I think that you guys are very optimistic... we are heading to an iceberg.
The profitability about Bitcoin mining is at stake. The only way that 'nothing happen' is that Bitcoin double its value to compensate. This is not going to happen this time because, there is a red line where the investors will not go, and rather will spend their money on another crypto. It is not a coincidence that Libra will be launched officially at this precise time.
The banks behind XRP, LIBRA or EOS are just waiting that BTC hit the iceberg to take the lead and that will be the end of Bitcoin as the leading crypto.
Think about it. What if the value of BTC do not double? Then the mining will not be profitable, all the mining gears will lost profitability, all the miners will switch to another currency. This will trigger a domino effect and in March 2020 all who have Bitcoins will cry because money will flow out of Bitcoin to something else.
Now you may say that if many stop mining Bitcoin, then the difficulty will readjust.
All of this is like an Earthquake in the Crypto...
Bitcoin will see its dominance fading and the banks will take the lead.
Fixing Bitcoin at this point will be too late.
and i think you are being too pessimistic and want to see an iceberg in the fog. which price are you considering as the base when you say "double"? the current price? the peak of the last bubble? or the price when last halving happened?! last time block reward halved price was ~600 and now it is nearly $10k! that is not just double, that is 1500% rise. also as Thirdspace said about difficulty, it is designed in a way that mining is always profitable. as for those altcoins, they are centralized. they can not even be an alternative to bitcoin. investors are investing in those already but they have always been doing it short term for pump and dumps not for long term nor for usage. obviously something like Libra that has a big "brand" behind it will have its time just as Paypal already has! but none of it will have anything to do with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
the use of fairly simple mining algorithms
i am still not convinced whether more complicated algorithms solve anything about centralization of mining power. the rich elite can still accumulate large number of any equipment needed to mine and still control a large portion of the hashrate. whether it is CPUs, GPUs, or ASICs. Hence, the lack of protection from creating large mining pools leads to, essentially, centralizing mining and to the possibility of censoring transactions by a small circle of people.
that doesn't centralize "mining", even with pools the mining is still decentralized but having big pools gives more power to these pools which they can use to influence the network. in any case your subject reminds of "BetterHash", in case you aren't aware of it here is the link: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/betterhash/bip-XXXX.mediawiki |
|
|
|
centralized entities attract each other, so obviously they prefer dealing with those cryptocurrencies that are more centralized and can be controlled and regulated rather than dealing with something they can not control because it is decentralized.
additionally these coins have owners, companies,... which obviously work with the authorities whereas bitcoin doesn't have anyone, there is no owner or a "bitcoin company" to want to participate in a task force like this!
Is there a company that runs ethereum? I mean there is to the point of a foundation but the same could be said about the core team couldn't it? no because the core team didn't run a bitcoin ICO to raise a ton of money and they didn't premine bitcoin to get a sudden 75 million bitcoins. on top of that if core wanted to suddenly roll back the blockchain they could not because they have no control over bitcoin. all of these things had already happened in ethereum! |
|
|
|
Something to say?! Regulations for fiats, where are you? Hidden in the basement? is there not regulation for fiat money? that's what banking and money transmitter law was built around.  the continued attention to cryptocurrency as a money laundering tool is a tacit acknowledgment that crypto is gonna get much bigger and much more valuable. for years, governments have been writing off crypto as too small to matter. now that opinion is clearly changing. they see the writing on the wall. banking regulations don't apply to cryptocurrency and that's what they want to change now. they want exchanges (and perhaps other services like payment processors and mixers) to be treated like financial institutions. yikes! the point is that they keep pretending that bitcoin is this evil currency that is "out of thin air" and used for all kinds of illegal activity while in reality fiat which they control, print, process,... is THE tool that every criminal is using for all their illegal activities. in comparison bitcoin usage is non existent and it is not just because of size of it, it is because of the transparency of it, that is cash doesn't leave any trace but bitcoin does and leaves it open for the whole world to see! |
|
|
|
Very trolly price action, with breakouts failing in both directions. I'm not too confident in any outcome at the moment, which means this is a no-trade zone. Time to sit back and wait for something obvious. I'm looking for a break above the $10,700 area or a break below $10,100. The structure is kind of drippy and the larger trend is down so I'm 60/40 bearish:
exactly! at times like this the best thing anybody can do is to simply stay out of the market until a breakout starts and bitcoin takes a clear direction and sticks to it. for the time being this is a sideways market with 100% unpredictable directions in a tight channel. i wouldn't call it bearish though, we are still in the bull market but only taking a little pause and pull back which is also scaring people away for the time being. |
|
|
|
|
centralized entities attract each other, so obviously they prefer dealing with those cryptocurrencies that are more centralized and can be controlled and regulated rather than dealing with something they can not control because it is decentralized.
