Xapo CEO Wences Casares has been appointed to PayPal’s board of directors, the pioneering online payments firm announced today.
And what does this guy say?
And who is in Xapo's Advisory Board?
>Dee Hock is the founder of Visa, and is responsible for effectively creating payment systems as we know them today. “Bitcoin represents not only the future of payments but also the future of governance,” Mr. Hock said. “We live in the 21st century but are still using command and control organizational structures from the 16th century. Bitcoin is one of the best examples of how a decentralized, peer-to-peer organization can solve problems that these dated organizations cannot. Like the Internet, Bitcoin is not owned or controlled by any one entity, so it presents incredible opportunities for new levels of efficiency and transparency in financial transactions.”
Nocoiners, i'll give one last chance, for you, to fucking getting it.
Well.. once Bitcoin is integrated within Paypal, Bitcoin is basically everywhere, and you know what the next step is.
Do the fucking math.
Bitcoin is kill. The 95% of the network is controlled by a handful of people. It's only a matter of time before the general public realizes that it's been fundamentally broken and it becomes worthless.
^^^He's one of the primary Bitcoin developers^^^
>any reason as to why it suddenly dropped from $450 to $426?
Over the last few days the bitcoin dev team have openly admitted that the project is fucked because of unresolvable technical reasons. It's impossible for it to handle the current volume of transaction and also not be centralized at the time without changing how everything works entirely.
It's Bitcoin, marketcap is still tiny, all of that is just irrelevant market noise. You should be looking at the big picture like this guy does:
Forget about the ups and downs, that's a fucking waste of time. Think long term or die.
>he reads Mike Hearn which is now part of the R3 group
>he still hasn't catched up with the Bitcoin XTrojan incident
You need a lot of reading to do, Timmy, and from non-bankster sources.
>blockchain without Bitcoin
Is this 2015?
Read the article fuckwit. Block size is capped at 1MB, so they either have to choose between larger blocks and high levels of centralization or transaction processing delays on the order of days. It's a lose-lose situation that can't be avoided without forking the blockchain and starting over
Yeah this is what I thought. I really don't think bitcoin is going to be integrated into PayPal. I think the more likely scenario is that PayPal might create some kind of proprietary coin protocol. And if that happened, bitcoin would practically go to zero.
You are illiterate and drinking the koolaid of a guy that works for banks and has an agenda to centralize Bitcoin in a way that you are too dumb to realize.
Block size is capped at 1MB because we don't need it to be higher for now, and increasing the blocksize would mean centralizing nodes as running a node would require way too many resources.
Only cancerous individuals like Mike Hearn with agendas and (im assuming) naive casuals like you out of good will, want bigger blocks.
They have also done a decent job into FUDing Blockstream with effectively solves the scaling problem, as it allows for worldwide instant transactions without third party trust and centralization (read how LN works before you drop some casual shit, LN is nothing but clever Bitcoin script usage).
With SigWit we will be able to deal with this situation until LN is operative around next year. While geniuses like Peter Wiulle and Greg Maxwell are workign on privacy and decentralization of nodes (which is the #1 priority of Bitcoin), Mike Hearn and friends are trying to turn Bitcoin into a mess which would run on big datacenters and heavily monitored with an anti-TOR policy.
And let's remember what Gavin said about his friend Mike:
These guys are running jokes in the community, they are obvious sellouts. XT was a massive failure, as no one runs nodes for that shit, and now they are pushing the next iteration, "Bitcoin Classic". I wonder what trojan horse will they push next. Meanwhile Bitcoin continues it's unstopable path to success.
>being too autistic to understand that while you fully comprehend the concept of Bitcoin, 100% of normies will never grasp anything past "inturnet monie lol" and so it will never take off
>implying any normie ever understands what TCP/IP protocol is
>implying not every normie uses it
Nocoiners on damage control fighting for straws.
You're drawing comparisons of two totally different systems of use, hence you belong to the autismus clan. No normie knows how komputah or internet works, but they manage, they don't need to.
