...
next its the case of swapping 'dollars' and 'pounds' to a hyperledger coin by "upgrading" peoples bank accounts with tempters of higher interest rates. again taking time to move people across.. so that it doesnt wake up the sheep in one go.
but hyperledger coin is still FIAT
Then nothing has changed. Fiat money is now truly just numbers in a computer screen like it is now in the banks' databases. They just improved the database, renamed and rebranded it as something called a "distributed database" but with the validators and the nodes controlled only by them. It is nothing new. They only made their system more efficient but it does not mean it is a good system because the banking cartel still has the power. Bitcoin is still the system to beat and may it live for more than a hundred years. |
|
|
|
Is it actually possible that bitcoins are actually cheaper (not by small margin) when bought in certain currencies or will the price for BTC across currencies self adjust throug exhange rate market force.
If you are thinking of arbitrage opportunities then I suggest you take a look at Localbitcoin's prices. Sometimes you could get cheap Bitcoins over there and sometimes you could sell at a premium. This is mainly because of the low volume of some trades created there but if you are patient and motivated you could make a decent profit. Notice the regulars there who have made over 1000 trades still active thru all these years. They must be making some money. |
|
|
|
It would be really bad for their business for sure because the would have lower revenues and profits and the service could stagnate due to a competitor taking charge of that hole in the market. But remember Visa is a centralized service, run by a few people making decisions in what direction to take their company. If you are trying to say that hitting the transaction limit is bad for Bitcoin, it is not. It may be bad for the price or bad for the growth if its user base but this also should be seen as an opportunity on how to improve the technology. Let us all wait for LN and see how that comes out. |
|
|
|
Okay I only have few days left and I need to decide where I am going to invest my 1 btc savings for this month. I am also planning to diversify it but dunno if it is worth it to divide like 10 times. My possible prospects I want to invest are:
Wings DAO ICO - Oct 30 ICO starts
Komodo ICO - I need to decide fast on this before October 23 which gives 20% bonus.
Incent ICO
Spark ICO
ICOBID ICO
Moody ICO
Please enlighten me if you guys have better options. I know 1 btc is not really that big. I am planning to withdraw my small investment in Safedice so I can put it in Komodo. Is it better if I just put that 1 btc in Wings or what? Thanks in advance for your advice.
That is a lot of ICO's. I am wondering how do you study each of these ICO's and know that they will return a profit? For me personally I think it is very dangerous because we do not know what will happen and if the team behind each of them will run away with the money. Also from my research most of the ICO's are scams. After 1 year or 2 years the developers leave the project with a profit by dumping their coins in the exchange. So in each of those ICO's what makes them a good investment for you? Do you think all of them will gain traction and adoption in the future? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin unlimited is well and alive. About 15% of the hashrate is behind it at this stage and is gaining momentum.
That hashrate will decline to 1% hardcore believers, when SegWit and the Lightning Network is fully implemented, because people will have no need for Bitcoin Unlimited. There will always be people pissing against the wind, and in some instances this is needed, for example : Bitcoin - The people who piss against the system < Banks > Unfortunately, some people seem to think a divided Bitcoin community will be more competitive against these giants or they cause this division on purpose? Time will tell, if this strategy will work. ^hmmmm^ How can Segwit be implemented when it needs 95% of the miners to reach consensus? The last time I checked Core has 85% of the miners while Bitcoin Unlimited is with 15%. I believe it is gathering some momentum for now but we'll see what will happen in the coming months. I personally would like to see Segwit and then the Lightning Network because the potential for LN as a layer and a bridge to other blockchains is a very exciting prospective use case. |
|
|
|
get rid of cash.
Once governments finish their ban-on-cash global plan, and there's no escape from pinpoint governmental control, we better hope we have a strong, solid, decentralized-node Bitcoin, with nodes wide spread all across the globe, or else it will be the end of financial freedom for ever. Bitcoin is our last hope.
By then, people will start to realize the importance of owning Bitcoin and knowing how to use it. The price of Bitcoin will sky rocket to several thousands to millions of dollars per coin, as bast amounts of wealth move within the ecosystem.
