these limitations you are proposing will actually make things a lot worse.
for example if someone was earning $10 and you limit it to $5 then they will create 2 accounts and now they have to spam twice as much. if you ban account buys it will just migrate to somewhere else and because of that ban (less supply) the price of such accounts shoot up so there will be more incentive to do account sells and more people would start doing it (farming accounts and selling them). the result is more spam, more merit abuse,...
It would happen before introduction of merit system. But now for random spammer it's almost impossible to build forum account from, or he have to put lot of efforts into it. Same goes with account sellers, I doubt that they have so many accounts farmed. It's questionable, how many of these account sellers in the marketplace really holds accounts that they're selling. I suppose that most of these sellers are just scammers. it can create incentive and when there is incentive they will find a way. it may even create a bigger merit selling market alongside the account selling market! both of which already exist on a smaller scale. ~
not letting campaigns paying in altcoins to operate is not only absurd but also it is like erasing the problem instead of solving it. because the problem is not the campaign's payment method, it is in the manager/owner paying people for their spam. and opposite example is Yobit campaign which was paying in bitcoin and was responsible for a large amount of spam. |
|
|
|
they get paid in my crypto for comentaating a game.
this is the biggest problem that i see with your idea. basically when you are creating your own cryptocurrency and limit the payments to that only, you are limiting the number of your audience to a handful of people who know about that token and are also willing to spend it (not just speculate and trade). people aren't going to pay lot of fees to convert their fiat to a token that they can only use for one purpose. they would stick to their TV or go to Twitch and pay/subscribe using bitcoin for example. |
|
|
|
|
the same exact thing can be said about any other new technology. people are always afraid of change, it is in their nature. but that doesn't mean their fear will prevent change. quite the contrary, the change is also a part of our world and it is inevitable. and that is what happens with all the new technologies, the come and replace the old ones. at first there will be resistance but eventually everyone accepts the facts.
as for user-friendliness, it is not bitcoin that needs to become user friendly but the Graphical User Interfaces that need to do that. in other words the wallet developers need to improve their GUI to create a better user experience.
so far there has been a lot of good efforts in this direction too. for example we have user friendly desktop wallets such as Electrum, we have lots of mobile wallets that are as easy to use as pointing and clicking!
|
|
|
|
|
useless altcoins like XRP are always bad investments because they have no future and their price is always artificial. what you read in the news is not banks, etc using XRP, but they are using Ripple that is the technology. it is the same thing as saying Facebook is using bitcoin whereas it is just using the bitcoin technology to create their own shitcoin. and that is what these banks have been doing.
|
|
|
|
Satoshi could well become the denomination of choice in the future, but at the moment, I think mBTC is the easiest to work with both visually and verbally.
mBTC seems good in theory but in action i have seen many people having trouble with the unit conversion not knowing how much 1 mBTC is for example. so it may cause a lot more confusion. Satoshi unit on the other hand is more convenient since usually people know there are 8 decimal places after 1 BTC. and we can always use both, BTC for large amounts and Satoshi for small ones. (ninety four hundred sat seems easy to say) |
|
|
|
yes, there is a good chance for it as bitcoin gains more popularity and the mixers are used more. but the bigger concern that we should have is if the government agencies start running their own mixers in disguise and become popular! If governments ban mixers/tumblers, then they could easily do the same to privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies like Monero and Grin. It's all a matter of power and control over people than anything else. What do you think about this?  there is a big difference between shutting down a centralized company that has a physical (singular) place to shut down and a handful of people (the owners of the company) to arrest or put pressure on. and a decentralized cryptocurrency that relies on its peers that are spread around the world! |
|
|
|
"most"? i don't even know of a single case of a loan that is given without a collateral or at least some sort of guarantee for the lender to get his money back. i would love to take such a loan without collateral if you know, let us know with an example  Here are lending threads of some users offering uncollateralized loans: ~~~ they are all working based on the bold part in my comment, they don't just give out no collateral loans to anyone. your account has to be trusted and they do a risk assessment whether you are going to run away and abandon your account or will you pay it back. so in a way the "collateral" can be considered the account and the reputation itself, even though they may not take control of your account. |
|
|
|
I do think it is unfair to ban someone based off ip alone because what about all the people that travel for their vacations. If they use local internet access then they are screwed. I think a lot of these exchanges and casinos want to do as little as they can to ban US customers because they will still gladly accept their business if it means more money.
