Last year when MtGox apparently got "hacked" we saw bitcoin coming down to $100(for a few minutes) from $1200.
Since then bitcoin has been constantly going down .
If gox thing didn't happen do you think that bitcoin still would have been at around $1000?
So is gox to be blamed for this downfall?
Agree that gox was behind pushing the coin down to such lows. But now we are seeing a new co consistent low. What caused this? scammers and hackers may have caused it. they are getting big chunks of coin doing bad things would you care to specify that what kind of hackers and spammers are you talking about? what was the latest scam in recent times that could have caused this low? 650k of gox coins are missing. Also there was the bitcoin auction, bitstamp hack, etc... there are 1000's of coins around in the hands of unknown people that may or may not being in a slow process of dump right now How many gox coins does gox have left? i believe karpeles "lost" all 850,000 btc then a few were reportedly recovered during the following audit in a wallet someone "forgot about" but i dont know if these are going to be repaid to the losers or maybe karpo will get to keep them .... not sure if japanese law even recognises btc as money yet so chances are ,nothing will happen to him .. |
|
|
|
Last year when MtGox apparently got "hacked" we saw bitcoin coming down to $100(for a few minutes) from $1200.
Since then bitcoin has been constantly going down .
If gox thing didn't happen do you think that bitcoin still would have been at around $1000?
So is gox to be blamed for this downfall?
Agree that gox was behind pushing the coin down to such lows. But now we are seeing a new co consistent low. What caused this? scammers and hackers may have caused it. they are getting big chunks of coin doing bad things would you care to specify that what kind of hackers and spammers are you talking about? what was the latest scam in recent times that could have caused this low? 650k of gox coins are missing. Also there was the bitcoin auction, bitstamp hack, etc... there are 1000's of coins around in the hands of unknown people that may or may not being in a slow process of dump right now the main hole in your logic is these people can only dump once and there are many buyers to snap up coins in a low slump thats why the price has not fell to zero and if it slumps it will rise again dump as much as you like ,someone will snap them up ,bitcoin will survive and thrive |
|
|
|
News about this situation ? Has someone receive his money?
Nobody receive anything. That's very bad  . The people *must* learn to keep their own coins in their personal wallet and not in the various exchanges. So, I transfer bitcoin to an exchange in order to buy/sell a coin, wait a day, then the exchange goes belly up, and it's my fault?  yes ,if you dont have the private keys ,you dont have any bitcoins this will continue until exchanges are insured against loss ,theft,hacks,inside jobs etc |
|
|
|
QT Core is good only for folks who can keep it on and connected to the internet all the time...you break it for one day and it takes 15 minutes to sync
Multibit is a good choice
some people dont turn their computers off anyway for other reasons and most western houses have wifi thesedays i have multibit as well but i like to run a full node anyway to strengthen the network i think its only a matter of time before the current blockchain is pruned or compressed into something more managable etc because new users will have no need to store every transaction of the last 7 years |
|
|
|
What price did you buy at?! Seems like you should have lost alot by now  He bought around 600$/BTC so far He bought with a house not $ so you have to calculate in house terms  Houses are unpredictable things, sometimes even newish ones need a fortune spending on them to fix mistakes made by the original builder. For all we know the OPs house might have fallen down since he sold it. NOW YOU ARE JUST PULLING HAIRS YOU SOUND RIDICULOUS. welcome to MY ignore list lol ,you really are a turd ......there are no more suitable words to describe you To be fair biggus 's post was quite ridiculous.Don't see why you would put him on an ignore list for stating that. biggus is not the ignored one ,lordsonjai got that priviledge because im sick of reading his garbage posts  |
|
|
|
What price did you buy at?! Seems like you should have lost alot by now He bought around 600$/BTC so far He bought with a house not $ so you have to calculate in house terms Houses are unpredictable things, sometimes even newish ones need a fortune spending on them to fix mistakes made by the original builder. For all we know the OPs house might have fallen down since he sold it. NOW YOU ARE JUST PULLING HAIRS YOU SOUND RIDICULOUS. welcome to MY ignore list lol ,you really are a turd ......there are no more suitable words to describe you |