Getting a bit carried away and also a little bit extreme there, aren't we? The importance of Bitcoin is it has shown us a glimpse of what will be a few decades from now. Do I believe Bitcoin will be the main cryptocurrency in that future? No, I believe not. But it is the experiment that has preceded the open and decentralized payment network in the future. We have witnessed a breakthrough and "Bitcoin is our tour de force" according to Bill Gates. May it continue for as long as it takes for people to be shown the right way forward not only in finance but also in the power of decentralization as well. |
|
|
|
I am the elected "Developer" (committer) to Bitcoin Unlimited. I am breaking my silence of a year and a month on this forum to say that we do have a solid development team, but that you will have a very hard time discovering information about us and the Bitcoin Unlimited project on this forum since much of it has been "moderated" out of existence. We will see if this post lasts. Please do use Google searches to learn about us.
Yes I just did that and I am reading thru your members page. https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/membersI have no idea who these people are and I hope they are all qualified to develop and bring Bitcoin forward for the sake of the whole cryptocurrency community. We do not want to look like a group of inept people in a community full of infighting, mudslinging and fudding for lack of a better word. That will not bring Bitcoin in a good light and will not make it attractive in the mainstream's view. |
|
|
|
|
That is a pity. To think some of these irresponsible "journalists" who have graduated from good and fancy universities only to become clueless, misinformed idiots who writes whatever they want are a bane for everyone. Uninformed, ordinary people who are relying on these "journalists" to give them information that are considered fact are victimized by these journalists' irresponsible and sometimes even corrupt actions.
We should tweet those people and tell them, in a nice way, that what they wrote is misinformed and just plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
I just discovered these guys. They say they have a solution to scale BTC. Some info here, on their FAQ: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/faqUnfortunately, I'm not enough of a techie to say how good their proposals are, but I like the fact that they're making them. The scalability issue needs to be solved, and new ideas can always help, but they're also a risk when the ideas are as developed as theses ones. Somehow, the team behind Bitcoin Unlimited is competing against Bitcoin Core. Anyone knows who are the guys behind Bitcoin Unlimited?I have been asking the same question myself around the forum but I have not been given a clear answer. What I know is Roger Ver is a solid supporter and that the "Bitcoin Unlimited team", whoever that is, has announced a research grant program that will give out several thousand dollars to fund coders to work on Bitcoin Unlimited. The first reaction on that news is that they might be lacking talented coders. Also that is why we cannot get a straight answer when we ask who the developers are behind BU. So for now your nodes should be running core until further clarification. I also want to see the Lightning Network released and let us first see how it goes. |
|
|
|
Well then there is no need to argue anymore on who's right and who's wrong and let the actions speak for itself and may consensus be achieved naturally for the good of the whole network. If we get bigger blocks then we get bigger blocks if not then let us see how LN helps Bitcoin scale.
I do like to see LN launched and used because there is also great potential in it. One of it is we could make users less dependent on centralized exchanges and trading from one coin to another could be done on the Lightning Network as sort of bridge between blockchains.
21inc's LN has been launched for 6 months, no one cares. If there is slightest market demand for this kind of service, why is there no one interested in it? Lack of marketing perhaps? I have not heard of their Lightning Network before you mentioned it. Is it working well and are there enough users in the system? The problem I see sometimes is some developers create something that should be cool but have their own shortcomings. Like Open Bazaar and bitsquare.io. They are usable but they are somewhat lacking some features or maybe they need a little more polishing. |
|
|
|
Gregory Maxwell is 100% right when he says: Bitcoin is a revolution currency but a fairly inefficient payment network. If people turn this on its head and try to market bitcoin as a payment rail where the currency is an unfortunate requirement, it would be immediately out competed in the market ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/581dg/bitcoin_is_a_revolution_currency_but_a_fairly/There is no urgency to increase the blocksize. All the doomsday scenarios projected for the beginning of 2016 by the technologically inept and irresponsible bigblock-fanatics have failed to materialize. Instead we are starting to see signs of a working fee market and transaction spam has been greatly reduced (also via optimization at exchanges and payment providers). Trying to use the blockchain to make direct transactions for every single lolly that guys like Mike Hearn or Roger Ver decide to buy would be the end of decentralization. Bitcoin itself is just not suited for micropayments - it's too inefficient. Segregated Witness and Lightning Networks will enable micropayments without spamming the blockchain and thereby preserving decentralization. What bigblock fanatics seem to forget is that even micropayments are ultimately settled on the blockchain, yet in a much more efficient way.ya.ya.yo! I like that argument. But there will also be shortcomings on the Lightning Network. It can also be seen to be a problem on onchain scaling too because the transactions might become heftier if too many payment channels close at the same time and it might cause a bottleneck on how many payment channels can be closed at any given time. So that is one hypothetical situation to look into and hopefully to also find a good solution. |
|
|
|
This is definitely something interesting.... however, it is not important at all. Bitcoin doesn't need anonymity. Those who need it have things to hide...
