This picture is misleading, gold prices in 1933 cost around $500 USD (adjusted for inflation). The image suggests that each dollar in the 2 stacks has the same value, when in reality, the right stack is 1933 US dollars, and the left stack is 2020 US dollars.

The correct comparison would have been to have a stack of ~500USD on the right side, but that doesn't convey the pro-gold dogma as clearly.

Also:


We can pick dates as arbitrarily as we like. How small would my money stack be today, compared to 1980? Less than 15% the height of the 1980 stack.

The only thing I have against zero-conf transactions is if you submit a tx with a sufficiently low fee, it may get kicked out of the mempool before it's added to a block.

I'm not sure that the risk is really comparable to starbucks accepting tap without signature or pin for low cost tx's via credit card, since there's only going to be so many people buying coffee with a stolen card. OTOH, everyone who bought coffee could pay 1 sat per byte, and then during high network congestion, all those low tx fees would be dropped from the mempool. It could result in days of every crypto tx being lost.

Could you expand on this?

This is interesting, I haven't heard much talk about larger blocks AND second layer, the conversation has always seemed pretty binary.
What makes you suspect the answer is a combination of the two, and in which order do you think the changes need to occur?

In the event that BTC's block size increases, do you think BCH users and miners will return and/or help big blockers in the fight? I'm a bit skeptical that bitcoin will go down the big block road because of how everything played out last time... however, big blocks seemed to be more popular among commercial players and with institutional investors coming in, companies like blockstream might have less of a say this time around...

I want to know what you guys think will be the biggest event for bitcoin in the next 5 years. What problems will be solved, what problems will arise, will mining centralize more (maybe in the US?) or disperse across the globe? When we talk about "bitcoin transactions", will we be referring to on-chain, or lightning transactions (i.e will lightning be more relevant to the avg user than on-chain)?

Are there any contentious BIPs, that could force another block-size type war? If there are none currently, what part of the protocol do you suspect may eventually lead to the next hard fork?

Please don't reply "the biggest event will be btc mooning/hitting 100k", I will delete those replies as they are not constructive.

Please don't reply to threads until you have at least partially read them. There's literally 1 page of comments, it's not that much effort...
You're at Sr. Member rank, you should understand that low quality replies are not helpful.

This is not relevant to the topic.

This was a hypothetical scenario, I already specified that this scenario is unlikely to occur, however, I wanted to know what the exchange should do if a user places this type of order.

Clearly, it's not in a users best interest, so my question was: should the exchange go out of its way to prevent the user from doing this?
See:


Either your reading comprehension is poor, or you didn't bother to read the (short) thread. How do you expect to contribute if you don't know what has been said? See:

So actually, I "understand [the] facts" quite well, considering I've actually built a functioning electronic exchange.

Thanks! I think this behaviour actually makes the most sense. Preventing a user from selling lower than their highest buy (or vice versa) before their order is placed on the market seems to be correct.

Thanks, and I agree, no one would realistically ever do this (unless they wrote a really shitty trading bot and didn't realize it was buggy). I was just curious what the expected behaviour was, as I've been writing an exchange in my spare time as a learning experience. To test the program, I run a simulation which randomly picks accounts and places orders; I noticed during this time that accounts occasionally fill their own orders, and wasn't sure if this was desirable.

inb4 some of you tell me no one will ever use it, I know that, I'm solely doing it to learn a new programming language (it's a technical challenge).

Sorry but what part of my post implied I'm a sheep? I asked a simple question about the technical workings of exchange order execution and you respond by insinuating I'm some fool?

This might not be the right board for this...

Suppose I place a sell order for 1 btc at $45k on your favourite exchange. Next, I place a buy order for 2 btc at 46k, will the exchange execute the trade?

This scenario feels pretty weird to me, I don't think it makes sense for the exchange to forbid the sell order from being submitted, but I also don't think it makes sense for it to execute the trade. What is the expected behaviour here?

Yes, it will probably bring the price down, which is great if you have the opportunity to buy more. I think it's quite embarrassing for elon to behave like this. I don't doubt it's annoying to deal with the btc twitter hive-mind in all its glory, but he should have recognized that he brought it on himself.

At the end of the day, bitcoin doesn't care about elon, and elon probably doesn't care all too much about bitcoin. We all know he had very little to do with PayPal's success, so I don't see why so many people value his financial opinions so highly. IMO, if he understood the technology, he wouldn't be claiming that bitcoin is highly centralized, and that it's reviving the coal industry. If he really knew the incentives, he would be promoting bitcoin mining as an alternative to Tesla powerwalls/battery packs for clean energy sources that have surplus energy, this would be a win-win for him since either his profits increase or the security of his store-of-value BTC increases.

disclaimer, I bought the dip

The thing I find most interesting is ETHs market cap today is higher than BTCs market cap at the peak of the 2017 bull run. That must have some implications for the floor for BTC, don't you think?

You might need to clarify what you mean here. Are you asking "what is a limit order"?

If you're asking about limit or stop orders, most exchanges let you do this. You can also specify the price you're willing to pay, list the order and then wait for the market to move to your ask/bid price.

This is the github repository for Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Core has several functions, one of which includes performing the operations of a full-node, i.e validating transactions and the blockchain, as well as communicating with other full and or SPV nodes.  It can also operate as a Bitcoin wallet, which I assume you have some understanding of.

Bitcoin Core is a direct successor of Satoshi's original bitcoin client, although it's certainly not the only full node software available.

This link contains the current version of Bitcoin Core, OP asked for the original version of the code.

You can download the original Bitcoin Core implementation here.

Done, thanks! Just verified that my node is accepting incoming connections.

Full nodes aren't mining nodes, FYI. Full nodes validate the entire blockchain and then continue to validate and broadcast new transactions as they are received through the network. Miners run full nodes to ensure that the transactions they put into blocks are valid. If they don't do this they are at risk of putting invalid transactions into blocks, which would be rejected by the rest of the network, making their PoW meaningless.

To run a full node, you need a few hundred GB of storage, maybe 2GB of RAM, and a consistent network connection (where you don't have a cap on your down/uploads). Running a mining node is probably at least 2 orders of magnitude more challenging than running a full node.