Just hold, best thing you can do, if you sell and LTC price is going back up again you'll be very unhappy.
LTC is a solid coin, great dev behind it.
They may have good dvs behind LTC, but it still doesn't add any real features that bitcoin does not already provide to users and bitcoin is many times more secure then LTC is. |
|
|
|
Most mining rental websites will charge you a price above what you can expect to earn by using the hashpower
Yes, at least it currently seems so.. The person who borrows money does not only have to take the loss by renting hashpower but also has to pay the interest rate.. Maybe times will change concerning cloud hashing services.. hashpower rental sites will have no reason to charge less then wheat it would be expected they would earn by mining themselves. It really only makes sense to rent hashpower if you are trying to test something/do some kind of research or if you are trying to attack a pool/altcoin Yes. People who rent it usually rent them to hash new coin. I would say it would be more accurate to say that they manipulate a new coin. |
|
|
|
The COIN ETF has a set number of Bitcoins (which are already procured).
The Winklevii will almost certainly be buying more coins and selling them as ETF shares. The number of shares is not limited by what they have now. So if there is investor demand (and I'm betting there will be tons), they'll be buying more coins and pushing up the price. Yeah, so basically their stock will be an asset pegged to the bitcoin, if bitcoin goes up everybody win, and without the risk of holding coins by yourself. That's how I understand it. I think the attraction of the ETF to Wall Street goes way beyond the technical aspects of storing and handling bitcoins. I think the main issue is that portfolio managers have no way of putting bitcoin into a portfolio without having some sort of instrument like this. It's kinda ridiculous to me that that's the way things work, but that's the way things work ... Large investors already can invest in bitcoin via the second market bitcoin fund. I would argue that the main attraction for large investors is not having to manage a complex security setup to keep the bitcoin safe, but rather let the trust deal with that. |
|
|
|
I guess one of the flaws of bitcoin... this guy is gonna go free and clear because bitcoin is anonymous. The beauty of it and also the flaw in this case.
Bitcoin is not completely anonymous, but many media/news stories have incorrectly said it is. I thought it was basically fully anonymous? What aspect isnt? You mean when we fund the accounts or purchase bitcoin? "While the Bitcoin technology can support strong anonymity, the current implementation is usually not very anonymous." More info on anonymity: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/AnonymityIf you take certain precautions and pay the right price (pay for mixing services) then you can stay anonymous with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Well other things may have been happening in crypto around that time to cause a price drop, but it could be down to manipulation.
I think that a lot of people have it in their minds that a piece of news should have a massive, positive impact on the price whereas actually it can see the coins overbought and then dumped.
Look at when Litecoin landed on Huobi, people were talking of a $50 Litecoin, it hit $22 then tanked hard - it was overbought and whales dumped their coins on all the people rushing to buy thinking that it was going to make them filthy rich.
But I believe ltc has been oversold, and it has already reached the low at ~0.01 btc last week.  Yup, it's surprising how much Litecoin has dropped over the past few months. There was a time not that long ago where 0.035 BTC was the supported rate for 1 LTC. Then it dropped to around 0.025, and now it has nose-dived massively. It was believed that Litecoin would follow Bitcoin, both up and down, but that has definitely not been the case of late. Bitcoin has been very strong - a lot of funds have moved from classic coins like PPC, NMC, LTC to newer coins like DRK and beyond. Daytrading is very risky, mostly when buying into rising prices. There are very few uses for LTC other then speculation. If people have no way to use LTC then they have no reason to purchase LTC. |
|
|
|
you can´t compare the current Bitcoin with Bitcoin when it started  Today there are millions of venture capital coming into the BTC world, many exchanges etc. Everything has matured and the big volatility with several market crashes won´t return in my opinion. The issue is not bitcoin price crashes. Several posters have pointed out the order book on Bitfinex is quite thin compare to the number of active swap they have. bitfinex orderbook contains lots of hidden orders. You don´t really know how much money there really is in bids. I would guess that the biggest whales use these hidden orders quite regularly. So I think except from the bitfinex staff no one has a clue how much money is really tied up in bids. Another point is that, with efficient markets, the price on one exchange will affect the prices on other exchanges as people attempt to arbitrage or when people will buy on the cheaper exchange when then simply wish to purchase bitcoin. EDIT: Or sell on the more expensive exchange when they wish to sell their bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I gave it a shot and read thru in just a couple minutes. I didn't realize that I had to waste a whole hour on the questions. I will try and just leave the tab open and see how that goes.
