Traditional Argentinian music: Soledad or Los Chalchaleros

Traditional Brazilian music: Chico Buarque or Caetano Veloso

Traditional Brazilian music from the northeast: Luiz Gonzaga

Argentinian Rock from the 60/70: Sui Generis or Pedro y Pablo

Brazilian Rock from the 60/70: Cazuza or Raul Seixas

Argentinian contemporary music: Bersuit Vergarabat

Contemporary Brazilian Rock (there are tons of metal bands from Brazil, like Angra, Sepultura, Shaman, etc, but I want to point out one in specific): Matanza (although I would describe them more as a hardcore us country style than rock, they sing mostly in Portuguese so it has a very unique style)

Comedy music is a great view into a society, so as a bonus:

Argentinian homemade instrument band: Les Luthiers (this one is a YouTube link because realistically you want to see these guys, not just hear them)

Brazilian Metal joke band: Massacration

First of all, this discussion doesn't matter, Bitcoin will never regain the popularity it could have had if it had increased the block size back in 2017 when it became unusable, I remember buying stuff with Bitcoin, I remember mining and using that money to buy games on steam, paying for my electricity bill, etc, those days are gone and won't come back. After all of the backlash Valve got from the unusability of Bitcoin, they'll never reenable that, Bitcoin fucked all of crypto adoption back then and I don't think the market will ever forget (if they would they would have migrated to another coin already).

$1 which is what you say you pay is too much. Imagine if every time you used your card $1 extra was charged, you would never use that as a currency. The problem is that you're not thinking on Bitcoin as a currency, and I don't blame you, that hasn't been the vision for Bitcoin in a long while, but originally that was the goal.

You keep saying that BCH is an attempt at centralization, would you care to explain how that would work? Imagine if back when BCH hard fork happened all of the miners had sided with it (they had the option and choose not to), how would that be more centralized? You do know you can mine BCH with any miner, right? Just like BTC you don't need to use Bitcoin-core, the protocol is open source and there are plenty of implementations.

As for the botting attacks I was there when they supposedly happened, I was banned from /r/Bitcoin for saying the same thing I'm telling you now, we weren't bots, that was the excuse the mods there used to ban everyone who disagreed with keeping blocks small. I'm not going to put my hand in the fire for him, I don't know the guy and for all I care he can go fuck himself, but not everyone who was accused of being a bot was one, lots of us were just people saying "don't you see how not increasing the block is harming Bitcoin? Don't you see the hardware price has decreased dramatically since the 1MB block size was introduced? Don't you see companies are jumping ship and we are losing all of the momentum?" It sounds like bots because lots of people were pointing out the same stuff, but the thing is that we were pointing out things like we were seeing them in the real world. That's when /r/BTC started gaining popularity, because being banned from /r/Bitcoin was almost a rite of passage, and curiously on /r/BTC no one was banned for showing either side of the opinion, people might get downvoted but that's just the system working, banning people is censorship and it's a clear cut way of showing you've ran out of arguments and are just looking to create a bubble where everyone agrees with you.

Nope, the time is gone. Hard forks are not risky at all, Bitcoin has had several in the past, no one made a fuzz about them back then. Soft forks are just as dangerous, and BTC has had several. The difference between a soft and a hard fork is that the hard fork is backwards compatible, whereas the soft fork is forward compatible, both of them the miners are forced to migrate or they will be throwing away money.

You are correct, there is no demand or usage for either of the Bitcoin's anymore z there was back then, there isn't now. BCH is scaled much, much higher than BTC, so if adoption had migrated they would have been prepared. And the important thing is that no one was saying we don't need side chains, it was more of "we need the main chain to be usable NOW, we can scale indefinitely later, but we need to fix this NOW or Bitcoin adoption will be irreparably gone", unfortunately it was too little too late, and companies had already jumped ship and weren't going to risk it back.

Yes and no. Historically Bitcoin had no limits on transactions, but someone realized a while back that because transactions were really cheap rich people could flood the network with transactions and that would prevent legitimate people from using the network. Therefore a limit on the size of a block was imposed, which in turn meant that Bitcoin could only process 7 transactions per second in average.

At the time that was great, if someone tried to attack the network they would quickly run out of space in the block and people wanting to do transactions had only to pay a little bit more to ensure their transactions got approved, which in turn made this attack more expensive and eventually useless.

However in 2017 Bitcoin gained popularity, and this caused an issue, actual users were hitting that barrier of 7 transactions per second among themselves, and so users began competing with each other for space on the chain. And when that happens your coffee or VPS payment is going to get a much lower fee than what someone trading hundreds or thousands of dollars can afford. So essentially Bitcoin became only usable for large trading (you needed to pay $50 for a transaction at the time).

