He is right - nobody is using Bitcoin. We have estimates from the FRB, ECB and Jeffrey Robinson which indicates the user base is under 250,000. Schmucks like Coinbase and previously MtGox loved to claim "millions" but addresses =/= unique human users and most of their addresses are empty. Risto Pietila, here on Bitcointalk, has spent countless hours analyzing Bitcoin's adoption.
If this was any other industry or the tech sector then Bitcoin would be considered a fail. A fail in the sense that if it couldn't attain the proof of concept (viral adoption) over 6 years and it probably never well.
In the mean time - Whatsapp is newer than Bitcoin and it has attained 600 million users. Even Telegram app is 2 years old and has 50 million users.
Inb4 "Digital Currency is new" - blockchain might be new but that is about it. We had older stuff like eGold and older predecessors and it goes back to the 1990s. Even estimates indicate that eGold was bigger than BTC in both capitalization and users but it wasn't really covered as much in the media.
Bitcoin got a lot of attention because it made a lot of random people millionaires. Whereas, nobody got rich off eGold except for the scammers and hackers. The media loves that rags to riches story..
Block size is still 1 MB. Bitcoin is still an experiment. I think it would be very risky to achieve an adoption at WhatsApp, CandyCrush or even Telegram levels at this moment. Also, all these platforms are centralized. Even more, Bitcoin is not just an end-consumer product. To being functional as everyday money, it needs to be accepted by merchants. And this is a slow proccess. It doesn't have commercials on TV. It doesn't have the "hey, I'm using it and you should use too". Just to compare, even debit and credit cards still didn't get an universal adoption. Here in South America, there are a lot of informal and formal places which don't accept them, they only work with physical cash. |
|
|
|
for the citizens in argentina bitcoin will be very welcome. but the government itself is corrupt and fully rotten from inside that they will simply ignore it. their priority is how can they fill their pockets as much as possible.
Corruption is a big issue everywhere in Latin America, and not just a problem unique to Argentina. But I believe that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is a honest woman with good intentions. Some of her colleagues might be corrupt.. but I can't blame her for that. The hell is full of good intentions. She is a lunatic. Argentinian Peso has dropped almost 50% in 2 years and domestic inflation is 20%. Domestic inflation now is about 38-40%. The 20% rate comes from the official index, which is being manipulated by the government since 2007. The accumulated inflation since 2002, when the peg with the US dollar was finished, is over 1000%. But the government still refuses to issue bills with greater denomination than 100 pesos, turning the transportation of the money a serious problem. Machines to counting bills are common in the commerce. I think this is done not just to avoid to admit the inflation problem, but to force people and commerce to use eletronic payments. Also, there was a bill proposal in the province of Buenos Aires to obligate merchants to have a POS machine to accept debit/credit cards. The bill only didn't pass because of the pression from the small and medium businesses. |
|
|
|
|
The typical confusion between currency and legal tender.
But by a banker? Careful with your money...
|
|
|
|
This is ridiculous, credit and debit cards transactions takes much more time to confirmation and nobody cares (do you really think you'll get the money in your bank account at the same moment the POS terminal prints the paper?). Also, these transactions can be reverted days later, in some cases, months later. Good luck trying to revert a Bitcoin transaction after 1 or 2 hours. So, what's the difference? Bitcoin is just much more transparent and honest about this possibility, so people starts to be more careful. What can be done about accepting transactions with 0 confirmation in Bitcoin is using a green address scheme, which is a service where the merchant/exchange/casino/whatever trust in a third party service won't try to trick them. http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1730/what-are-green-addresses |
|
|
|
Conclusion
ChainRadar is either "accidentally" showing From Transactions, or it is trying to appear to have compromised Monero. Coupled with the sudden appearance of a troll claiming 20/20 transactions unmasked it is clear that something dodgy is going on. Avoid ChainRadar, and always check the data for yourself before buying in to what the trolls say.