This sounds a lot like a faucet. It is a faucet, and the pay rate will be lower and lower as your balance goes up.  at the beginning you get thousands of satoshis per minute, later on you'll get literally 1 satoshi per minuteand you're going to have to click every 5-6 minutes.. Sounds like a painful task lol. I heard you can just leave the tab open, but seriously these faucets don't worth your time. that's the cache first you get like 9000 satoshi for just leaving your tab open for an hour later on they get you with 6 satoshi for every 6 minutes and a minimum cashout of 10 000 satoshi.. HA! So you need to have your tab open for basically 18 hours in order to get 10k satoshi. |
|
|
|
These sources are not what I would consider to be credible. If something like this really had happened, or if there was a credible lead on something like this happening, it would likely be all of the MSM Interfax is a reliable source. Anyway, it's confirmed from Psaki side of the ocean. I have never heard of interfax outside of this thread. Do you have any other sources that would back up that Interfax is a reliable source. Interfax has existed for many years. Their counterpart in the Western world is Associated Press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterfaxNow, as for a reliable source of information, would you consider Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation to be reliable enough [sarcasm]. Here is the statement from the source: http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/0E0E558E4313660B44257D12004BB8F3Anyone can edit/make a wikipedia article. Your source that is in russian only says that he was captured, but does not mention Snowden once in the article/release. |
|
|
|
But this example is of someone who is not interest in bitcoin and just somehow knows that mBTC and uBTC mean with no prior knowledge.
Then it doesn't matter what units or names are used! For any unit of measurement some knowledge is necessary. That is exactly my point is that it would be impossible to know that mBTC or uBTC means without some prior knowledge. |
|
|
|
Why would this affect fungibility?
The OP is not talking about a central authority doing anything that would stop the Bitcoin economy from functioning as normal.
From what I am reading - he's just talking about a notification and monitoring system.
And you dont need blacklisted or marked coins to do it either. Just the blockchain.
The thief tries to cash out and the bank is notified that its stolen funds, simply by following the trail of public transactions on the blockchain.
Nothing more than passive monitoring and alerts.
The bank doesn't "freeze" the coins in some strange, abnormal way. They simply don't let the thief have them. The coins are still completely viable and would simply be held in an account and returned to the victim.
Im not seeing what is wrong with this idea, except for the risk of "mixers" and the like.
But a company providing this service will no doubt recover people's money quite often. There will be "smarter" thieves who can figure ways around it, but just like with everything else, a large portion of thefts are done by idiots.
The OP says that once the stolen coins are sent to a merchant/exchange they would be frozen. This would imply that this company would act as a central authority (or simply act as an authority) that would freeze "stolen" coins |
|
|
|
How is that different from appointing a private investigator to track down somebody?
Still of course up to a physical court of law to determine that wrongdoing has in fact occurred
It is really no different except that you generally pay a PI in advance verses a bounty after success, however this fact really does not matter. |
|
|
|
But 'funds' are not the same as 'property', so doesn't this court conflict with the major IRS ruling?
Well, that is one way to look at it. However, the IRS is a part of the Executive branch. They have not ruled -- in a judicial sense -- as to the nature of bitcoin. They have stated that _their_interpretation_ of the regulations (CFR), which are in turn an _interpretation_ of the statutes (USC), has led them to issue the _guidance_ (not even binding upon taxpayers, nor the Tax Court) that bitcoins will be _treated_ as property for the express scope of administering the tax code. This particular court (a single US Circuit?*) has made the judgement that bitcoin should be treated as 'funds' within the application of the money laundering statutes. (*part of the Judicial branch - this is an article III court, right? IIRC) If the scope of each ruling were universal, these would be interpretations that are in conflict. But their scopes are narrowly defined. If the SR judge's ruling withstands all appeals, then her ruling that bitcoins are 'funds' for the purpose of the money laundering statutes will become precedent - albeit only within that District, or as high as the appeals process rises. Guidance from the IRS is legally worthless in any event. Though it does provide ... err ... guidance on what the IRS position is likely to be in any action against a taxpayer - again appealable all the way through Tax Court, US Curcuit, US Court of Appeals, and USSC. Bear in mind I am merely regurgitating what I believe to be - IANAL. Edit: emphasis on _treated_For money laundering purposes bitcoin is considered to be something you can launder money through. There are a number of vehicles that you can use to launder that are not money. One example is houses, as they are not in any way considered to be money but you can launder money through houses/real estate. |
|
|
|
I would be concerned about mixing services. Who do you turn to if they abscond with your bit coin? I think funneling it through multiple exchanges converting it to different currencies several times would do the trick wouldn't it? There aren't really any trust less solutions out there currently.
