The reason is most probably not this, but some may think that the hype around Libra and the proposed regulations (of which some may affect Bitcoin too) may have made investors get out.

Imho the current state is simply speculation and I expect to see pretty soon a trend reversal.

Somehow everybody missed the part where I was telling about 3rd party custody wallets. Like Xapo, or exchanges...

Good luck double spending from there.

That's correct. And in the way I was "convinced" to do a real check on the recipient address, the wallets should do the same. It's not hard to make a window pop up and ask for double check start, middle and end. And the more advanced users can deactivate it.

The only place I've seen such behavior was when the "wallet" was a service owned by a partner company of the receiver.
But in theory if one knows that certain addresses belong to certain services (custodian wallets or maybe exchanges too), he can whitelist them and credit unconfirmed transactions, because those don't double spend transactions, the risk is much lower. Just... how to obtain such a list of addresses?

This volatility smells of manipulation. But you're right, I guess I linked these two too tight.
I'll correct the other post.


Nah. Bitcoin already taught me to never say never. You (and me) don't know what will happen in the future. At some point the exchanges may get more regulated and the levels of manipulation (and maybe volatility too) could decrease greatly.
But yeah.. "maybe", and "could", and "maybe in the future" are not useful now.

I CPU-mine for Monero now and then and one big problem is the minimum payout threshold the pools have. This can be solved indeed by using another altcoin, so I understand (partly) OP's logic in this. But maybe the user/miner should choose from a list of cheap altcoins for payments.

However, since the pool is too small, the payouts are too rare. I think that OP needs to attract a couple of bigger miners first, to have a hash rate that ensures real chances for at least one block per .. week(?).
What I mean is that no matter how small the miner is, he wants to see now and then that he indeed earned something, no matter how small value. .. and to have some certainty that he won't mine for days after days risking to get absolutely nothing.

Today Bitcoin has fallen some 500$ in some 5 minutes. While we are (more or less) used to this, SEC pretty clearly stated that they don't like it (or at least that's what I remember). the market manipulation which I suspect it causes many such events.
So I agree with @gentlemand and I'll say it: SEC will most probably reject it. And most probably nobody will be surprised (well, maybe some newspapers will fake a surprise though)


Edit: added the italic text to correct the initial statement based on this.

When Bitcoin goes down, (some) people start preaching about Bitcoin going to 0, or whatever absurdly low price.
When Bitcoin goes up, (some) people start dreaming about Bitcoin going to 1 million dollar or even higher.
The solid fact is that bitcoin price is highly volatile and hard to predict.

If you wait longer you may make a better business or miss the train. It's really your decision to be made and never an easy one.

At some point, about 2 (or more) years ago, I've done a bit of research in that direction. I was hoping I find something without KYC requirements.
I've even posted some images to bittit (which now doesn't seem to exist anymore). Unfortunately I've never received a satoshi for them.
So.. good luck with your project, but be careful, since where money is involved, IRS may get involved too, and you may need KYC and accounting. I hope I'm wrong.

So long "bottom at 7700$"  
Black Friday anyone?

It's not a lot of work. This is what I do for long time now.
I've got used to it long ago, when the payments for this campaign were sent to Bitsler account. They had at the withdrawal this rule somewhat enforced. It helped me get used to do it.
Now I check the first 3-4 characters, last 3-4 characters and some 3-4 characters from a random position in the middle (I "scan" to find something easy to remember).


Unfortunately I don't have a choice for getting rid of Windows, although maybe a VM with a Linux for crypto handling could not be such a bad idea.
Just I fear that since I don't know much of Linux I may make even bigger mistake...

Imho the only way to monetize a 51% attack is via double spend. So an exchange or similar service may be also needed, making the things more difficult than only gathering enough hash rate.
I think that's much easier to gather maybe 5 of the 20BTC and leave. What could complain of those who donate? That they've got scammed while trying to team up for a scam? Or that their donations got stolen?!

I think that OP has failed both main rules:

Rule 1: Don't gamble what you don't afford to lose.
Rule 2: Take gambling as a fun way to spend some time, not as an hypothetical "method to earn money".

Their lack of imagination is also terrifying.
In 500 years people will wonder why in the ancient history people relied, for store of value, on something with no clear and measurable scarcity.

Gold can still be a backup, but only for the near future. But on the other hand maybe banks will not even live for too long, or at least not like this.

An interesting fact is that no matter how many people or articles say that it's better to avoid address reuse, even most of the biggest wallets suffer from this.

Although I've just made it, I don't know if the idea is original.




Happy 10th Anniversary Bitcointalk!


3J5nuMBFXWFTWmTPej5rLTU5on2EH2VNRD

You are wrong. Although centralized exchanges have many flaws, from vulnerability to hacks, inside jobs or bankruptcy, although they ask for KYC, the higher volumes and liquidity will still be there for a good number of years.
The day traders, which compose a very big chunk of the volumes, will always go mostly for off-chain trades, because there the sum of fees is smaller than the sum of tx fees for too many small trades. And for higher volumes some of the exchanges even make a discount on the fees.

There are 2 different discussions here imho.
1. You have to always double check the account you are discussing with, whether it's about download, or trade or anything important.
2. You have to always double check whatever you download and install, no matter who give you that.

And remember, even trusted accounts can be bought or hacked. Always watch your back.

It's not (only) rebranding. They move their operations from Malta to Lichtenstein; that's why the list of allowed countries has became much shorter.
I've also got an e-mail from them telling what's going to happen: same accounts, but new server, new location, new ToS.

I am not into BCH so I cannot give you direct answer, but you should first of all understand what you do. You cannot "split old coins at an exchange". Simply for the same private key and address, if you are on BCH network you'll have BCH and if you are on BCHSV network you have BCHSV. Remember that the wallet only handles the private keys, it doesn't actually hold coins.
So basically you'll have to send to a new address the more expensive coins, then switch to another wallet (another network) and send away the less expensive ones.
Also, if you expose private keys from your ledger, I advise you move all the coins away and reset to a new seed; it's for the safety of your coins.