@criptoluis
5239 stacked

I don't think centralization is always a bad thing. I don't see a problem with it as long there are incentives to keep Bitcoin and Lightning network safe. The best way to decentralize is running nodes, offer niche services and being vocal about what you like about Bitcoin. You might not be correct, but you'll make a case for the people to decide by themselves...

Merchants accept both bolivars, mostly electronic, and USD dollars. The payment was confirmed by a receipt I generate and SMS received by the bus driver, sent by his bank.

Thank you! I hope more spanish speaking users can joun Stacker News

Hi! It's mainly in spanish, but english is not a limitation.

https://www.criptonoticias.com/author/luis-esparragoza/

Twitter: twitter.com/criptoluis

This is surprising. Certainly, exchanges wouldn't have the incentive to pay for fees even in low congestion moments. This could be done with a simple modification on their terms and services and leave this responsability to their clients. Definitely, in the long term, Bitcoin is destined to base its security on user transaction fees.

Thank you for your comment!

Haha! Adam Back said something similar but I think they are working on some other kind of covenants. Also, there's a chance for Litecoin to implement OP_CTV too and see how it works, as they did with SegWit.

Agree!

Just one thing: Bitcoin Core has centralized Bitcoin protocol implementation. That's a good thing as having many different implementations can be a serious challenge in regards of compatibility between them.

That said, I like core work and I respect their decisions to not include other proposals or developments in their code, but i definitely agree they should have better communication outside their bubble.

Also, I've read some proposals on bitcoin dev mailing list about creating new consensus mechanisms besides voting with your node. I will look forward on what this whole debate can generate in the future. Thank you for your comment!

GENISIS