|
The subject on the OP is pretty misledaing. But I can't figure out from the cnbc article - are they just referring merchants to Bitpay, or are they partnering with Bitpay to provide an integrated fiat/credit/bitcoin payment solution to merchants?
|
|
|
|
I had not even heard of DuckDuckGo. Probably because DuckDuckGo implemented this feature and google did not want to lose the first movers (I was about to make DuckDuckGo my default searchengine)
I doubt Google sees DDG as much of a competitor, or really cares if DDG implements a feature before them. |
|
|
|
Online retailers accepting bitcoins are just exploiting a self-publicising niche market. It generates some headline and gets a few $'00,000 through the tills that might have gone elsewhere or more likely not spent. Theres not real economic growth as those BTC just go straight back into the currency exchange market.
Any market use for bitcoins is positive. And when the retailer finds that its supplier also accepts bitcoin, it can cut one more step out of the picture. |
|
|
|
I can't google anything about BoA and iachs. Among the bigger USD exchanges, I've found that CampBX doesn't require KYC for smaller-sized accounts and with trading caps. And they provide ACH withdrawal for just $2. For $100 transactions, this amounts to a fee of 2.55% including the trading commission. Your suggestion of finding a broker sounds like selling btc via a reputable person on localbitcoins? Is that likely to be cheaper? |
|
|
|
|
Clearly, the current bitcoin isn't suitable for micro transactions. I think the network just can't handle the transaction volume, and having fees is one way of discouraging dust transactions.
The question is, should it? And if so, why not fix it?
|
|
|
|
I have only one currently, I can't grasp the idea of having hundreds of addresses.. Since I use blockchain. Can anyone clarify why you need 100s, and is it better to use an actual program then a site like blockchain?
Sounds worthy. But, how do you change the default behavior of the blockchain.info wallet, and how do you manage key backup if each transaction creates a new set of keys?
blockchain.info is very difficult to use in a privacy protecting way because you have to change your behavior. You have to tell it to create a new address each time you want someone to sent you BTC (not too bad). You can use the shared send advanced function (costs a bit more BUT it will automatically generate a new change address for every send and you will be mixing your transaction in with a lot of other transactions and this is great for privacy). You can generate your own change addressed by hand and set up your transactions to have good privacy behavior in the advanced send tab but you have to do this all by hand. I really love the blockchain.info wallet and I use it whenever I want to to a coinjoin (shared send) transaction but you have to be very careful how you use it. Then, here it the real problem with that wallet: you have to remember to back up the wallet pretty much after every transaction. I have mine set to send me an email containing my encrypted wallet after every new keypair is created. Painful. And because I am using the email system it is not that secure, so I only use it to hold a minimum amount of BTC. That is why I highly recommend deterministic wallets. Get yourself a deterministic wallet and you will never look back. All you have to do is keep the seed safe and secure and then you never have to make another backup again(!) because every receive address and every change address is determined and can be recovered from that single seed. Very cool. So, you back up the seed on paper, make a few copies, laminate them, keep one in a safe hidden location in your house, another in an offsite safe location, etc. You can even be very clever and store half the seed one place and the other half at a different location. Of the deterministic wallets the Trezor hardware wallet is probably the safest but it costs $120 for the device. My favorite Android deterministic wallet is "Wallet32". There are others to choose from just look around for them or I will get a list together and post it if I get time. Thanks for the very informative post. Trezor looks great, but it would not be practical to carry a giant device around, and it doesn't seem to support the smartphone anyway. Which still means partitioning funds into a smaller mobile wallet. Would be great to hear your thoughts on the other wallets, when you have the time. |
|
|
|
Posts: 566
Address: 1AahzKNU7NgNJyQPx7BJDLSiFRhgSA2P7c
The Hero Member is full.Please be waiting for the next round. So you chose to just skip me? Seems like the logical thing to do would have been to add me to the list, but just notify me that as you already had 10 Hero+ and that I would be counted as a full... You would prefer to have more Hero Members... right? Hence why you pay them more? So why would you skip over one. I will leave my signature like this, it is to my benefit to do so, but I question your decision making in skipping me, and picking lower people over me. Sorry , my expression is not accurate which make you misunderstood. 'The Hero Member is full' means the Hero & Senior is enough.So the left solts only for Full Member. Not sure if you misunderstood aahzmundus. He is basically saying that he is willing to be paid at the full member rate. |
|
|
|
|
Someone asked me some questions via pm. So I thought I'd just put it out here.
I'm probably going to fund my account $100 at a time. Less if it's super convenient and low overheads to do so.
I'm actually thinking that since this is for me to send money to myself, selling btc at a bitcoin exchange and transferring to my bank account should have the lowest fees and lowest risk. Just need to know if this can be done with minimal KYC.
|
|
|
|
|
So, I'm outside the USA, and I would like to top up my bank account in the USA. How may I do so without incurring exorbitant charges?
I do not currently have a relationship with the USA exchanges so I probably wouldn't be able to meet their KYC requirements??
|
|
|
|
So, I only currently have a few addresses. Everyone should use a different address for every single receive transaction and every change address should be different. So the answer for the average user should be:
1) 50-100
2) thousands and thousands
Any other answer is bad for the long term viability of Bitcoin, and should be highly discouraged.
If you care about Bitcoin please switch to a wallet which will naturally lead to the correct user behavior and away from wallets that do not.
