Can I count on you guys if some day I got lucky and found one of Satoshi's private keys with 50 Bitcoins in it, can I then send them to you even though they are being monitored and are known to every body, can I make sure that you wont sell me to the CIA thinking that the real Satoshi is trying to mix some coins? because I don't want to end up dead or in a dungeon.lol
Satoshi's keys are as secure as any other Bitcoin private keys, which is very close to 100% secure. It would only be possible many years from now when machines have developed far enough to do it, and by that point Bitcoin would either have: -Changed the code to make this impossible, so it was never unsafe; or -Died. So Satoshi's keys are safe in that if they were ever not safe, Bitcoin would be worthless and mixing would be pointless.
Besides, that's called "theft". |
|
|
|
There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.
it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose. Christ, this is boring. At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda". I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy. Chill. Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain with bigger blocks. Go read early satoshi writings, or my letter to the miners. It's all there. This looks like an argument of your own rather than a reference proving that the "community has been asking for big blocks for years". It's not there, you've argued that people used to agree with a large block size a long time ago, which is true, but you've provided no recent evidence about "the community". Or does the "community" only consist of people you like? If you don't believe me, that's fine, but there's nothing else to explain.
There is. All you need to do is answer what I actually said instead of some hypothetical statement. There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.
Can you show that it holds true today? |
|
|
|
I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?
It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike. People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance. A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be? They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982. If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above. The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around. You are completely disregarding effects of psychology, friend. Mutually assured destruction. If you're the sort of person to shoot some innocent person, you're probably not in the best mental state. The "normal" laws of psychology don't always apply there. There are other factors as well, such as: -The fact that people relaxing at home don't tend to be holding guns so an attacker there can shoot properly; -The fact that in some particular events, such as in the Ariana Grande concert in the UK, it would be suspicious for people to bring in guns due to the fact that it would be uncomfortable for them to do so; -The fact that people in an unstable mental state are very likely to obtain guns in the US, whereas in the London bridge attack in the UK the attackers didn't even have guns. "Mutually assured destruction" can work between nations sometimes, but individuals are much more complex than that. |
|
|
|
There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.
it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose. Christ, this is boring. At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda". I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy. Chill. Bitcoin is supposed to empower the users by giving them sovereignty and being resistant to change.
A fork doesn't become an altcoin because of this. It just becomes something unfavourable which Bitcoin has become. If Bitcoin needs to be resistant to change, would UASF be an altcoin too? Or is your view based around the fact that BITMAIN is dictating this UAHF? IMO at this point any fork would be a few private companies dictating the decision, just a few more in UASF's case than in UAHF. Anyhow, this is not the place for this discussion. Either way, the rating is not "political" and is well deserved. The user even continued to spread false information.
Got it, I'd better leave the thread now. It's not going anywhere so jonald should probably lock it. |
|
|
|
The below article looks at living off of bitcoin for one week in NYC, and found that prices were 40% higher! The reason given is volatility, but that would mean that she bought the bitcoin in advance and the price dropped. I am wondering, how much of these prices are due to that, as it seems like the main factors would be the cost of purchasing it (fees) from whatever site she is using, and transaction fees.
Can anyone estimate what the cost would be for these 2, especially given everyday purchases (eg, restaurants)? Eg, for a $9 meal, how much would that be increased due to transaction costs?
Recommended fees are currently about 360 satoshi/byte, or 81,360 satoshi. If you were paying at a restaurant or for something else minor, you'd want to pay the recommended fee because you need the transaction to be confirmed in the next block. Zero confirmation transactions wouldn't be accepted in anywhere but the most amateurish places. If they bought it on an exchange just before starting the week (which I assume they did since they pointed out the loss that volatility caused), they would have only had one input to their transactions so it would have been the median size of 226 satoshi. So the transaction cost would typically be $1.84 as of this post. |
|
|
|
@quickseller, good idea (blazed) -- i will get around to that.
You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work. more important things are going on today  Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them. a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior. right? Luke Jr is a developer, not a miner. I fail to see why anyone should support a single private company creating a new chain. If they want to "ignore short-term economic incentives" to mine on their new chain, they will end up with >51% hashrate and the chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from BITMAIN. This is blindingly obvious, because most pools will not ignore economic incentives. Community has been asking for big blocks for years I question this. I don't think there's strong enough evidence to prove that the community supports one side or another (feel free to try and prove me wrong - the only resources I have so far are F2Pool and ViaBTC's polls). There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today. and how bitcon was always supposed to scale back to the original whitepaper. Honesty requires accounting for that context and not making it sound like a 'private company is just creating a new chain'.
I think honesty requires accounting for whether this is genuinely a community movement or a private company's power grab. The origin of UAHF is BITMAIN's blog post - is that really not a problem to you? Other pools already signaling for big blocks will undoubtedly mine the big block chain.
By this logic, all pools signalling for SegWit will mine the UASF chain, and I doubt this will happen. Even if they did, BITMAIN would have a disturbing amount of hashrate on the new chain. And for neutrality's sake: You can keep trying to spread misinformation but that won't change the fact that Jihancoin is the altcoin.