|
|
|
If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list. I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability: Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section  to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal. Satoshi Nakamoto If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault. I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale. I signed up for a Bitcoin that wasn't controlled by those who already have power. I knew fuckin good and well that it wouldn't scale in a simplistic transaction rate manner while preserving almost anything about it that I liked (and which were highly marketed) and so did a lot of other of the more experienced early adopters I'll bet. I'll lay 50/50 odds that Satoshi found that much of his early interest were starry-eyed fundamentalists and fed you folks a load of bullshit when he was caught patching in the 1MB. He picked you as 'lead' for your Pillsbury Doughboy nature. Hearn was one of the few guys who actually saw what was going on, but for whatever reason or set of reasons his wishes for the solution are that it be brought under control and somehow he caught your ear. Why don't you do one simple thing: Say clearly where you want to see the solution end up, compute the size you need to do so, and do the hard fork one time. If 140 tps is where you want to stop, say so. If 2000 tps is where you want to stop, say and do that. If 20,000, say that. Now you are playing both ends by leaving this value open. You let people say 'oh, we can handle 140 and remain decentralized.' and also 'oh, we can scale as needed.' It's slimy and it sucks and you should be ashamed. I think you won't do this for the same reason you gently pull a hooked fish into the dip-net rather than jerk it around which scares it and risks a broken fishing line. There is very little other reason if you are going to demand a fork before any real transaction fees happen. Initial examples of sidechains will probably be out in a few months. Long before the 1MB becomes a problem (if it ever really would.) A properly implemented two-way-peg makes a sidecoin an excellent proxy for a bitcoin and offers a true potential to both scale and to keep Bitcoin lite and defensible. It also provides the potential to keep proof-of-work happening on Bitcoin even if as the simplistic economics fail (as they are now from what I read.) I have not heard much from you about that, and I have every expectation that you are fully able to see through the nonsense of the idiots here on trolltalk. All I see is you working double-time to hard-fork, and it's awfully tempting to believe that sidechains have you in a panic for fear that they would work great. For my part even as the one of the more vocal of the small blockchain crowd, I worry that 4-7 tps isn't enough even when penny-ante micro-transactions are happening off on some sidechain or another. If I saw a clear and well constructed path to real scaling and 1MB simply wasn't sufficient and it was demonstrated with something resembling rigor I'd change my tune about a fork. As it is, all you bloatchain guys are doing is herding a bunch of drooling sheep with simplistic fundamentalism, faith-based decentralization, nebulous claims about scaling, scare tactics and such-like. That's how I see it. --- I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong, and the more I think about it (from tapping out an earlier post on this thread), I think there is a damn good chance that 'mpcoin' could come out on top in the end. I'm actually kind of looking forward to a battle to say the truth. As I said, such a thing would be a really good way to really harden the system in a form where it is actually worth having around on planet earth. WTF IS A BLOATCHAIN ? youve completely missed the entire argument the blocks will stay the same size as now until there is another big rally and transactions to support such..... |
|
|
|
60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?
can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?
only 20% is anti the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be in favour when they learn more about how important this is |
|
|
|
I dont say 20MB fork is bad thing but if Bitcoin is decentralised that is too big decission for any group to decide w/o whole community to be involved. I am sad cause whole thing and hope BTC will not break in two pieces. Also we have Bitcoin elite in making now who make decissions on their own, have closed mitings and all so that is so sad and against original idea.