I have seen this argument used over and over and it is annoying because people seem to not think it over when they say it. This is about our privacy and it is our right. Some people do not think like you, some of us actually want our privacy and our family's privacy protected. If you are going to say such things do not speak as if you are speaking for everyone. |
|
|
|
this is where doomsday theories rather than rational thought comes in.
some want 4mb (core) some want more. some want onchain some want 100% use offchain. thats where compromises come in and finding the acceptable level.
this "terrabyte block" doomsday has been shot out the park last year. the current compromise is 2mb bas 4mb weight.
the everthing has to be offchain has been shot out the park. the current compromise is expand onchain and allow offchain for freedom of choice.
i dont know why anyone is talking about terrabytes, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present
i dont know why anyone is talking about only offchain will work, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present
Well it is not really a "dooms day theory" but a rational thought questioning and speculating on what would happen if we had bigger blocks. As said before storage would be solved by having cheaper HD available but the question on how bandwidth is limited in a lot of areas in the world that it might become a problem if the blockchain has become really large enough and still growing. I believe that is one area of concern for the big blockers. there is misunderstandings and our misrepresenting of what a hard fork is.
ethereum was not a consensus hard fork it was a controversial fork.
ethereum bypassed consensus orphaning mechanism and literally banned communicating with nodes of different rules to avoid orphaning the minority. "--oppose-dao-fork"
it is actually Gmaxwell of blockstream that proposed that BU should split, rather than use the consensus mechanism which BU(ver) wants.
a consensus mechanism is what the community want to happen. rather than a dictatorial split.
consensus, everyone wins and everyone continues.
controversial, dictator wins and everyone else f**ks off
I now understand your view on this from your posts from the other threads. Thank you for enlightening us on the real situation. |
|
|
|
|
Well then there is no need to argue anymore on who's right and who's wrong and let the actions speak for itself and may consensus be achieved naturally for the good of the whole network. If we get bigger blocks then we get bigger blocks if not then let us see how LN helps Bitcoin scale.
I do like to see LN launched and used because there is also great potential in it. One of it is we could make users less dependent on centralized exchanges and trading from one coin to another could be done on the Lightning Network as sort of bridge between blockchains.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, it would have been better if the developers from both sides could work together. But too bad each camp has its own agenda and self interests and now the community is caught in the middle. I believe the Chinese mining cartel is also for the smalls blocks unless I am mistaken.
|
|
|
|
Let us pretend that everyone, that means the miners, people maintaining Bitcoin nodes and the community supported Bitcoin Unlimited. What will happen to the core developers. Will they lose their position and their influence over the development of the network? Who will take over, the developers who started Bitcoin Unlimited?
Are the Bitcoin Unlimited coders competent enough to take over Bitcoin's development?
I don't go that far away into conspiracy road, but I think core devs should be more flexible and open to different ideas. This solution is so simple but missed by all the core devs, which raises a large question about core devs' competence It is not a conspiracy theory because it is possible that the core developers will be supplanted as the top developers of Bitcoin. Also in asking the question if the Bitcoin Unlimited developers are as competent as the core developers, you know what I mean. Are they as good in coding and finding solutions to Bitcoin's shortcomings? If you think they are, then who are the Bitcoin Unlimited developers and what have they accomplished? Answers to these simple questions should be known to the community so we could form our own opinions and express them. I honestly do not know who the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited are except that it is led by Roger Ver which I think has his own agenda. |
|
|
|
Yes, bitcoin is a near perfect currency on the on-chain settlement layer but very inneficient as payment network, since it can't scale on-network, therefore it will need offchain solutions like lightning network and such. It is inefficient because also of all the energy used in proof of work. For now I am on the side of the smaller blocks + looking for off-chain transaction solutions. They must exhaust all possible avenues in finding a solution before the core developers make their own implementation of a hard fork.
franky1 incoming in 5....4....3....2....1.....