When you're dealing with money though, you like to know what the fuck you're doing. I don't even know why I'm explaining how dumb your post was.
Look kiddo, one of us has actually developed cryptocurrencies and I'm guessing it's not you. Yes, there are solutions to resolve the problem, but they require a blockchain fork. If 95% of the network is controlled by centralized miners, how do you propose convincing them to enable the lightning network which would take away all of their transaction fees and threaten their massive investments into their mining datacenters? They'll simply reject all the blocks that contain LN transactions, and nobody will be able to say any differently because they don't have enough hashing power. Control over Bitcoin will continue be centralized in the hands of these miners as long as it's using SHA256.
Yeah im sure normies know about the banking system and how money is created. Get cancer.
>I developed cryptocurrencies
Get a load of this faggot. A 12 year old can create it's own coin. You have demonstrated to not be knowledgeable enough to debate any of this and I don't feel like educating morons right now. Flush yourself.
all normies do and my father use smartphones and computers, more then me infact.
>my fanboyism is more valuable than your knowledge
Literally what the fuck are you talking about? The problem with SHA is that it's too easy to get massive speedups on on specialized hardware. Ideally, Bitcoin should either use scrypt where the difficulty is in terms of the memory usage parameter, or some sort of Turing-complete proof of work where it would necessarily have to be run on a general purpose CPU.
How rude. You're still desperately trying to normalize and rationalize your silly meme coin. The banking system is simple enough for daily use, your money gets stored digitally in a bank, notes and coins representing what you have are available if you don't use card.
Your coins aren't even a currency, a normie wouldn't even understand what the fuck it is and how or why it doesn't work. Why can't you just face this fact? Why haven't normies all climbed onto the meme train after all this time? I thought it was as simple as the banking system!
Sell your stupid coins while you can you drooling faggot.
Your explanation of the banking system was rudimentary and inaccurate.
You literally don't have a clue what you're talking about. That much is obvious, and you added nothing of value to the discussion. Reading your post was a thoroughly unpleasant experience i do not wish to repeat.
A russian pyramid scheme seems to have begun operating using ethereum.
Which has lead to large volumes traded. Ethereums market cap could double or triple.
A similar schemeoperated by a russian member of parliament which raised over 5 billion dollars using bitcoin as the method of transaction contributed to bitcoins recent price rise.
I would say Ether is a buy.
Fucking hell its one dude making all these stupid ass posts. Whenever there is even a slight bit of news that might even be minutely bitcoin related, you have to come tell us all about it. Shut the fuck up already. We can use google too.
Except it does need Bitcoin and that's not how it works. You can't have a functional blockchain unless you have a network of generating new proofs of work, of whom none possess more than 50% of the network's proof generating capacity. To have that you need incentives for miners, and without the distribution of consesnus the immutability of the blockchain is necessarily compromised, making it worthless.
It's only filthy normies who don't understand how Bitcoin or blockchains work that are saying "le blockchain is le future."
Not in my opinion. Bitcoin has some serious issues and so far the dev team has been either unwilling or unable to resolve them. Bitcoin is more of a proof of concept cryptocurrency, and is more of a first attempt than anything else. There's lots of much more advanced altcoins floating around with smaller market caps and few users. Still, nobody has quite made the perfect coin yet. Even Ethereum, despite being the most advanced cryptocurrency to date, has its flaws.
The three main issues that need to be solved are
-finding a proof of work scheme that works best on regular computers and resists centralization
-scalability and low transaction confirmation time
-a way to respond to supply and demand shocks to stabilize the value of the cryptocurrency so it can actually be used to buy things
Bitcoin fails all of those miserably, to the point where the integrity of its blockchain has become potentially compromised because of centralization.
Yes it is, he hasn't barely done anything interesting with Bitcoin besides Lighthouse.
As explained before, Bitcoin is doing perfectly ok, it will scale and it will remain decentralized.