So, it would be good to put http://moneroblocks.eu/ in the OP instead of ChainRadar. Also, it could be putted at Monero's official websit, because there's no way to find any block explorer at it. |
|
|
|
It seems what they call is not a way to secure the network, it's just some crazy experiment with loans or something like that. I think in this topic this should be intended as proof-of-importance, which is used at NEM. Interesting, what I know about proof-of-activity is more like this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDlGZn7sICIA8bUPhe6jPPzGOxA4YgTgi6J4XilFpgs/editWhat coblee described it sounds to me like the proof-of-transaction (Fluttercoin) and proof-of-importance (NEM) schemes. I dislike these two. |
|
|
|
Looking to NeuCoin's documentation I found this:  This is a serious concern in a POS coin. Two entities with 2/3 of all coins? Also, there's a lot of bullshit, like the issue about Bitcoin's popularity (with a graphic comparing active users of Candy Crush with Bitcoin, which clearly show they don't understand Bitcoin, being experimental, still can't achieve that level of users), ICO instead of IPO, a lot of marketing about micropayments as if this is really a new thing, restrictions about your rights to decide what you can do with your own coins, hemisphere-oriented dates, false claims about the relation between Bitcoin halving rewards and transaction fees, claims you need to have 51% of all coins to do a 51% attack instead 51% of staking coins, ... http://www.neucoin.org/en/wiki/After the creation of proof-of-activity and proof-of-capacity schemes I think there is no reason to create new proof-of-stake coins.
I like proof of activity the best. In POW we are saying whoever can waste the most electricity should get the honor of forming a block, but that doesn't really help the network. In proof of capacity, we are saying that whoever can waste the most hard drive space should get the honor of forming a block, but again that doesn't really help the network. In POS, we are saying that who every directly invested in the network gets the honor to produce the next block. So in a way a person is in someways contributing to the network. Way better than the above two options. But in proof of activity a person that is the most active in the network gets the honor to produce the next block. It basically is a return to proof of work, except the work now is not some random arbitrary and pointless work but instead work done in the ecosystem that is strengthening it. Proof-of-capacity allows a cheap mining-way without these false claims about "ASIC-resistance". In proof-of-work or in proof-of-capacity you are a direct investor in the coin too. If you start to abuse with your hash power, the price of the coin will go down, which affects your rewards. I agree about POA, because it rewards you for running a node. Even if it doesn't give an economic return, contributing to the security of network is very simple and cheap, you can do this even with a Raspberry Pi. Even better, in opposite to POS, it can be used to distribution. The only merit which I can see in proof-of-stake is for creating a more cheap way to securing the network. But in a very questionable way. In order to minting and profit, you need to have a lot of coins in an unlocked wallet at an online computer. Sounds very good at the security point, doesn't it? Also, it doesn't work as a distribution model and makes the spending of the coin an uninteresting thing. People also forgets why Bitcoin needs to be proof-of-work. If Bitcoin was born as POS-only, it would be dead, because there would be no way to distribute the coins. How would be possible to buy bitcoins at the beggining, specially from unknown entities? I like proof of activity the best.
Except it isn't a "proof". Proof-of-activity, proof-of-resource, proof-of-storage or similar are all misnomers. There can't be "proof" of these things, all of these can be forged; only spent CPU power can algorithmically be proven because it boils down to pure physical entropy at the end of the day. Also MaidSafe use the term proof-of-resource but in reality their security mechanism is a node-ranking system which does introduce a degree of trust. The proof is cryptographic. Or not. |
|
|
|
Depende. Se as suas ordens de venda já tiverem sido executadas, não é mais possível. Você daí terá que utilizar o seu saldo para comprar os bitcoins de volta (e a quantidade que você poderá recomprar vai depender da cotação). Se ainda não tiver sido executada, você pode cancelar a ordem indo na parte de "Movimentar > Vender Bitcoin". Daí é só excluir as ordens correspondentes em aberto. https://www.bitcointoyou.com/Storage/TURORIAL_VENDER_BITCOIN.pdf |
|
|
|
I was looking to donate, but... Why they're using a Coinbase wallet to receive the bitcoins? It sounds a very bad idea for me...
