Sia is dead. Period. Time to buy Shift  Why? their github looks pretty active to me, with latest commit done today, it actually looks more active than 90% of altcoins. What is Shift? I don't see it on top 100 of coinmarketcap, must be something new? what advantage does it have over Sia? |
|
|
|
It will have value because not all people want segwit, or to be forced to use segwit for a small gain in overall tps.
Just watch it.
I don't blame them, segwit converts Bitcoin from a de-centralized crypto into a potentially centralized crypto, with off chain transactions. This is a huge and radical change. This is not technical advance, but paradigm change, it changes the core value of Bitcoin. For increasing capacity, having bigger or faster blocks is perfectly fine and simple change. Segwit is not needed at all for capacity increase. |
|
|
|
can anyone explain to me if i have my bitcoin on coinbase which wallet i should move it to so i can go through this split smoothly?
I'd move it into a paper wallet. They are the most secure. Don't lose It though. Another option is to move it to an offline wallet stored on your computer. I'm paranoid though and went with the safest which is the paper wallet route. Which one was it Coinbase said the would or wouldn't support the User Activated Soft Fork? All the talk has been advising everyone to move their Coinbase coins to a hardware wallet such as a trezor or something like that. I was really hoping that there wouldn't be a fork and that we would just have one version of bitcoin. I feel like multiple versions makes the entry barrier for new people much more confusing. I have been using bitcoin since somewhere in 2013 and I still don't fully grasp all the things going on with the scaling debate  Coinbase will be forced to honor BCC balance if BCC gets any traction/value at all, just like they were forced to honor ETC balance even when they previously said they won't support ETC. Scaling debate in a nutshell: 1. CORE/Small blockers likes segwit, dislikes bigger blocks 2. Big miners likes bigger blocks, dislikes segwit 3. Rogue dev/Big blockers likes bigger blocks, dislikes segwit Current status: CORE and Big miners compromised to activate segwit AND activate bigger blocks. Rogue dev/Big blockers dislike the compromise due to inclusion of segwit, and want pure Bitcoin with just bigger blocks, the result is BCC |
|
|
|
They are machines, so i don't consider it a crime.
Sexbot is not a crime, but it is crazy. The existence of sexbot shows how mad humans in the present day. Do not you feel disgusted when you hear the word sexbot? Do not you imagine how disgusted if you have sex with a robot? Um of course no, when I hear the word sexbot, I imagine paradise, freedom and salvation. Though I doubt it will satisfy my expectations any time soon, the technology simply isn't there yet. AI is still rudimentary, human-like robotics is still rudimentary. I mean the human-like robots can barely walk correctly, and picking up simple things with robot fingers is still considered a huge advance. |
|
|
|
The wall is already 90% built, you can google what it looks like eg.  , what he actually have to do is connect it and step up enforcement around it. Right now there's even citizen border patrols in Arizona because there's a severe lack of manpower in the actual border patrol. |
|
|
|
|
Depends on where you live. In a lot of countries, you'd be looking at jail time if you don't report and pay your taxes on the gains you made trading crypto.
Though this should only happen when you convert your crypto to fiat. If you just keep trading between Bitcoin vs Altcoins, then I don't think you have to pay taxes in any country.
|
|
|
|
Electrum denies any involvement with you guys & yet you mention electrum cash as compatible. Have you forked off electrum too to make electrum cash ?
I would think that has to be the case, it's a simple change to the Electrum code. This is completely legal too since electrum is opensource software. |
|
|
|
|
You can withdraw to electrum to be safe, just don't make any transactions right after Aug 1st.
But tbh there isn't going to be much support for an alt hardfork of Bitcoin. It'll die out shortly just like the 5-6 attempts before it did.
Alternatively you can put it on an exchange that has promised to honor forks.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no problem, we probably don't want people who can't grasp the concept of Bitcoin is divisible. It's not that hard to understand. These people only add to the volatility of Bitcoin as they will be the first to dump on any bad news.
|
|
|
|
|
I need these features:
* decentralized of course
* can create prediction on any reasonable event/topic
* can expect resolution to be accurate and fair
* can access easily, preferably have a web version.
|
|
|
|
Rest in peace , Hal.