Good: bitcoin-qt
Better: deterministic wallets (Trezor, wallet32, etc.)
Very bad: blockchain.info using its default behavior
Also, all donation addresses should be handing out a new address to each visitor and all periodic payments should use deterministic key pair generation. Any use of a static address, whether vanity or not, should not be done and should be hightly discouraged by the entire user base (don't use them, ask for a different address every time when making a payment).
Reason is in my signature.
Sounds worthy. But, how do you change the default behavior of the blockchain.info wallet, and how do you manage key backup if each transaction creates a new set of keys? |
|
|
|
But Bitcoin is a direct competitior to Paypal, infact it could have the potential to severly damage it once people see how cheap and safe it is to send bitcoins.
Some of the properties (irreversible) that we like might make Bitcoin risky for transactions with random merchants on the Internet. What if Paypal used bitcoin as a replacement for credit cards, and with the same fees as funding by a bank account? |
|
|
|
|
I don't like the idea.
As long as the exchange is not large enough to move the market, and bitcoins and fiat can flow freely in and out of the exchange, would it be profitable for the exchange to create imaginary buy/sell pressure?
|
|
|
|
I'm really worried that the current BTC prices will affect the profitability of the whole mining operation. Sure, we'll mine the same amount of coins and possibly even more if the competition goes down. But, as some people already pointed out, AM will have to pay for electricity and other expenses. And with the price tanking this severely, I think the whole mining operation may become too unprofitable.
For centralised industrial mining operations (like Bitfury, megabigpower?) where the block rewards are converted to Fiat as soon as practical, lower bitcoin prices discourages further investment. This is a good thing, in my view. If the centralised industrial mining operation only converts to fiat what is necessary to pay for overheads, and holds the rest because they are long on bitcoin, they don't depress the value of bitcoin and I'm somewhat neutral about them. As for individuals like you and I who are considering exposure to the mining sector, we're probably long-term bullish on bitcoin and would plan to hold most of it. So the decision to mine is essentially a bet that we will reap more in mining over time than if we simply bought and held bitcoins. In this case, I don't think the current bitcoin price is a big factor. |
|
|
|
I thought this topic was meant to have higher signal to noise ratio. I'd encourage ABI to cull the non-essential posts (including this one), and notlambchop can go post his opinions in the announcement thread or something. |
|
|
|
Welcome to the CryptX asset purchaser club!
Not me. I sold out before the IPO and spent quite a bit of time in May preparing figures and spreadsheets to let people know what they were getting themselves into. Unfortunately, everyone threw caution to the winds when cryptx announced that hewould purchase any unsold portion of the IPO batch one. And the worst part was that they didn't make cryptx put his own money into the sinking ship. |
|
|
|
What is going on with this company? The shares are hemorrhaging value and the dividends are getting smaller and smaller. Have they published any statements? For that matter have they ever published anything confirming them to be an actual mine? I think I may have learned a costly lesson about scammers.
Unfortunately, this isn't really even a scam. If you'd just put in the right numbers, the IPO actually said in not so many words that this was going to happen. |
|
|
|
Using a password manager like Lastpass or something similar makes it easy to securely retrieve your passwords no matter where you are. And it can be made even more secure with one-time passwords you can use when you don't trust the computer you're at. Just some advice if you haven't been told about password manager services.
You cannot use a computer securely if you don't trust it. |
|
|
|
That means the price of BE200 chip is only 1.34$.
AM is selling BE200 at cost. Or Rockminer will join AM's franchising farm?
If this were correct, then we are making $1.14 per chip. FC said per chip cost was <$0.20... ...per Gh/s. That was based on simulations and doesn't actually tell us how much the chips cost though. The actual cost of chips has not been made available to us. Exactly. Since each chip is nominally 10GH/s, the cost price is less than $2 per chip. How much less, nobody knows.. Is there anyone with experience in chip fabrication at 40mm node size who can hazard a guess as to how much 60PH of wafers would cost (at 10GH/s per chip and 40TH/s per wafer based on Jutarul) around Apr-May? And, Rockminer paid $1.34 per chip (or $0.134 per GH/s) in their latest order of 120k chips. I wonder why they didn't need to buy power supplies with this second order. Perhaps this purchase really is for a centralised (franchise?) farm, so they will supply DC power from a big power supply, instead of having small dinky power supplies? Or perhaps they have sufficient power supplies and other materials from their first order. |
|
|
|
friedcat was already unable to deploy chips after he maxed out his DC in china with Gen 1.
The fabled immersive DC was built and never used. Umm. I don't think friedcat was unable to deploy chips; rather the experience of self-mining vs quick wins of selling Gen 1 chips tilted the strategy towards selling future chips. Maybe he should have kept some flexibility, especially when Gen 2 failed and it became clear that Gen 3 was coming a bit late to the party. The immersion DC was populated with Gen1 chips, up to the point where Gen 1 became unprofitable. I dont see AM climbing out from under the thumb of Bitfury+GHash.io who seem to keep an insane amount of hashing power in reserve so they can squash all profitibility of any other mining company by switching them on as the other companies (ie AM) deploy.
Why do you would think that? If they had all that hash power and deployment opportunities available, they could deter R&D investments by other asic manufacturers, capture a larger share of the mining rewards, and start up an anonymous alternate pool (taking the 50% heat off ghash.io), |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