additionally these coins have owners, companies,... which obviously work with the authorities whereas bitcoin doesn't have anyone, there is no owner or a "bitcoin company" to want to participate in a task force like this!
|
|
|
|
I forgot to mention that if you use segwit address it will decrease your transaction size and fee. So I suggest you use segwit address instead if you care about the fee.
your transaction "size" in bytes is actually bigger when you use SegWit, it is extra big if you use nested SegWit (SegWit addresses that start with 3) because SegWit transactions have overhead. the reason why you pay lesser fees compared to legacy transactions is the way transaction size or rather weight/virtual size is used for fee payment instead. |
|
|
|
you have to review the code yourself and then compile the binaries on your own if you want to be really safe. i do not think anybody has really reviewed these things since people usually don't waste their time for these fork coins with low value. here is the link for comparison and the way to do it is to go to Files changed tab and see the differences: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/compare/master...eveybcd:masteri didn't see anything malicious and the changes seem trivial. but i am not an expert specially not in python. 2 things might go wrong with this fork though. - the change in decimal places from 8 to 7 may break some code - since this is not an updated version ever since 2018, it is susceptible to the same bugs that existed in Electrum and fixed ever since ~Mar 8, 2018 |
|
|
|
|
i think the lack of popularity of this wallet stems from the fact that it is a phone wallet not a desktop one. other than that it seems like one of the most active projects out there not to mention old, and the number of features and the quality of them are pretty good.
it also supports lightning network, although it seems to be a custodial wallet which is a bit strange. i have to look into it more.
a suggestion: include the name in the title.
i'm out of merit to give you
|
|
|
|
That's what he did, what I argue is that you cannot leave it to completely arbitrary numbers and expect the project to be a success. I doubt satoshi punched the keyboard and whatever numbers were typed that's what he used for total supply, block rewards and whatnot.
If for instance he decided to set the thing similar to Freicoin, which was inflationary and introduced the idea of "digital demurring", Bitcoin would have never caught up as a store of value, which coupled with the blocksize limitation, it would have been a failure. In fact, I suspect satoshi knew 1MB blocksize was set in stone years before it even was brought up by anyone else. The way I see it is that those things are "hard coded" in practice, but not mentioned in a explicit way. He was aware on the game theory that would unfold.
you have to remember that bitcoin has always been an experiment and practically the first of its kind. so you can't expect everything in it to be absolutely perfect. Satoshi considered a lot of things including the supply and i'd say 21 million was a good decision. as for block size i don't think he had any plans from the beginning. the initial limitation had nothing to do with block size but it was with the database (implementation limitation) and then the actual limit was placed in 2010 to prevent spam |
|
|
|
The peak decides by the moment what? More people assume that “there won’t be a pump further”. At the moment, people stop buying Bitcoins, demand reduces and price gets down…
yes, if it were a "pump" then you could be correct. people decide that the "pump" has come to an end and they stop buying and instead start "dumping" their coins to take their money out and price comes back down to below what it started. BUT "rise" and "pump" are not the same thing! a pump is a manipulation where price rise is fake so it can not be sustained and it comes to an end and drops inevitably. but a (normal) rise that is based on real demand is very different, there is nothing fake about it and people don't just stop because they think it is the end. the "rise" is showing the market growth and the fact that more money is coming in and that money is not just going to flee. in fact people are selling all along the rise but the reason why price rises is that more money is coming in than the money that is existing through their sells. |
|
|
|
|
the thing about bans like this (which has not yet became law by the way and is still a "proposal") is not about whether people can go around it or even if the government can catch them, the real question is always about whether people are even going to try to go around the bans and do something that is "illegal".
you see, majority of people are not going to do something if it is considered by their government as illegal even if they wanted to and even if it wasn't really an illegal act. in other words if things like this go through, many will actually give up using bitcoin. they may hold what they have already bought because they still know the potential but they won't be involved any longer.
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, there is so many buyers waiting to by the dip, it will be bought up!