Nobody. There isn't anybody who can really help you if they steal the coins. Exchanges work fine, as long as they don't give you back the same coins you gave them (usually not the case as they all get moved to a cold storage wallet when deposited). You don't even need to do a currency conversion - just withdraw to a different address and no one will know except the exchange. Do this with multiple exchanges and basically it's untraceable. Exchanges will generally keep logs of all of their customers' trades so if the exchange were to be compromised then an attacker could see exactly where your coins went. |
|
|
|
|
Some people will sell their own goods/services on craigslist that they would usually sell for fiat but also offer the option of accepting bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin block chain is trustless in the sense that it's automatically secure. What about Bitcoin wallets? Can't they make fraud payments with the users' bitcoins? If someone installs an insincere Bitcoin wallet then it can start paying bitcoins to some other Bitcoin address than what the user has intended. Or?
Most bitcoin wallets are open source. This means that anyone is able to inspect the code of the wallet to ensure that these types of attacks could not happen. |
|
|
|
Let me start that this might sound stupid, since I have no idea about any technical thing about bitcoins, programming, etc, but I was reading about the guy who lost over 1000 bitcoins and came up with this. You tell me if it's posible, realistic or it's not. Here we go:
Someone creates a business called X, and what it does is the following: once you are robbed, you send them the adress and number of btcs stolen. Since this moment, the ddbb from X monitors the blockchain from those btcs, adding each adress to the ddbb. At the same time, exchanges, bitcoin shops, and gateway payments are connected to that ddbb, so since the moment they receive btcs from an adress that is on the ddbb would raise a red flag and freeze the btcs.
Obviously, since someone reports would have 24/48 hours to prove they were stolen ( screenshots, police reports, etc). And also, for a business to be connected to that ddbb would add value to their work.
Good idea? Stupid?
The moment that you attempt to freeze the coins it would make it a very bad idea and it would make bitcoin no longer fungible. One possible variation to this plan would be that the identity of the customer would be provided to the company "x" however even this is not the greatest of ideas because it is very well possible that the coins have traded hands several times prior to the customer coming into "possession" of the coins. |
|
|
|
Couldn't the thief just launder the coins bit by bit and get away with it scot-free?
For example: You could just trade some of them for another virtual currency on some random exchange, and then convert what you bought back into BTC, and voila, clean bitcoins. Or use a laundering service. It seems really easy to get around if you're smart?
Actually, the best way to clean the coins is to send them to an exchange, then cash it out to your bank account. Then use all that fiat to buy back the coins on the same exchange. Untraceable This would actually be very traceable as once it is discovered which exchange the coins were sent to then you could subpoena the exchange to provide the identity of the user who deposited the coins. An exchange would provide only temporary cover to your identity. |
|
|
|
I think there is a need for the Bitcoin Foundation. That's why I recently joined as a member. [ ... ]
As a benefit for members they should be able to vote. There should be regular online-votings about unimportant things at first to find out what people expect from the foundation to do.
I read their bylaws a while ago. IIRC they gave the board of directors total power, including changing the bylaws without even telling the ordinary members. Perhaps I misread, you'd better check. (But one is not a true bitcoiner if one does not give one's bitcoins to a bitcoin outfit before reading the contract, ain't that so?  ) TBF really is a very opaque entity, especially considering how transparent the blockchain makes sending money. IMO there should be some kind of forum where the devs can meet and discuss ideas as to how to improve bitcoin and the protocol and respond to potential attacks, but I don't think TBF is the right one. |
|
|
|
|
IMO multibit is the most secure of the two as your keys are held, encrypted on the electrum servers.
|
|
|
|
|
Every Sunday you can simply open QT via the spotlight, let it run while you do your thing on your computer, checking every two hours or so and when you see the green check that shows it is fully synced you can press "apple" + "Q" to close it.
It could not be more simple then this
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