I think this is pretty childish sentiment. A chain split is not an altcoin, and that doesn't matter whether it's UASF, UAHF or just a hard fork. The majority chain is Bitcoin, and the rest are "forks of Bitcoin", nothing more. |
|
|
|
@quickseller, good idea (blazed) -- i will get around to that.
You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work. more important things are going on today Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them. a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior. right? Luke Jr is a developer, not a miner. I fail to see why anyone should support a single private company creating a new chain. If they want to "ignore short-term economic incentives" to mine on their new chain, they will end up with >51% hashrate and the chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from BITMAIN. This is blindingly obvious, because most pools will not ignore economic incentives. |
|
|
|
In times like this, USDT is king
USDT hasn't been pegged to the dollar since cryptocurrencies started going upwards in value. I wouldn't trust them with anything. Please stop the craziness! Angry Ethereum is the biggest scam coin that we have ever experienced. The Ethereum founders pre-mined
Premine =! scam. ETH is not a scam, just a coin with a good idea whose devs got greedy with money and power. |
|
|
|
|
Your choices are:
-Poloniex (not trustworthy, slow withdrawals and shady "DDoS attacks";
-Bitfinex (potentially not trustworthy, does not process fiat withdrawals except for very large amounts);
-Liqui.io (not trustworthy, accounts come with "interest");
-Coinbase (moderately trustworthy, but practically no customer support and some degraded services).
You have no 100% safe options.
|
|
|
|
They're so dumb.
-Cash is far more anonymous than Bitcoin is.
-Miners don't just "stop profiting" when there's no longer a block reward. Transaction fees rising as high as they are now is nothing to do with the block reward.
-People not understanding Bitcoin for now is a good thing. It doesn't mean that Bitcoin is particularly hard to understand.
-Buying on Bitstamp is safe enough. You don't have to keep it there forever.
Yes, I agree with you in general. But on the other hand I agree with them on that WannaCry WannaCry only received about $100,000 in their three public addresses, and Bitcoin's 24 hour volume is about 1.6 billion. There couldn't be any less relevant thing for Bitcoin's growth, and even the publicity was completely minimal considering that the media, surprisingly, didn't make a big deal out of its relation to Bitcoin. and Japan's legalization were among the main factors of bitcoin's recent rising.
Japan's legalisation was also way overhyped. It was perfectly legal before, just not heavily regulated. There was an increase in Japanese trading volume but talk of "adoption" doesn't mean a lot for now. If it did cause a price rise it was more about speculation from the West. But most likely they took that analytics from somewhere else rather than wrote it by themselves.
Nope, pretty sure they wrote it themselves... |
|
|
|
User Activated Hard Fork, but who wants a hard fork?
At this point....everyone. Yes, I'm sure it's the "silent majority", the one which is exclusive to r/btc and doesn't show up in any polls. I mean with some people it's hard to tell when all they tell you is "I'd prefer not to have BU/Emergent Consensus".  |
|
|
|
Anyone could do this with any stock, asset or literally anything else. It's called a "pump and dump", and it's shockingly common. However, Bitcoin's 24 hour volume is now over 1.5 billion dollars. It would take many millions of dollars to buy enough Bitcoin for this to be a serious event. Manipulation is frequent with anything, but typically whales go for altcoins since the liquidity is lower and it's much easier to manipulate users. |
|
|
|
|
They're so dumb.
-Cash is far more anonymous than Bitcoin is.
-Miners don't just "stop profiting" when there's no longer a block reward. Transaction fees rising as high as they are now is nothing to do with the block reward.
-People not understanding Bitcoin for now is a good thing. It doesn't mean that Bitcoin is particularly hard to understand.
-Buying on Bitstamp is safe enough. You don't have to keep it there forever.
|
|
|
|
|
There are many good altcoins. Ethereum is not one of them.
High and rising transaction fees, centralisation happening rapidly, developers are bastards...
It feels like a good concept but they're not implementing it well. If you want a good altcoin, buy ETC or one of many others (Byteball or IOTA for example).
If I were you I'd hold BTC long term, others are mainly short term investments.
|
|
|
|
Majority hashrate + original blockchain = Bitcoin
Majority can only be economic Economic majority doesn't mean shit unless they put their money where their mouths are and start mining. You could have 90% of all BTC and be completely unable to stop a hardfork because it's secured by proof of work, not proof of stake. And it's the hashrate that gives users the ability to trust the network. A minority fork is worthless because it's easily subject to a 51% attack giving users no reason to trust it. An economic majority can push hashrate over eventually. Miners can only mine for so long while loosing money on a chain that's worth way less. I don't think UASF will actually succeed, but an economic majority could definitely render the hashrate before the split irrelevant after a month or two.
Note - if BIP 148 succeeds and the minority chain still exists, a large amount of the hashrate on there would probably be supporting BU, so couldn't they just hard fork on the legacy chain? Is that not possible for some reason? |
|
|
|
Yes,the level of idiocy here is epic.