Nope,you are wrong,there aren't that many buyers.However,I'm 100% sure that Faketoshi doesn't have 820,000 bitcoins.He probably has 800,000 BSV of whatever forked altcoins they had(I don't even remember the names of all the BCH forked shitcoins).There's nothing wrong to sell them and dump their price.  i also seriously doubt if he has that much of either BSV or BCH. not only because it still costs a lot of money to have that much amount of these altcoins but also because these coins are clearly without a good long term future and the creators of them know it better than any of us. mainly they made these coins to make money from them not to have the coins! in fact i believe that they use these coins to pump then take the profit and invest it back in bitcoin... |
|
|
|
Using a single step plain hash for brain wallets is definitely a bad idea. But I like the WarpWallet approach.
So far it has stood the test of time even with a password of just 8 alpha-numeric characters. (not even salt)
The key difference is that there are so many iterations instead of a single hash that brute-forcing those keys would not really be feasible (yet).
actually the main difference is in usage of a key derivation function called "scrypt" which is a memory expensive KDF and with decent settings it can become very expensive to break. N=2 18 and r=8 are the "cost" that are making it expensive since you are basically deriving a 1024 byte long key and then mixing it in 8 blocks, 2 18 times then deriving another key with that mixed key both times using PBKDF2. by the way the "s2" variable it uses is quite pointless in my opinion, they could have just increase block size factor from 8 to a bigger value! and finally i have to mention that even with this much complication, this implementation is also suffering from the same flaws as any other brain wallet: people are not capable of creating a truly random password. most of them will use simple terms which can be found/guesses easily. setting a couple of complicated passwords as challenge doesn't mean the method is safe. you could do the same thing with other brainwallets too! |
|
|
|
Does electrum writes logs which may contain the IP of the rogue electrumx server?
not exactly but there is a file called "recent_servers" where it stores 10-20 servers that you recently connected to. note that connection is for receiving block headers (from multiple servers) and sending transactions. you have to go through that list to see if you can find the malicious server. this file is located in same place as your wallet files. under windows it is: C:\Users\{username}\AppData\Roaming\Electrumopen it with a text editor like notepad. and try not to edit/change anything in the files you see in these directories! |
|
|
|
~
The problem is that not even reviewing them guarantees you to have a secure software.
It is way easier to build the software from scratch with security in mind, than to adapt a different one and review/fix it.
The fact that even closed source exchanges are getting hacked (which have professional security audits and code being written with security in mind - at least talking about the big ones), is an additional argument AGAINST using software which did not have any audits at all and without having a highly professional security-orientated development team working on it.
the exchange hack cases that i know of have never been because of a security flaw in their systems. it was always because of human mistakes. for example inside jobs, an incompetent employee, not securing the hot wallet properly,... and they all had highly professional developers working on their software or at least they claimed to. Don't get me wrong. I fully support open-source. I use it wherever possible.
But if i would be running such a business, i'd rather pay a lot of money for a proper (and secure) software, instead of trying to save at this place.
i get your point and for something that is supposed to handle this much money it is mandatory for the software to be audited by security professionals but i still prefer open source software because the closed source one is audited by one person/team while the open source one can be audited by thousands and they usually are (the popular ones anyways). How do you define backdoor ?
If your only definition is a true 'backdoor' (i.e. malicious person can gain access from outside), then yes. This could be found.
actually i define backdoor as a vulnerability that was put there by the developer himself with malicious intent. if it wasn't intentional i call it a bug. |
|
|
|
|
it is probably because "whitepaper" is meant as some sort of summary or abstract of the idea that is introducing the protocol in as short a text as possible. it wasn't meant to explain every small details that the implementation of the idea contains, that would make the paper 50+ pages long instead of 8-9. for example bitcoin isn't working because it has 21 million cap, or the paper doesn't explain difficulty, scripts,....
also part "6. Incentive" has some explanations about supply and new coins, constant cap,... so it is not there isn't any mention at all!
|
|
|
|
|
blocking a certain port is going to only affect the newbie users who are using the defaults and don't know what else to do. otherwise the port 8333 is just a port, you can easily connect on another port. there currently are other nodes on other ports too which you can connect to.
however, your ISP can easily block your bitcoin traffic since none of it is encrypted and it can easily be read/sniffed. so all they have to do is to read your packets and if they are bitcoin-related they can block them.
if this becomes a thing, it again has a simple solution: adding a layer of encryption on top of it!
|
|
|
|
This is just ridiculous as he is probably causing the bitcoin price to be weak as he spreads his lies.
don't worry, price has been having trouble rising and breaking the $13k resistance for nearly a month now, it is nothing new. what CW is doing is what a parasitic opportunist does. he sees an opening and strikes. he doesn't have nearly that much bitcoin. he just seeks that attention and at the same time tries pumping his own shitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
