|
when you come up with a weird theory like this you should also put some thought into the motivation. i don't see any logical explanation about the motivation of creation of bitcoin by a bank as you claim it which means you are just throwing ideas. besides, despite what you think staying anonymous online isn't really that hard. if someone wants to, they can stay fully anonymous.
|
|
|
|
|
i wouldn't exactly call it crap, it is just different and people should never attempt to compare it with bitcoin. you should instead compare it with its similar services such as PayPal . if you do that then you can see that it has its own merits, it is a centralized payment system that is using the blockchain technology, i would say it has benefits that PayPal doesn't but still it is a centralized coin created by a centralized US-based company that is known to gather user information and betray user's privacy.
|
|
|
|
Apart from around 3 people that post constantly saying Bittrex is a scam - nobody says it.
those "3 people" are the most persistent ones or probably the newly scammed people. otherwise we said it 1.5 years ago are aren't willing to waste any more time repeating it. majority of active traders left Bittrex because of it and that is why their rank dropped from #1 down to #100+ in 2017 and Binance grow overnight! also the starter of the topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=96390 what more do you want? I'm not sure why but I still find Bittrex as one of the best exchanges out there, especially when one single exchange (Binance) is trying to take over the whole crypto industry. I keep supporting Bittrex because I personally feel horrible seeing Binance destroy the coins of their choice and CZ thinking so lordly (he literally wished to reorganize the BTC chain recently). I don't think that Bittrex has ever been hacked since its creation, which is a very positive point for its reputation. Moreover, all (or maybe most of?) those complaints that were registered under the feedback of that profile that you shared seemed to have one single problem: unavailability of KYC when it was requested by Bittrex (I know that it wasn't very ethical of Bittrex to just ask for KYC out of nowhere, but you need to be ready for this sort of stuff when you're using a service registered in the US). Those who were willing to provide their verification documents never faced any issue(s) with Bittrex AFAIK; I'm one of those. I just do not want CZ to have complete control over this whole industry, that's all. Let's keep some competition among exchanges alive!  i feel the same about Binance mainly because they keep creating centralized tokens and dump on their customers! and also because of their DEX which is anything but decentralized. but Bittrex is still dishonest because of what they did. it is not just about verification but because they blocked accounts of thousands of people because they were coming from certain countries and that meant that they practically stole millions of dollars worth of cryptocurrnecies from these users. note that they had absolutely no issue with people from these countries before and this rule was applied overnight without warning and their accounts were closed without letting them verify or anything. |
|
|
|
The vast majority are just bashing buttons and hoping to get lucky, thats the way of the world because being good at one of those things mentioned can take a lifetime and alot of background work before actually taking the decision to take the risk. After all that you still have to get lucky to win.
Reason why there are traders who trade like this is because they we're thought that trading is easy, Buy Low, Sell High. They we're encouraged by those whose main goal is to make newbies sign up under a referral link and then after that, they are on their own. Trading is not for everybody and it takes time for a trader to learn even the basics. the biggest problem is the size of the rise itself that causes greed in people. for example when a newbie sees bitcoin price has gone up from nothing to $20000 which is millions of percentage profit, they start getting greedy thinking it is magic money that is going to make them rich over night so they enter the market head first and lose money in first fluctuation where the market doesn't go according to their dreams. |
|
|
|
2) If your wallet file doesn't work on the newest version of Electrum (for some reason), you can try creating a watch-only version of your wallet, building a transaction, sending it to the old version Electrum for signining and broadcast it manually. That's an harder solution, so try out the first one and if it doesn't work, we can try this one.
Simpler solution would be Export all private keys from old Electrum version and import it to new Electrum version. Just make sure the computer/notebook is secure and clean from malware/spyware. it should be noted that if you transfer private keys (instead of the seed or master private key) to the new wallet then you will lose the HD capabilities of the wallet so it is best to create a new wallet with a new seed and sweep these keys instead of importing them. |
|
|
|
if i am not mistaken this is the new certificate the bitcoin-core team has been using for their windows binary released. it is not important at all because you shouldn't pay attention to it and instead verify the PGP signature provided alongside the binaries you download. this certificate is only there to prevent windows to go crazy when you try to install bitcoin-core, without this certificate it would go crazy and issue a ton of warnings which can confuse newbies. the website repository is here: https://github.com/bitcoincore-codesigning-association/bitcoincorecodesigning-dot-org and is owned by a bitcoin-core contributor https://github.com/jonasschnelli. so yeah it should be legit. |
|
|
|
Plus hacks, and stolen coins cannot be prevented by decentralization.