Is franky1 a big blocker? I assumed he was neutral and was open to both sides of the argument.
much like asling people to do an intentional split because the asker is afraid an intentional split will happen is also a self fulfilling prophecy.anyway i am open to both sides. i am not in the blockstream camp nor the classic camp. i am in the bitcoin consensus for everyone camp. i just hold a sceptical mind about many things. not a utopian dream and not a dictatorial desire. i have said that LN and sidechains have a place in the community. but people need to know the reality of what they are handling and that we should not be pushing for everyone to use offchain. even done subtly to pretend its not being done. especially when pushing false doomsdays. doomsdays such as "that in 10 years the blockchain will be many terrabytes big so that no node will be able to run it, except centralized data centers." are false doomsdays made by blockstreamers to push their offchain agenda. But isn't it true to a point that the blockchain would be too large and that it will make it harder for people to run a node? The storage problem could be stored. But what about the bandwidth problem? there is a balance. a compromise. and although some are presenting 8,6,32 proposals now..
i personally feel 2mb base 4mb weight is a good compromise everyone could agree with, and everyone gets what they want.. IF they put their political party ambitions aside.
forcing false doomsdays to coerce people offchain,(even done subtly) causes less people to want to become nodes(for security). less reason to want to become miners(for security). and turns bitcoin into a less secure system.
thus moving people to sidechains permanently the agenda. (much like "realbitcoins" rhetoric last year involving the altcoin NXT being bitcoin 2.0)
bitcoin needs to continue having an open and fair choice to continue doing onchain transactions for the immutable security. or offchain for the faster convenience.
there should not be an all or nothing debate.(though blockstreamers want all or nothing)
bitcoin is an open network that should have no barriers of entry and no dictatorship in central authority. this should not change.
by barrier of entry i mean. today sticking with 1mb blocks is a barrier to entry. jumping to obscene block sizes of "terrabytes" is a barrier of entry
thus a safe and workable compromise and agreement by the community is the best option to continue bitcoins ethos.
I also want to know your opinion what a Bitcoin hard fork would look like. I am afraid that it might happen just like what happened to Ethereum. The blockchain splits and now we have 2 chains competing against each other. Will it not slow down Bitcoin's adoption if this happens? I believe Roger Ver said something like if it happens then it happens, and he acted as if it was not a big deal. If Bitcoin Unlimited "wins", what will happen to the core developers? |
|
|
|
Yes, bitcoin is a near perfect currency on the on-chain settlement layer but very inneficient as payment network, since it can't scale on-network, therefore it will need offchain solutions like lightning network and such. It is inefficient because also of all the energy used in proof of work. For now I am on the side of the smaller blocks + looking for off-chain transaction solutions. They must exhaust all possible avenues in finding a solution before the core developers make their own implementation of a hard fork.
franky1 incoming in 5....4....3....2....1.....
Is franky1 a big blocker? I assumed he was neutral and was open to both sides of the argument. |
|
|
|
Recently, i often see discussion about Bitcoin Bank. More and more people come here and ask about bitcoin bank & surprisingly i see few user agree with this idea.
So, i would like to find out the percentage of user who agreed with this idea.
Honestly, i think this idea is stupid and worst idea that i've seen in my life. What do you think?
p.s. we don't talk about bitcoin debit card.
This just another another form of gimmickry to exploit the community and to create profit for themselves. Of course some of these "Bitcoin banks" will go bust if there will be several of these set up like how many exchanges have gone bust. Also please point out who these people are that are starting to talk about Bitcoin banks. Are they Legendary users in Bitcointalk? I wonder what kind of business model they will be using. If the Lightning Network goes online and is successful there would be no need for a "Bitcoin bank". |
|
|
|
|
I do not think there is a need to dump payment options for markets that are already efficient, although Bitcoin could make a good complementary method of payment to make it more efficient. An example of this is online shopping. It would be nice to see Amazon start to accept Bitcoin even if they do not need to.
Bitcoin should be used in markets where there is an inefficient mode of payment. As I said before the dark market payments would be very inefficient if it did not have Bitcoin payments. There are also ways to create to create new markets for Bitcoins like for example an exchange for backed frequent flyer mile tokens done on Counter Party that is tradable for Bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