Since that became prohibitive for most users, people stopped using it, and because of long confirmation times for people who still tried to use it stores stopped accepting it (some people don't know this, but Steam and Microsoft used to accept Bitcoin payments).

You might think the solution is simple, just increase the limit like the guy who imposed it originally said it should be done, but that created a shit storm of people claiming that that would bring all hell on earth, and the proper solution was to build a secondary chain on top of Bitcoin so you only needed to pay the high prices once (this is what the other reply to my comment is mentioning). The problem is that for miners small blocks with higher transactions fees are waaaay more profitable, so they sided up with the fuck the user mentality (and some even say that they paid people to promote that solution).

So long story short Bitcoin is not currently usable for day-to-day purchases. Transaction prices fluctuate a lot, currently it's "cheap" at $1.5 per transaction, but it regularly goes to 10/20 and even got to over 100 this year. So it's no longer a currency, since no one would pay those prices to use it as currency. Bitcoin is now more of an investment than cash, it's closer to gold in that you could use it as cash but it's inconvenient and you'll end up losing money.

The lighting network is bound to fail because it suffers from the same problem Bitcoin is solving, i.e. it only works in centralized hubs. Think about how a new user would come to Bitcoin if the LN was in full effect, they would need to spend hundreds to open a channel to a centralized hub, the more centralized the better so it can connect to more places, so they can ensure they have the funds and the connectivity to use the network, because channels can't be increased, if he ever needs more funds than what he has he will need to close the channel and open a new one, and because channels might be used by third parties when routing through the network if he spends double that amount to create two channels to two centralized hubs he risks having their funds go from one channel to the other and having to go the long route for his own transactions.

Also the idea that running a node is more expensive because of larger blocks is mostly nonsense, for starters the only nodes that matter are mining nodes, even if your validating node finds an issue it has no power to do anything about it. Secondly there is such a thing as pruning old blocks to reclaim space. Third the whole point of Bitcoin is that you don't need to validate transactions because mining nodes have incentive to stay honest, and the regulators are other mining nodes who stand to gain from others dishonesty by mining the same block they did, and again, mining nodes require lots of hardware, some extra HDD for old data is cheap in comparison. Fourth, why don't you feel the need to validate the LN? Why just validate the on-chain stuff but trust the LN? Surely you'll want your validator Node to process all of the LN transactions to ensure they're valid, no? Or do you trust that the LN works? And if you do why not trust that the technology the LN is built on top of also works?. Not to mention that even in poor countries the cost of a hard drive that can hold years of data is lower than a couple of transactions on the main Bitcoin network during peak times, and a lot cheaper than opening one channel on the LN that's worth using, for example earlier this year the average transaction fee peaked at $123 https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee so of someone wanted to make a transaction that day on the Bitcoin network they would need to spend $123 extra, that is enough to get a used 8TB HDD which should hold all of the BCH Blockchain just with the cost of a single transaction.

Long story short:

• LN has design flaws and doesn't work
• Even if LN worked, on-chain transactions are better, less limited and more secure
• Even if those design flaws could be addressed, the main chain will still become unusable due to high cost of entry unless blocks get increased
• If blocks never get increased, popularity will be the death of Bitcoin like it happened in 2017, if someone needs to throw away hundreds of dollars just to get into the network, they'll never do it. And because RBF people that don't pay whatever the current tx fee is can get scammed.
• Validator nodes serve no purpose
• Even if they did running a validator Node on BCH is cheaper than using BTC
• Even if validator nodes made some difference then the LN would also need one and then the amount of transactions there would increase the need of a node to higher than what would be needed for BCH (since besides regular transactions you would also need to validate on and off channel transactions).

Because Bitcoin was supposed to be a decentralized peer-to-peer cash solution, which is impossible with Bitcoin with the scalability issues it has currently.

Spiritually Bitcoin's original idea still lives on Bitcoin Cash. But it doesn't have the popularity nor the name brand to be able to make the huge impact that Bitcoin could have made if it was usable by end users when it gained popularity.

Twinings mostly

But also as a general rule places don't let you spend over 30% of your income in rent, 60K that you mentioned for a couple is £4186 per month, so the maximum rent of that hypothetical person is £1256. Which wouldn't also allow you to rent a house like the one you showed, so it's pointless. The house where a couple that earns 60k lives can absolutely be bought for close to 1 million (if not less). Whoever is living in a 4 bedroom house like the one you pointed out earns a lot more than 60k and so they can finance the rest.

That's still a 50% down payment on that house, your mortgage payments will be a lot less than your rent. So you'll have a place of your own and more money every month, plus be investing in your capital instead of pissing money away. If that's not life changing for you then nothing is.

I have slack in it, because I don't like walking around with two phones, but I have it configured to stop notifying after hours. Also worth noting that I do have a phone from the company, it's just that I find it cumbersome to walk around with two phones.