they usually don't ban the account but they just prevent that IP address from accessing their website. in other words if someone is living in a another country and travels to US and then accesses his account, he will simply see a message telling him and he can not access the website because of his location, without even being able to log in. at least that is most of them do. |
|
|
|
It is important to note that whenever it goes above $12000, it only stays for a short time and then falls again, it seems to me that $12000 is a zone where there is a lot of resistance, and after $12000 there is $13000. which is also very difficult to overcome. in my opinion only if it breaks $14000 and stay long above $14000 is we can dream of $20,000 later this year. for those who believe it is possible to see the $20,000 later this year, every day we see that won't be such an easy task
it is not just a fall after reaching X, it is a rise and fall aka the sideways market where price keeps going down to $10k-ish and then rises back up to closer to $13k and then repeats again. we have been in this range for nearly 1.5 month now. this type of trend is usually ended with a big breakout. so we don't need the $14k, it will happen by gaining a momentum next time we are headed for $13k and it just keeps going for about 30 to 50% before hitting the correction. |
|
|
|
|
these limitations you are proposing will actually make things a lot worse.
for example if someone was earning $10 and you limit it to $5 then they will create 2 accounts and now they have to spam twice as much. if you ban account buys it will just migrate to somewhere else and because of that ban (less supply) the price of such accounts shoot up so there will be more incentive to do account sells and more people would start doing it (farming accounts and selling them). the result is more spam, more merit abuse,...
|
|
|
|
whenever you download binaries of an application that is security sensitive you have to only worry about two things: 1. how much you trust developer's and their code. this trust can increase if the builds are deterministic (which i believe Electrum is) and when others are building and confirming the hashes like what bitcoin core does. 2. how to acquire the real PGP public key of the developer releasing the binaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trusteverything else is meaningless. for example even if you download from actual electrum.org website you still shouldn't trust what you received. |
|
|
|
i know the fact SegWit transaction have bigger size in byte
nested segwit inputs are a little bigger than old style inputs, but bech32 (i.e. native segwit) inputs are a little smaller the bech32 outputs are smaller not as inputs, it is because the ScriptPub (of type P2WPKH in comparison to P2PKH) doesn't have the same OPs otherwise the transactions spending them are bigger. every SegWit transaction has overhead. there is the 2 byte marker/flag (=0001), there is a 1 byte leftover CompactInt indicating size of ScriptSig being zero, and finally the CompactInt added to witness indicating the number of items in it. unless i've missed something in transactions, the total size seems to be the same for P2WPKH (smaller previous tx but bigger tx spending it) |
|
|
|
|
this has been discussed many times before. and my conclusion based on the comments is that it is not possible to predict which way things are going to go in case of another global financial crisis. some say bitcoin can follow the rest down and some say bitcoin can go in the opposite direction.
i personally believe that it can be either an upward move or no move at all. bitcoin has always been independent of other assets and have not really taken effect from any major incidents that affects other assets. it is a beast moving on its own. and that "being on its own" can be an important factor in case people were trying to choose an alternative way of trying to save their money's worth.
|
|
|
|
BCH became the dominant chain
how exactly do you define "dominant chain"? - having a minuscule hashrate, difficulty and proof of work compared to bitcoin? - having a manipulated difficulty adjustment so they could mine 1000+ blocks per day compared to the normal ~144 blocks per day? - being centralized? - not being immutable due to the fact that they rolled back a bunch of blocks they didn't like using their centralized power? - maybe by price, being worth 0.028 BTC? - or maybe by block size having blocks that are on average have always been much smaller than bitcoin? (200 kb BCH versus 1.3 MB bitcoin) |
|
|
|
Do you know if bitcoin core can sign messages from segwit addresses? Any solution for this ?