Eh? Yes. Decentralization doesn't assure anything that it's hack-free, and it will only be a matter of how large the pay-day will be. Remember the DAO. it is true that nothing is 100% secure and without hack but decentralized exchanges compared to centralized exchanges are a lot safer because they eliminate a ton of ways that you could lose your money. besides in a centralized exchange the hacker has to target the exchange and steal millions but in a decentralized exchange he has to target thousands of users and hack each of them to steal that much! p.s. DAO was not a hack, it was an exploit in the protocol of the underlying cryptocurrency! |
|
|
|
|
sooner or later all the exchanges that are working with fiat will implement strict KYC rules if they haven't already and people using these exchanges should know and accept it because they have no other choice and i don't think we can ever make this decentralized since it always is linked with fiat which is centralized and requires banks.
but any other exchange (meaning altcoin exchanges) that don't have fiat should never implement this and if they do, they will sign their own death because it pushes people towards decentralized exchanges and as DEXes improve more they will eventually replace these centralized exchanges.
|
|
|
|
there is absolutely no argument about what bitcoin is and what Satoshi created bitcoin to be. it is a currency as it has always been and as the bitcoin paper is calling it a "peer to peer digital cash". what different people treat bitcoin as is a different matter. usually because price is always rising people tend to see bitcoin as an investment rather than a currency which is why they have invented the store of value concept and have been advertising it ever since the last big rise and high fees of 2017ish.
I am with this perspective. Supposedly, bitcoin should serve as P2P cash, breaking barriers, no boundaries as we say it. But as time goes on, bitcoin becomes valuable in the market and its price is now of worth of value that a holder doesn't want to spend it anymore in unnecessary things. Thus, the formation of SoV concept for most holders. Hoping that one day, it will have another ATH and get rich out of it.  the interesting part of it is that each year during the big rises whenever you check the merchant stats who are accepting bitcoin payment, you can see a big increase in their revenues that shows people are spending bitcoin more whenever its price is rising or has risen big time. for example BitPay each years shows a huge spike that resembles the price spike on price charts if you check their yearly stats. |
|
|
|
first of all where is the proof of this "trace". second of all no chain analysis has ever been reliable! and finally the address posted doesn't have 8.1 million bitcoins it only has 2326. the 8.1 million is the total received which is basically blockchain.com summing each time it receives a payment in other words that is the total received of 150485 transactions. This ELECTRUM wallet scam must be an inside job ...maybe even NSA CIA/MOSAD.
LOL can only work with back-doors built into these and probably -ALL--wallets...
there was no backdoor in Electrum and you seem to be missing that all decent wallets are open source and their code has been reviewed. there are sometimes exploits as there is in any other code. in this case it only showed a message to users which then the user went ahead and downloaded a fake wallet while being lazy or ignorant enough not to verify its signature! and as a result they lost their coins. |
|
|
|
|
you can never compare trading with gambling even if some people are gambling in cryptocurrency market and think of themselves as gamblers. gambling requires a complete unpredictability for it to be a gamble, like roll of a dice, even if you analyze the odds for a million years before rolling it, but the result is still 100% unpredictable. but when it comes to trading, the unpredictability is not 100% so it can not be a gamble by nature. specially when most of the times, rises and falls are NOT random even if they look it.
|
|
|
|
|
all of these things look pretty only in words but when it comes to actually doing them you can see how hard they are. for example you mention whitepaper and technology but the problem is that you need to first be an expert who is familiar with technical aspects of cryptocurrencies to be able to analyze the new project an conclude whether it is actually a good one with anything new to offer or is it just the copy of what existed before, or in most cases is it just advertising by using technobabble and hyping the project up by using certain keywords!