every idiot with a fraction of a bitcoin and barely any knowledge of how it even works cant have an equal vote , that would just never work it makes sense that the bitcoin millionaires and exchange owners and large mining pool owners are having a meeting to figure out whats best way forward without all the spitters and shitters just taking the chaos of this thread alone into consideration .......... |
|
|
|
So I've seen the number that 250,000 BTC sold off. While that's probably people misinterpreting the trading volume as pure selloff volume, wouldn't that be SOME SHIT if we found it was the remaining GOX coins being liquidated to repay creditors?   GOXED FROM THE GRAVE! I still feel like there's potentially one more Goxing out there somewhere, somehow. i guess btc-e will be the next gox, its probably just a matter of time IMO I would disagree. btc-e has never gotten hacked. On the other hand gox was hacked on a regular basis and it's overall security setup was a joke What makes you think that something that hasn't happened before won't happen in the future? Your point is totally invalid. You are just ignoring the impact of the highly improbable. The solution resides in professional auditing of the exchanges and more experience in protecting their business and their client's funds. they should be forced to purchase insurance BEFORE taking hundreds of millions of usd /btc in customer deposits and then being "hacked" eventually it will be mandatory but for now,use them at your own risk anyone can operate an exchange as it stands ,even people with a history of scamming (mintpal etc ) Who will provide these guys with an insurance? You? No. Me? No. I don't think that anyone would agree to provide them insurance because of other exchange's history and government's tough stand on bitcoin. How could an insurer know how much to agree to insure them for if the amount of money on any exchange is constantly varying? During bubbles and crashes all the exchanges hold far more than at quiet times. They always seem to get hacked during peak trading times. if coinbase has managed to get insured theres no excuse for the rest of them not doing it when they are in a position to steal huge amounts .......... I guess coinbase is way more established and trusted than other sites and maybe that's why they got insured. Or it can be true the other way round, they got trusted because they got insured. But all of them wont worry to buy insurances. eventually the ones that dont will have zero volume ...........its just a matter of time no serious investor is going to send anything more than loose change to an uninsured exchange in eastern europe or asia and just "hope for the best " (by serious im talking about hedge funds and people will real capital ,not teenagers with a couple of hundred usd ) |
|
|
|
You are looking at it wrong. Transactions are signed with privatekeys. Same adresses have same privatekeys on both networks. Mpcoin nodes don't have to communicate with Gavincoin nodes to doublicate the transactions.
There are not two networks. There are two sets of nodes which disagree on which is the "One True Blockchain". Up until the fork (a certain block height) all the nodes have 100% agreement, but then after the fork, a subset, "MPnodes", start to reference utxo from blocks which are unknown to the Bitcoin nodes. These tx are rejected by Bitcoin nodes just the same way, as if I created a tx for 123,000 BTC to send to an address I own, so I can have a nice fat bitcoin holding to rival the Winklevoss'. Companies which accept bitcoins for products and services will be anxious to ensure that their nodes conform to the majority view and have the same blockchain that the exchanges, and payment processors do. You don't get it. Nodes of the different networks don't have to communicate. Hashes are the same on both networks so anyone who watches the transactions on one chain can broadcast them on the other chain. The majority of the people will make the step, there won't be a mess. I know me, and all of the miners I spoke to will make the step as well, as well as 90++% of all leading mining pools. Leaving you with a chain stuck with really high difficulty without enough hash to properly move it forward. When you finally do get it to the point where it readjusts difficulty you'll probably realize that it was incredibly stupid and that 1MBcapcoin is useless..... Maybe there will be people that will start using 1MBcapcoin to broadcast all their holdings to loads of different addresses, it won't matter because 1MBcapcoin won't be worth anything anyway. i think 95% of people will stick with bitcoin core/satoshicoin/gavincoin and remove the 1MB transaction limit, the other 5% chain will die out if difficulty is insanely high and there is not enough mining power to match it two chains will not co exist at 50% each ,theres just zero chance of that happening |
|
|
|
After the beheading of American Journalist, European Journalist, now Japanese national ISIS is currently raising funds through Bitcoin http://bit.ly/1x0qDBUWell, I know for a fact what bitcoin can do for us, but will it help ISIS destroy US? Should Bitcoin regulated for this? That is just sad .No one should send a penny to them . Does anyone has the address of their receiving address ? every 3 letter government agency in the world will be following any btc sent to ISIS funding addresses easy to trace where the coins came from even easier to catch the persons trying to cash them out of an exchange using btc would be their downfall, even more detrimental than using cash imo |
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin were actually used to fund all the worlds wars and violence and drug deals the value of 1 btc would be astronomical
Everyone here would be Filthy rich already
Next question?