Why is that a bad idea? They obviously need fiat so they are going to convert any bitcoin they receive into fiat ASAP in order to pay their legal bills Yeah, I know they need fiat, but Coinbase doesn't allow a direct control of your bitcoins and also is known for frequently blocking the access because of supposedly AML regulations. Imagine if they start to ask from where the money from these donations comes from... |
|
|
|
|
I was looking to donate, but... Why they're using a Coinbase wallet to receive the bitcoins? It sounds a very bad idea for me...
|
|
|
|
only 4 of those ahead are real coins Being a non-proof-of-work doesn't mean it's not a real coin. Unfortunately the top 10 are full of bad coins, but this is another story. |
|
|
|
Josh, happy birthday to you. As a gift, I bought 1000 paycoins. Can't wait for the honors program, so I'm buying now...  |
|
|
|
|
After the creation of proof-of-activity and proof-of-capacity schemes I think there is no reason to create new proof-of-stake coins.
|
|
|
|
Oops, a little bug ?   People here are forgetting the block #0. So, the block which bringed the 14 millionth bitcoin is the #349999. |
|
|
|
I know this topic has been covered before, but I'm asking the Monero community to please consider changing the name to something more descriptive of what the coin does. Before people jump in with the "Esperanto" reply...I know about that, but only because I've been following this coin and other cryptonote coins. It's an interesting name. The problem is that >90% of people have no idea what Esperanto is, nor do they care. A brand name is very important. How about something that describes what the coin does, such as: - PrivacyCash
- PrivacyCoin
- eCash
- eCoin
Those names somewhat describe what the coin does and hint at its features. This is important if it expects adoption outside of the techie circles. I suggested the same points on the Fantomcoin thread. I have a handful of each coin. I say this because I want to see cryptonote coins succeed. I think they are a valuable compliment to Bitcoin since they offer complete privacy whereas Bitcoin is pseudoanonymous. There are legitimate needs and uses for each. A more descriptive name would, imho, have a broader appeal to the general population. And I don't care about English. Also, the englishism in the name of the coins is a serious issue when you want to have an universal currency. Why English? Why not put the name of currency in Portuguese? In Spanish? In russian? In italian? Although Esperanto is a little-know language, using Esperanto to name a cryptocurrency is much more fair than a local-specific language. thankful_for_today was really fucking genious when he decided for the Bitmonero name (and the community was fucking genial too when they decided to rename to Monero). So, that being said, I would reccomend to any Monero adopter to put a negative trust on anyone suggesting to rename Monero. I have serious suspects these people are just suggesting a rename because they are looking to use Monero's brand in her/his own cryptocurrency. But this time, I'll open an exception for you (at least, I won't do this at this time, but others can do).  |
|
|
|
You would just manually send some btc to one of the change address or any of your addresses as part of the transaction. If you are able to send to more than one address at a time.
Yeah, this is a possibility, but I would like to do this in a more automated way. Maybe opening a bug report can be helpful. I'm not moving a lot of coins and these are not for saving purposes (just something around 0.25 BTC), but allowing to the receiver of the coins to see all your coins you have in your wallet because Electrum concetrates all your coins in only one change address sounds bad for privacy, because all your coins are moved in the same transaction. Edit: I discovered it's possible to freeze the coins at an specific address. Maybe this can be useful. |
|
|
|
Thanks. But a question still remains unclear: are these new change addresses (beyond the first three) covered by the original seed? Or in this case I'll need to do a new backup?
All of the change addresses (and normal addresses) are covered by the original seed. Thanks. I was spending some of my coins today and noticed there are now 6 change addresses instead of 3. BTW, is there a way to force Electrum to use more than 1 change address in each transaction? It could split the coins between multiple change addresses, which could turn more difficult for who is receiving the coins from me figuring how many bitcoins I have (or still can figure, but they won't see the entire balance so easy). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