Just as people said TCP/IP wouldn't scale worldwide and never would do Vo/IP, the Bitcoin protocol will scale. Just as TCP/IP, protocols solidify and layers are built on top (LN).
ETH as a token will likely get deprecated by Rootstock as maintaining two blockchains is a chore, and PoS is objectively inferior to PoW, it will never be as secure (you keep saying it's vaporware just to cope, if that help you sleep at night).
All of this is nonsense, FUD mixed by people with agendas or naive/unniformed people.
Even Gavin had to intervene in the middle of Mike Hearn's FUD:
You are having a mental anneurysm to defend your point now. We both know you are wrong, as normies don't know what happens when you send money from A to B, they don't even know about the 180 days of chargeback from credit cards, they don't know about fractional reserve, they know nothing, they just click "send", just like they click "send" with Bitcoin, but the underlying system will be the objectively superior Bitcoin protocol as the 20th century shit we have now.
You are a walking joke.
Rootstock is a meme and is vapourware.
It's also a sidechain which is insecure and bitcoin would have to fork to accomodate it on the main chain and i just dont see how you're going to be able to persuade people to do that seeing whats been going on recently.
Rootstock is nothing. Also it is closed source development so there is no external audit and testing of the code in development. So far rootstock is pure vaporware.
You don't even understand how sidechains work, I doubt you understand Rootstock's whitepaper, you are just parroting whatever shit other idiots said here.
Yes, it is very likely that Bitcoin will support side chains within the next few years. (By my guess, not 2016 but maybe 2017.) Side chain support does not require a hard fork, it only requires a soft fork. As the sidechains paper explains (page 10, final paragraph):
>To use Bitcoin as the parent chain, an extension to script which can recognise and validate such SPV proofs would be required. At the very least, such proofs would need to be made compact enough to fit in a Bitcoin transaction. However, this is just a soft-forking change, without effect on transactions which do not use the new features.
Note that Bitcoin doesn't need a special counter to keep track of value sent to child chains, it already keeps track of every spendable balance. Sending bitcoins to a side chain will be essentially the same as sending money to any other bitcoin address, except that you'll need a special tool to create the transaction for you. Receiving bitcoins back from the side chain will also require the special tool, but that tool will just create a transaction that spends one or more of the transactions previously sent to the side chain. (Note that the tool will need to operate on both the side chain and the Bitcoin block chain to maintain consistency.)
^good luck with all that.
The problem with bitcoin is also the perception that it is somehow criminal used by mainly terrorists and pedophiles.
Ethereum has none of those issues, which is why it will be adopted widely by businesses.
I wish bitcoin all the best and i hope it lasts forever, but ethereum is better by far.
again, you need to read the sidechain paper. you're not even making sense. sidechains are a bridging mechanism to allow users to easily switch to the blockchain that inevitably becomes the main one. sidechains are not some mechanism that allows bitcoin to consume other blockchains and consume their value. AND they're not even ready to be supported like you said: 2017 _maybe_. meanwhile, ethereum will keep gaining developers and traction and will move at twice the pace because it lacks the governance issues that are completely fucking over bitcoin right now
rootstock is made by a bunch of incompetent mexicans and it won't go anywhere
wences casares is a clueless argentine suit. the fact that you think his opinion has any merit at all is a joke
Oh look positive news after they pumped the fucking alt coin, what a fucking coincidence LOL
That was a butthurt bitcoiner trying to stir stuff up. First time I've seen angry words in ethereum subreddit :(
We're not spammers and most of us are part of the bitcoin community too.
>actual quoting of the paper which proved you wrong
>still not understanding the fundamentals of block size and sidechains
>shilling ETH in a wrong context
>resorting to racism as severe damage control
You got BTFO, why are you still in this thread? lol ...
>bitcoin is also the perception that it is somehow criminal used by mainly terrorists and pedophiles
So just like the internet when it was some new thing that people didn't understood, or just any technology that was a success later on
Geez, do I have to explain why ETH will never replace what BTC does because it is turing complete, which is in fact a big disadvantage to be a currency/store of value?