|
|
|
|
So I've seen the number that 250,000 BTC sold off. While that's probably people misinterpreting the trading volume as pure selloff volume, wouldn't that be SOME SHIT if we found it was the remaining GOX coins being liquidated to repay creditors? GOXED FROM THE GRAVE! I still feel like there's potentially one more Goxing out there somewhere, somehow. i guess btc-e will be the next gox, its probably just a matter of time IMO I would disagree. btc-e has never gotten hacked. On the other hand gox was hacked on a regular basis and it's overall security setup was a joke What makes you think that something that hasn't happened before won't happen in the future? Your point is totally invalid. You are just ignoring the impact of the highly improbable. The solution resides in professional auditing of the exchanges and more experience in protecting their business and their client's funds. they should be forced to purchase insurance BEFORE taking hundreds of millions of usd /btc in customer deposits and then being "hacked" eventually it will be mandatory but for now,use them at your own risk anyone can operate an exchange as it stands ,even people with a history of scamming (mintpal etc ) Who will provide these guys with an insurance? You? No. Me? No. I don't think that anyone would agree to provide them insurance because of other exchange's history and government's tough stand on bitcoin. How could an insurer know how much to agree to insure them for if the amount of money on any exchange is constantly varying? During bubbles and crashes all the exchanges hold far more than at quiet times. They always seem to get hacked during peak trading times. if coinbase has managed to get insured theres no excuse for the rest of them not doing it when they are in a position to steal huge amounts .......... |
|
|
|
Are they all living in pristine cardboard boxes in Zurich then, because apparently they can't live on their wages?
From what I've heard income is about 20% higher in Switzerland with expenses 30% higher, so yeah kinda. Well, if they're bums, at least they're cleanly bums. I bet R. Branson here bleaches his a-hole before crawling into his box. Yeah, it's very important to keep your asshole sufficiently well bleached... And probably greased up in some of your cases |
|
|
|
I voted pro because I am for increasing max block size. But IMO it's too early to jump to 20MB. Maybe less?
It's actually about 16.8 MB, and it's very unlikely the block size will grow to anywhere near 16 MB immediately. Consider that it took 6 years for Bitcoin to go from 0 to 0.5 MB, despite the fact that the block size limit has allowed 1 MB blocks for the entire time. Exactly! Blocks will not reach 20MB the day we hard-fork. It will take a lot of time and transactions to get there. I totally understand. It will take very long time, that's why I personally think changing it to 20 MB now is way too early. Depending of adoption growth in the next year/few years, We can increase more later? as stated earlier ,why not set a date now for the upgrade in around 2017? that should give most people plenty of adequate warning |
|
|
|
if you are planning on buying thousands of bitcoin to retire on, you would be better of using the money to buy gold with, that's a much safer investment.
it's an insane amount of money.
it's like buying several thousand tons of gold. It's quite a large fraction of the total amount of bitcoin in circulation.
i think your counting it wrong in 2013 just 1 TON of gold was 48.2 million dollars |
|
|
|
im not getting the mining stake here..
if the massive mining ops switch to 20MB blocks, that will leave hobbyist miners (me) the ability to get their home miners out of their boxes to sustain the 1MB bitcoin, for which the hashrate would be 'bearable' again?
edit: how will the block rewards split between the two blockchains?
the longest or prevailing chain will get the reward ,the other chain would get orphaned ? if there were two forks and one was "easy" to mine and the other had current difficulty levels then the coins would have to have differnt values a gavincoin would be worth a btc and the MPcoin would be worth less ,maybe like a litecoin how about the hodlers ? anyone who has a million coins in storage will spend them on the fork that is worth the most or is it not optional ? |
|
|
|
What hard fork did you think I was talking about? According to MP , tvbcof, et. al. many miners would not switch to the new 20M fork.