I feel people still don't understand how much a billion is. One Million dollars would still be life changing for most people here, but consider that 1 million seconds ago was 11 days ago, 1 Billion seconds ago was 31 years ago.

To put it in another perspective, a very bad investment would yield you 0.1% monthly. This means that if a billionaire was to invest money the worst way possible, he would have to spend over 1 Million dollars per month to ever decrease his fortune.

If you had an infinite money machine, that as long as you don't spend more than a million per month it just keeps on growing, would you ever work? Yeah, thought so, billionaires are the same, they might have hobbies, and those hobbies might be something others consider work, but they're not working.

I personally believe that if a person ever gets 1 Billion dollars he should receive a letter congratulating them for winning capitalism, and informing them that any cent above 1 Billion will be taxed at 99.9999% (including investments).

While I agree it's infuriating the use of -punk for non-rebellious things, there were several other -punks before 2000s. The main one that comes to mind is Gothic-punk, which has been used in Vampire the masquerade since 91 to express the game's gothic and rebellious influences.

Thanks, I'm checking that out, but can't find any "add services" button. Alsp someone mentioned IONOS, which is local to me and doesn't seem to have bandwidth limits... I was trying to find the poop and they require lots of personal info just to get the account setup, still a bit torn there.

That would be awesome, currently it's 500GB for their cheaper option which starts at 23/year. I didn't find an option to increase the bandwidth before completing the order. Also it needs to be deployed in NY (which would be possibly slow for me in Europe). Finally their isos are somewhat old, the latest Ubuntu they have is 20.04 (which has an EoL next year).

All that being said, 23/year is very cheap for a VPS, and for people in the US that use less than 500GB/month that's the best deal I've ever seen.

Do you have an alternative to cloudflare tunnels? I'd love to hear it, because I'm also not really happy about relying on them either, but tailscale only works up to an extent because not all devices can connect to it and it's a pain in the ass to get random family members to connect to it as well.

Should we call it X/GNU/Linux as to not downplay the work the people at Xorg put in? Also possibly Systemd/X/GNU/Linux, how about Plasma/Systemd/X/GNU/Linux, and since nowadays browsers do most of the tasks I think it's only fair Firefox/Plasma/Systemd/X/GNU/Linux, or maybe Chromium/GNOME/Dinit/Wayland/Musl/Linux, you know what these two have in common? Just the Kernel, but you would say they're both the same OS.

I'm not saying GNU is not great nor am I saying that they didn't contributed or that they're worthless. But GNU is not special, X, Systemd, and other such components are just as essentials to Linux as GNU, and no one claims they should be added to the name of the OS.

People downvoting you have never met Stallman face to face.

Long story short, Fedora is RedHat, RedHat is mostly aimed at companies, so most random users haven't encountered it. I used Fedora for a few months, a Friend of mine was very passionate about it, I personally didn't find anything special about it and disliked rpm at the time, so I ended up switching back to Mint (I think it's what I was using at the time).

So, long story short, people are not recommending it because they're not using it, but I know a few people who use it and swear by it, so it looks like you're on the road to join their club, and don't let anyone tell you you should be using any other distro, as long as you find something that works for you, that's what matters.

That being said have you tried Kubuntu? I feel lots of what you had issues with could be the old GNOME vs KDE argument.

The thing is that this is not something that happens, I remember when I first started using Linux, I got lots of weird problems like that, eventually they stopped happening, and for a while I thought Linux had gotten way better, until one day I was going through some backups and I found a xorg.file with a typo, and then I had the revelation that I had been breaking random stuff without realizing it.

You mentioned that the monitor doesn't work on a fresh Ubuntu install, but does it work on the live iso? You also mentioned having to run several commands and tweaks after installation on Ubuntu but not on Fedora, did the monitor work before those tweaks or could it be that one of those caused it?

I know such errors can be frustrating, and if you're happy with Fedora there's no reason to look back. BTW this is not a "you're using your system wrong", but you might be causing the issue without realizing it, I know I was when I was in your shoes, and probably would be angry at people telling me that because I was sure I hadn't done anything.

What were you using the terminal for that now you don't need it? I personally prefer KDE to GNOME as well, and I think lots of it can be related to that and not the distro itself.

Curiously that's not as accurate as you might think. Different systems use memory differently, even just between different Ubuntu flavors or customizations. 1-2 crashes a week is not normal, unless it was consistently happening when you did something specific. Also, what exactly do you mean by crashing? Did you get a black screen with some error or the computer would just freeze or reboot?

That being said I don't think this is likely to be a hardware issue. One thing that comes to mind is maybe swap, did you had swap on Ubuntu and do you have swap on Fedora now? If Linux runs out of memory it freezes, having swap prevents it from doing so, so if you have low enough memory it's possible that it would get filled up and freeze your system without swap (Windows has the equivalent by default)