|
|
|
|
I wonder how would that pan out knowing that there had been growing pains and doubts with stablecoins? If those asking for loans already have bitcoins on their arsenal and are using them as collateral, why would the need to loan stablecoins ever arise? They could just sell their bitcoins and literally have funds without having to ask for loans which will net them huge interest in the long run, too. Perhaps in the near future we will be seeing more and more loaning platforms such as this because people feel the need to ask for loan even though they really don't need it at all.
most of the people who are taking a loan in a cryptocurrency are pure gamblers. not just gambling in an actual gambling game but mainly gambling in the market while thinking of themselves as traders. what they do is that they take a loan in whatever cryptocurrency, then put that in the market trying to increase it by trading shitcoins with their pump and dumps and end up with enough money to pay back the loan leave some profit in their pockets. basically they want to do it with something other than their main capital which is why they use their bitcoin as collateral. and since their gambling doesn't turn out well for most of them most of the times, there is a raw market filled with lots of profit for lenders and lending platforms like this. |
|
|
|
One man from this forum accepted bitcoin payments in his caffee and during two month, there was only one transaction which was almost donation.
that is not a good indication though because generally people are reluctant to spend their bitcoins. and on top of that whenever price is falling (which has been the case for more than a year in 2018) they are ever less willing to spend their bitcoins. if this was during a rise and if the fees weren't high then you could see a lot more spends. |
|
|
|
|
it seems like this strategy is working though! the "technobabble" is his bread and butter and since it is meant to fool the masses, it is working. most people either don't understand what the hell he is talking about so conclude that he is an "expert" hence might be Satoshi, or understand a little but are too lazy to dig deep and came to the same conclusion. otherwise anybody with half a brain thinking about things he says would realize how empty his words are and how low his understanding of bitcoin, cryptography,... is.
|
|
|
|
|
trolling levels of McAfee are growing every day and each time he opens his mouth a new nonsense comes out of it. and all the time he is just trying to attract attention to himself. so the term "attention whore" that has been used for him is a very suitable term really.
this is exactly like how he was supposed to "reveal" the real Satoshi Nakamoto not so long ago which is now almost forgotten...
|
|
|
|
How would the private key be the exact same, between the BTC & LTC network for the public address?
private key is just a number so that is no the place you should look. what you should look into is the type of the curve and then the script types they create. since LTC is the exact copy of bitcoin, it also uses the same curve so the same number (private key) corresponds to the same public key. and since both use the same hash functions, they both come up with the same hash. and since they also use the same script structure (OP_HASH160 <20 byte> OP_EQUAL) then the scripts are also the same. the only thing different would be address format which is the base58 encoding (first byte) which doesn't matter at all. |
|
|
|
|
investors never migrated to ICOs to want to come back to bitcoin. ICOs and in most cases altcoins have always been the temporary tool that traders used to increase their bitcoin wealth. ICOs being the more risky and be more like a bet, became popular due to the large scale hype and the pumps that happened in some cases that had the potential of a big return on their investments. otherwise investors have always been in bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
I sent from my phone yesterday and had to send at 40sat/byte.
It was quick to confirm being the 25 blocks option so wallets seem to be suggesting higher fees than they should. Blocks don't seem full on block explorers, blockchain is quoting blocks of 1.1 to 1.5 mb and 1.1 certainly seems low. Maybe there's a chance some pools are getting greedy while they can...
you can't say blocks are not full just because they are smaller than 1.5 MB. anything north of 990 kbyte can be considered full block depending on what percentage of it is SegWit transactions. so a 1.1 MB block can be full if it had little SegWit transactions in it. and it doesn't have anything to do with pools, it is just users sending more legacy transactions. |
|
|
|
You may be right, but as far as i remember, Electrum maintains forward & backward compatibility for both wallet files and seed/mnemonic. Both Electrum docs and GitHub commit shows/mention forward & backward compatibility, but i don't know far the compatibility support. you can only have backward compatibility not forward since the wallet type, seed, etc are changing and the necessary code didn't exist in old versions so they are not forward compatible. for example 2.x didn't have any SegWit stuff so your SegWit seed (which has the version encoded in it) is invalid in old versions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
