Happy Winter Solstice!

A fee market that prices in the increase in the blocksize vs transaction fees is critical if a POW crypto - currency is to have global widespread use. So it does make a lot of sense for Bitcoin to be discussing fee markets. Monero already has a fee market solution in place; however the Monero solution cannot be implemented in Bitcoin since it is predicated on a tail emission. Furthermore none of the other major alt coins have a solution to this issue. The best partial solution is Dodgecoin since it also has a tail emission. Bytecoin's "solution" of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is a prescription for disaster since once the emission runs out or becomes minimal there is no way to secure the network. This by the way is what scares many of the the small block crowd including many of the core developers in Bitcoin into not increasing the maximum block size.

At this point in time there is scant awareness of this critical issue in Bitcoin, and the fact the Monero has a working solution right now, within the Monero community let alone outside of it.

If there is any confusion around the hardfork, read this -> https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3n06qw/there_seems_to_be_some_confusion_around_the/

Regarding polo and liquidity. It is a bit of both. First, back in the day the max withdrawal limit was the same for everyone. In other words, everyone could withdraw an unlimited (might have been 25k, not entirely sure about that) amount. Thus, it was fairly easy to get out your money quickly. With the KYC in place, polo literally needs to know everything about you before you have this 25k limit. Name and country will only give you a limit of 2k, which is quite small if you want to provide liquidity. Even the 7k limit, that you get after filling in some additional data, such as address if I recall correctly, is quite small if you want to provide liquidity. Certainly with the current BTC prices. At last, providing KYC data to companies is a huge turn off for people involved with cryptocurrency. It isn't necessarily that they are warry of providing the data itself. Just that they are warry of the possibility that their data might leak after a hack. Like I said before, polo literally needs to know everything from you to raise your limit to 25k (including photos if I recall correctly). If this data gets leaked somehow, that's a huge personal risk (think of identity theft, which is certainly no joke).

Precisely. They have been hacked before (to their credit made customers good again), but you can't make good something like theft of ID. ID theft coupled with the knowledge of how many XMR/BTC you have (and note that many of us speculate they will be worth much more in the future) is surely not a winning proposition.

In case anyone missed it:

Monero-nodejs v1.0.1: A Node.js wallet manager for interacting with Monero's simplewallet over JSON-RPC

https://github.com/PsychicCat/monero-nodejs

Pumpers not welcomed here.

Market makers certainly don't feel the need to talk here like you do.

...as if you know what market makers are/do..

I do not have ITunes and I am proud of not having iTunes.

I listened to the missive and my understanding is that once this is completed a Monero node would by default connect to both the I2P and IP networks (I2P/IP bridged) and send transactions over I2P if I2P was available. In this default configuration it would act as an I2P/IP bridge for Monero traffic only. The operator of the node could choose to use the Monero software to bridge other types of traffic between I2P and IP. If the IP traffic is routed over TOR socks then the bridge(s) would be between I2P and TOR socks. Of course the node could also be configured as I2P only or IP (TOR socks) only.