I just read this thread after going through the history of bitcoin.
I wish I had the opportunity to interact with satoshi and you on this forum, but that day will never come now.
Thanks for all your work.
Don't be so sure, Satoshi is probably still alive and can come back at anytime, and there's an extremely tiny possibility that Hal Finney might be revived in the distant future. |
|
|
|
Reducing block time is the much superior solution vs increasing block size, but Bitcoin is too stubborn to adopt the obvious superior solutions of course.
With the obvious exception of average confirmation time being slightly more convenient for users, it's effectively no different to an increase to the blocksize in terms of resource usage. If, for example, you halve the time it takes to append a block, but don't halve the blocksize as well, you're potentially doubling the rate at which the total size of the blockchain grows. Equally as resource intensive with respect to bandwidth and storage as simply increasing the blocksize (or fractionally more intensive with a greater number of block headers taking up tiny amounts of space). While I acknowledge your analysis I would not agree with your conclusion. Reducing block time will increase responsiveness. Bitcoin is a revolution today with what it brings to us. Average of 10 minutes to send remittances around the globe is fascinating today but 5 years down the road, this likely would not be so appealing to users in the current ever-accelerating world. So I don't see how this gain would merely be "slightly more convenient". Now speaking on the payload overhead. Bitcoin protocol today is already highly efficient. As you have said it would be "tiny amounts of space". this could be negligible and therefore I would see it as a weak argument. A counter example would be to propose 6M block on an average of 60 minutes. We could save 5x more payload but such responsiveness would appear silly. IMO a shorter block time would also reduce miner rewards variance (as rewards are distributed more often), thus encouraging more decentralization in mining. Smaller pools today would be able to earn less volatile revenue and therefore more likely to afford PPS rather than PPLNS. When more pools are available in PPS, miners will be less likely to hop only on the mega pools, instead more miners could start reflecting what pools they truly support or disapprove due to less emphasis on earning differentiation. Yep, it's all good reasons, except it will be blocked by the big PoW mining farms, just like they blocked segwit. The biggest issue right now in Bitcoin is not block time or block size, it's the centralization of PoW mining. As long as this centralization exists, progress can be blocked as they see fit. |
|
|
|
|
Reducing block time is the much superior solution vs increasing block size, but Bitcoin is too stubborn to adopt the obvious superior solutions of course.
|
|
|
|
ETH will be replaced by Rootstock much easier than ETH taking over Bitcoin  How can it be replaced by something that doesn't even exist yet. Counterparty promised smart contract and ETH-like function on Bitcoin blockchain, yet failed to deliver. |
|
|
|
And crypto will be better off because of it. Ethereum has a better network with more utility (contracts) and can do currency just like BTC.
I wonder how many users have actually taken ETH off exchange and stored it in their own wallet. Try downloading the full blockchain. Is the same size as BTC with less history, takes 5 times as long on an SSD and uses a lot of disk I/O. In my opinion, it is not an efficient payment processor. It should be used as the distributed computing platform it was designed for. So why is Ethereum a better network? No regular user download the full blockchain nowadays, Bitcoin users don't download the Bitcoin blockchain neither. There's probably nearly a million Bitcoin users, and only a few thousand full nodes. ETH actually has more full nodes than Bitcoin atm. |
|
|
|
Let me reassure you : even though Bitcoin Unlimited neared 50% at some moment, they are now far from being the majority. The fork is becoming each day that passes less risky.
I don't see how near 50% is "far from majority". Also the timing of the fork is controlled by BU, they don't have to fork until they have something like 75% majority. Then they can get guaranteed fork success. |
|
|
|
|
No one "spends" gold, in terms of everyday purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
This is because:
1. there's no authoritative voting system in Bitcoin, so users can't vote on features to implement, users can't make decisions.
2. PoW mining controls nearly 100% of the power in Bitcoin, users have nearly 0% power, and will simply have to obey the PoW miner's decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone still think full PoW mining is great?
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange inspection is known news and completely expected, why the sudden $100+ price drop. Someone must know something is up.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