I guess I phrased that poorly. I was talking about the people that you're trying to bring on to your side in your threads - people that would not read into it enough to consider the distinction between your argument and what the quote/other argument actually is. However I do think that it's applicable to both sides. To answer your question: When Adam Back tweets something ridiculous, how he worded it is not the point.
Who cares whether he should users SHOULD pay $100 fees vs or he thinks they WOULD pay it...it's all the
same nonsense.
He said he would prefer for the fees to be "much lower". I consider it to be an attack on doomsday/"flippening" predictions for BTC rather than support for those fees, rather than suggesting that users should pay that much. The distinction between "could" and "should" might sound minor but in reality it's far more significant. Then you have clowns trying to nitpick it and saying when I post a thread about that, its deceptive because I didn't phrase
it exactly like the tweet... so I'm the deceptive one? Adam Back and Blockstream are the kings of deception.
Projection is not helping. |
|
|
|
Now he will implicate the whole country in one of the biggest Ponzi Schemes known to man. The US {SEC} will soon start with investigations into Ethereum and then things will go terribly wrong for the Russian citizens invested in Ethereum.  try to wade your way into things that you don't understand. Ponzi scheme ˈpɒnzi/Submit noun a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors. A Ponzi scheme involves continuing payment from a group that claims to be a business. Ethereum is not a business, the investors are investing in tokens (much like Bitcoin), and they know perfectly well that there's no guarantee for the value to stay up. It's this sort of ignorant claim which stopped thousands of people from investing in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Yes it is not necessary and there is no reason for anyone to think I've sold my account. In fact, i'm a little tired of these silly argument by assertions. But since I offered, the first address is signed with a message "jf-6-11-2017" HGcmK97jOH6XtCOT0wIYKYxtXu7C7RdXZKu6WtnpjZWNNRHl1ic+VlmengWVAn3S9QRd8UYRKRXsaHISWMlLorY= Yep, verified that.
It makes far more sense to me that negative trust from DT members would be limited to suspicious trade deals specifically, because anything else is subject to bias. That's not to say that DT members shouldn't be able to do this, but that it would be misleading for them to have a red tag next to their name for something that wasn't trade-related. But since this is the forum we're on, you need to think yourself about how you could have avoided the rating. Some of your threads are quite misleading about what you're talking about - for example, there was a thread claiming that Adam Back wanted $100 fees, when in fact he just suggesting that people would be willing to pay that much but directly said he would prefer the fees to be much lower. You also started a thread claiming that Luke Jr wanted people to use fiat, when in fact he was pointing out how ridiculous the alternatives to Bitcoin are (the exact opposite). It's clear that Lauda would have done this a very long time ago if it was solely about your opinion rather than you acting in this misleading way. There's nothing misleading at all about those threads Please explain. I'm genuinely interested. and they link directly to the source so you can see what Adam or Luke said.
You know perfectly well that the majority of people you're trying to convince here are: -Stuck in an echo chamber (many users favouring Core are as well, but this does not contradict my point); -Spammers; -Users with a poor grasp of interpretation and/or the English language. |
|
|
|
|
It's nothing like a "power struggle". Far more like "a struggle about what power is justified", and a "price struggle".
The Bitcoin market cap being higher than Ether does not suggest that Bitcoin has more power. All it suggests is that the market regards Bitcoin to be worth more (for now).
The important distinction between a "power struggle", and "a struggle about what power is justified", is that Bitcoin is decentralised while Ethereum is not.
This is a fight between Bitcoin's decentralisation and a dictatorship from Vitalik Buterin. If he wins, it'll show that cryptocurrencies are crazily speculative and it'll be a long time before they become based on real utility.
|
|
|
|
Yes it is not necessary and there is no reason for anyone to think I've sold my account. In fact, i'm a little tired of these silly argument by assertions. But since I offered, the first address is signed with a message "jf-6-11-2017" HGcmK97jOH6XtCOT0wIYKYxtXu7C7RdXZKu6WtnpjZWNNRHl1ic+VlmengWVAn3S9QRd8UYRKRXsaHISWMlLorY= Yep, verified that.
It makes far more sense to me that negative trust from DT members would be limited to suspicious trade deals specifically, because anything else is subject to bias. That's not to say that DT members shouldn't be able to do this, but that it would be misleading for them to have a red tag next to their name for something that wasn't trade-related. But since this is the forum we're on, you need to think yourself about how you could have avoided the rating. Some of your threads are quite misleading about what you're talking about - for example, there was a thread claiming that Adam Back wanted $100 fees, when in fact he just suggesting that people would be willing to pay that much but directly said he would prefer the fees to be much lower. You also started a thread claiming that Luke Jr wanted people to use fiat, when in fact he was pointing out how ridiculous the alternatives to Bitcoin are (the exact opposite). It's clear that Lauda would have done this a very long time ago if it was solely about your opinion rather than you acting in this misleading way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