I never said anything one way or another about that and never thought much about it until about 20 seconds ago. Now that I do, however, it is kind of interesting... I've heard (but don't know) that some outfits are shutting down their hashing due to being in the red (which, as I've said multiple times, is an almost inevitable situation which we must assume will occur from time to time no matter what the price, fees, blocksize, whatever due to simple economics and supply/demand.) Those blinking off must be pools who own most of their own gear because it should not cost much to run a pool generally and if you can find a few miners who will hash for you (for whatever reason) then why not keep running? This means that there are idle resources which can power up. Let's guesstimate that 95% of miners are straight up good corporate citizens and who appropriately love Big Brother and The Bitcoin Foundation. They'll upgrade to 'gavincoin' like they should and keep right on hashing (and honor the appropriate red-lists when they come out.) This leaves the other 5%. Some of these will hash on bitcoin-legacy.org (domain free to a good home, BTW.) Maybe the BTC they get will be worth less, and maybe there is a better chance that they'll be worth almost nothing compared to the state approved GVC [gavcoin|govcoin], but they'll win a lot more of them since the difficulty will plummet.bitcoin-legacy will have to live under the Sword of Damocles having only a minority of the world's sha256, but there are probably some kludgy protections against some of the mischief which could be wrought upon it through attack though. You know what? A light, tight, and defensible Bitcoin core is exactly what 'sidechains' needs, and sidechains have the potential to attract a great deal of sha256 since they would be created by-and-for autonomous entities who simply need the benefits of a solid exchange currency. Here's an idea. The so-called 'mpcoin' could patch in the SPVP op-code which would benefit sidechains (and others) and leave the gavin-bloat behind as a play for resources. Here's to living in interesting times. do not say Gavincoin will win a war. I think it won't for a few simple reasons: -Users who don't update are automatically not on Gavincoin -many users will choose a small blockchain over a large one when presented with a choice (me included) -all it takes is a single exchange that exchanges Mpcoin to make sure it survives and wins -the old chain is more integer (it is the original 'Bitcoin') it all depends how the broaders userbase is educated on their choice and the users will not choose Gavincoin as it incapacitates them and brings them no real benefits - they will tell you to go fork yourself when told about 1000gb storage and all the other things. The ultimate choice will be down to the userbase ... and they will choose dogecoin and litecoin ... but if they had to choose between Gavin and Mpcoin they will stay on the old chain. So this whole shitshow is total bogus. Most people will possibly try out both versions and will find Mpcoin is just better for them as they can afford to store the blockchain on their homecomputers and it doesn't use so much bandwidth. Gavincoin won't win it - even if it has more support initially and all the hype-sheitsters, exchanges and 95% miners behind it. People will find it's crap and return to Mpcoin ... or more likely Litecoin. Seriously all of these pro-fork people that are so sure Gavincoin will be the winning chain look like apes. Guys, this discussion and all your arrogance is just too funny but carry on .... the blockchain isnt going to be 1000GB+ a year " blockchain pruning " solutions are already being worked out to fix the storage issue most likely the home user will not even notice that the blocks are larger since the transcation amount will have to increase exponentially to get close to filling those bigger blocks and that may not happen for 5-10 years |
|
|
|
You also can sell you bitcoin to other altcoins and then buy back with the altcoins. It another way to mix your coin.
that seems a bit overly complicated IMO cant you just send them to a high volume exchange where they will land in the deposit or "hot wallet " and sold on to customers or possibly be moved to the cold storage where they could be mixed with 200,000 other btc when you withdraw them after a day or two its unlikely you will get any of your same coins back |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