I don't know, never tried so I can't say for sure. But if Bitcoin Core does it's likely that such signed addresses via Bitcoin Core are only verifiable in Bitcoin Core itself. As far as I know bech32 signed messages via Electrum are also only possible to verify in Electrum because there's no standard yet. there has never been any standard for singing messages in general either. but since the first time message signing came along was a very long time ago, everyone does it the same since they copy that method. but nobody updated it for new address types. all it takes is addition of a new condition for RecId. it can be as easy as adding 1 to it when using bech32 addresses (27 + RecId + 4 + 1) the underlying cryptography steps are the same as signing a transaction so the code is already there for all the wallets. |
|
|
|
in other words, earning bitcoin is not hard. the methods you chose were hard. try an actual job in real world and ask them to pay you in bitcoin. or use the money to buy bitcoin. then you'll see how easy it is.
Agree with this. But the problem is not every job/employee can pay you with Bitcoin. In my country, it's illegal to do that so the best choice would be using our fiat money to buy Bitcoin and then hold it. But if you can find an online job which pays you well, such as freelancing then it's a good alternative, really. in the end, earning money through any method comes down to the skills that the person has. entering anything without them means no efficiency. for example in early years i was like OP, not knowing how to earn bitcoin and everything i tried didn't give me any meaningful amount. then i slowly started acquiring new skill, i improved my programming knowledge, learn more about trading and a lot more. now i try to have additional revenue with those skills and the result is a lot better. |
|
|
|
|
remember that it doesn't matter if it is the real message or a fake message or even if you download the wallet binaries from the "official" website (electrum.org) or somewhere else. the ONLY things that matter are whether you trust the developer and if you verified the downloaded file with his actual public key.
|
|
|
|
~ For this you need to have 2 PCs and fiddle around with them, not practical at all if you need to use it, only for deep freeze usage, not even cold storage.  not really. when you burn a Linux OS on a DVD and boot using it, you are in a new system that is fresh without needing to have another PC. it can be run 100% live from your RAM without needing HDD and no need for internet access. a 100% clean and offline environment. this can be used 2 different ways: 1. boot from DVD, import seed, sign tx, shut down, transfer to online and broadcast this means each time you want to spend you have to both install the wallet and import your key or seed 2. install it on a removable media like a USB disk or a portable hard disk. this way you can add additional things such as encryption and save the settings such as disabling network completely. and you won't have to import your key every time. |
|
|
|
devs want to introduce new opcodes to segwit that reintroduce malleability into segwit
I've heard this before, but couldn't any detailed info. Do you know any info or which opcodes which you believe will reintroduce malleability? franky1 is known to be a drama queen about everything when SegWit is involved  he may be talking about BIP-118 which "proposes" addition of a new sighash called NoInput. i don't know what it has anything with malleability but i have seen some concerns raised about it specially for when you do address reuse. although like many of the BIPs it is just a proposal that is not accepted. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawikihttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-May/001242.html |
|
|
|
|
obviously earning "money" is hard whenever you choose to earn it through low paying jobs, high risk jobs or hard jobs. and that is what your list is!
trading is a high risk job, if you are earning a living from something like stock market trading you are taking high risks and you could earn a lot or lose a lot.... same with bitcoin.
mining is a hard job, if you are mining gold or oil for example! it is hard, costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time but the revenue is good.... same with bitcoin
faucets, micorpayments, campaigns,... are low paying jobs, faucets are like gathering cans from the street and selling them, micorpayments are like the "online micorpayments" out there and they pay less. if you try to earn a living from these methods then obviously it is hard.... same with bitcoin.
in other words, earning bitcoin is not hard. the methods you chose were hard. try an actual job in real world and ask them to pay you in bitcoin. or use the money to buy bitcoin. then you'll see how easy it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