OTOH, BTC can do what ETH can do as it can run the same functions as a sidechain, but ETH can never "switch off" his TC as it is in-built in the system. Non-TCness is a BTC feature, which is why it's ideal that it stays isolated from TC stuff in a sidechain, so no point in yet another token to deal with.
the only person consistently looking like an idiot is you m8.
from the same paper:
>An additional benefit to this infrastructure is that making changes to Bitcoin itself becomes
much less pressing: rather than orchestrating a fork which all parties need to agree on and implement in tandem, a new “changed Bitcoin” could be created as a sidechain. If, in the medium term, there were wide agreement that the new system was an improvement, it may end up seeing significantly more use than Bitcoin. As there are no changes to parent chain consensus rules, everyone can switch in their own time without any of the risks associated with consensus failure. Then, in the longer term, the success of the changes in the sidechain would provide the needed confidence to change the parent chain, if and when it is deemed necessary to do so.
B T F O
you mean that shitty copypasta which actually doesn't show why a TC blockchain technology can't be used as a currency/store of value?
If anything, it has INTRINSIC VALUE and is a better store of value because Ether is used for computation on the network. Buttcoin is just a token that has value because people think it does.
TC is a feature that makes it better than buttcoin without any drawbacks. Keep coping
>TC is a feature that makes it better than buttcoin without any drawbacks
Jesus christ, this pretty much proves you are too dumb to read anything technical, but i'll try one last time for you. You can either deal or cope.
TC(ness) is not required for BTC and would very likely lead to unforeseen problems and instability (mostly related to the halting problem). Money isn't a computer.
They address halting by fee paying for interpreter cycles. When the fee runs out the contract is stopped.
But there are obviously interpreter escape dangers, which are harder to contain for a stateful, looping, low level (byte code like) language. Look at the history of java sandbox escapes. People say that was mostly due to call outs to complex native library have to look through the (large!) CVE database on JVM to figure out the stats. Also the pressure may have been lower. If you get real money under it all kinds of resources and unrevealed 0-days can leak out of the woodwork and create the new target for grey and black hats some of whom are world class at this stuff. Or even from national security network intrusion insiders with Snowden-level access or the people developing and selling grey market 0-day to the intelligence community etc. Those people are fallible humans too - they may succum to the financial motive, or the people who developed and sold them the 0-days may find a new monetization model, or second use for them (they cant "forget" them after sale).
There have also been VM escapes from full hw abstraction vms (i mean not just API sandbox light linux-in-linux virtuozzo but actual whole OS in the container).
And finally BTC scripting is functional, stateless and non-looping (non TC in fact also) for a reason. BTC doesnt (and I think its intentional) have even extrospection. There are grey-goo outcomes if you are not careful with even something as constrained as an extrospection op code to existing language. There will be whole classes of not yet imagined grey goo opportunities lurking in a full TC language. You cant easily systematically defend against whole classes of such issues without intentional constrained language.
Now please leave, your are LOST.
this is your shitty copypasta coping mechanism. I've read it before and it's just a bunch of FUD. ethereum has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars auditing geth and the EVM with security experts
Look, buddy. A bitcoin core dev thinks bitcoin is shit and is actively looking into Ethereum. You'll eventually join us. Just promise me that you'll stop being such an asshat when you do and humble the fuck up
>So, how long until Bitcoin finally chokes on the fact that it needs a constant influx of outside money just to survive?
Yeah, as if there aren't trillions of memedebt out there that will keep soaking in the Bitcoin ecosystem across the next decades.
Listen, it's not my fault that you are applying severe damage control for your ETH bagholder situation, but you are starting to sound like an 8 year old that gets told now.
Deal with the facts or keep coping, you are not on my level, signing out. Leave your copes below.
>its too hard
>it'll never work
>its too dangerous
You sound like edison arguing against Alternating Current