In a way, you must understand the miners view on this... Why spend the same resources on transactions with little fee's, if you can spend that same resources to get to the juicy transactions with the higher fee's. The odd thing about this is... This will become a more frequent thing now... If this is the miners doing this, they would do this again and again.. They have changed the behaviour of the crowd in their favor. People are now forced to pay higher fees, to get their transactions confirmed quicker... and the miners now realized this.. and this situation will repeat itself in future. The developers should just stuff them, and increase the block size once and for all.  I don't think the miners really care that much about transaction fees right now. I think they care most about the block reward. However like you said: Why spend the same resources on transactions with little fee's, if you can spend that same resources to get to the juicy transactions with the higher fee's. It's business  |
|
|
|
So if I understand correctly, the British prime minister wants to ban every PGP, P2P encrypted message/data transmission application/service from UK?
How exactly is he going to do that?
In the same way you ban drugs. You cant actually stop people using/distributing drugs, but you can make it illegal. So whilst an individual might take the risk, a legit company would not. Google would have to block apps in the UK play store that don't comply. Unfortunately most people haven't got a clue, and anything that will "stop terrorists" must be a good thing. In reality, companies will follow the profits, even if that means having to comply. He cannot stop terrorists from using secure communications by banning them. I think it's an excuse so that they can eavesdrop on everyone more freely (and legally), much like the NSA does. Speaking of which, didn't the U.S. do something similar with the NSA? I think they made a new law after the September 11 incident. |
|
|
|
the raise of the transaction fee to .0005 per transaction looks normal now because it will be around just 5 cents in USD but we all know bitcoin is not gonna stay at 300$ per bitcoins it ment to be rise if one day it is 5000$ per bitcoins and we are paying 0.0005 fee per transaction as you suggested then we are paying 5$ fee over per transaction which is i think to much
Yes, but as times and the price of Bitcoin changes, so will the transaction fees so long as they remain in balanced levels for both, the users and the miners. So, I am guessing that when Bitcoin hits $5K the transaction fees will drop accordingly. |
|
|
|
Greek and Cyprus are two different scenarios as others have mentioned there were a lot of Russian investors in Cyprus and greeks's access to fiat is so restricted that they can not invest in bitcoin big time even if they want to.
but all that said the market movements are indicating a different thing, and looks like another bubble is shaping , we have to wait and see.
I see a lot of mention of Russian investors moving their money out of Cyprus using Bitcoin. Have you got any links to where you got that information from? Because last I remember Cyprus lost MANY of those Russian investors (due to the haircut) that relocated their business to the Isle of Man or some other tax heaven. And I didn't really see any huge price rise considering they would have moved millions/billions of Euros through Bitcoin. AFAIK the only money that left the island of Cyprus at the time was before the haircut and was done by those that had inside information. |
|
|
|
You need capital and knowledge to pull such a sustained attack and/or you have to coordinate multiple groups to act at the same time.
I doubt that e.g. competing altcoins would do something similar, mainly as they probably don't have the necessary funds to do it. Also, it wouldn't do much good for them as they would know that they cannot bring down the network, in the best best case simply cripple it for the time being. Hence if they wanted to make their coin come out as a winner they would need to sustain an attack indefinitely. Which is probably not economical for them, not even to pull a pump & dump on their coin.
Established payment systems probably don't yet view bitcoin as a high threat as it has only a fraction of their business. Also, their analysts would probably also tell that the network cannot be stopped, only slowed by an ongoing, indefinite attack.
I'd say the most likely is a group trying to pinpoint or find weaknesses in the system and does a temporary force demonstration.
And I'd say it's probably the same group that was running the stress tests. It makes sense considering their messed up schedule (running the test on different dates/times than announced). |
|
|
|
|
Are you guys sure it's not another stress test.
I remember the previous ones didn't go as planned and at the time they were announce they would be.
So maybe it's another stress test.
Btw, I am seing 16K unconfirmed transactions (at the time of writing this) on blockchain.info
|
|
|
|
Is that possible to a "lost private" key Bitcoin wallet to get hacked by someone, and send out the Bitcoin?
A private key cannot get hacked. The password to a Bitcoin wallet is a different story and that mainly depends on how strong the password is. So for wallets is a yes and no situation. |
|
|
|
So UK Prime Minister David Cameron is sticking to his guns with respect to his Conservative party planning which involves anti-trust and "Snooper" charter in turn, with respect to digital telecommunications and encryption. Media in the UK this week begun speculating that this would affect digital messaging services like WhatsApp, iMessage and Snapchat and that any PGP/End to End P2P data transmission services would be BANNED. I'm concerned at the moment because of it's potential implication to BTC and BTC-related services that currently operate in the UK. The UK is a significant part of current BTC market, however most of BTC's use there is based on third-party services which are available over the internet. I fear that these service would be prohibited to operate. i.e Localbitcoins stopped it's service within Germany for potentially violating by-laws early this year. The UK is parent to the other Countries/States within the Commonwealth realm and thus affect them also in time? Antigua and Barbuda 1981 Realm Australia 1931 Realm The Bahamas 1973 Realm Bangladesh 1972 Republic Barbados 1966 Realm Belize 1981 Realm Botswana 1966 Republic Brunei 1984 Monarchy Cameroon 1995 Republic Canada 1931 Realm Cyprus 1961 Republic Dominica 1978 Republic Fiji 1970 (rejoined in 1997 after 10 year lapse) Republic Ghana 1957 Republic Grenada 1974 Realm Guyana 1966 Republic India 1947 Republic Jamaica 1962 Realm Kenya 1963 Republic Kiribati 1979 Republic Lesotho 1966 Monarchy Malawi 1964 Republic Malaysia 1957 Monarchy The Maldives 1982 Republic Malta 1964 Republic Mauritius 1968 Republic Mozambique 1995 Republic Namibia 1990 Republic Nauru 1968 Republic New Zealand 1931 Realm Nigeria 1960 Republic Pakistan 1947 Republic Papua New Guinea 1975 Realm Rwanda 2009 Republic St. Christopher and Nevis 1983 Realm St. Lucia 1979 Realm St. Vincent and the Grenadines 1979 Realm Samoa 1970 Republic Seychelles 1976 Republic Sierra Leone 1961 Republic Singapore 1965 Republic Solomon Islands 1978 Realm South Africa 1931 (withdrew in 1961, rejoined in 1994) Republic Sri Lanka 1948 Republic Swaziland 1968 Monarchy Tanzania 1961 Republic Tonga 1970 Monarchy Trinidad and Tobago 1962 Republic Tuvalu 1978 Realm United Kingdom Realm Uganda 1962 Republic Vanuatu 1980 Republic Zambia 1964 Republic ^ above just copied/pasted Hopefully the Government will have little controll over disruption of BTC services and that fully regulated services providers will fully vet/take all acceptable client due dilagence for compliance. Certain services in alternative data transmission have been blocked by many ISP's. http://www.coindesk.com/would-uk-encryption-ban-kill-bitcoin/http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/10/snoopers-charter-bill-causes-social-outcry-as-government-looks-to-ban-whatsapp-and-others_n_7768768.htmlSo if I understand correctly, the British prime minister wants to ban every PGP, P2P encrypted message/data transmission application/service from UK? How exactly is he going to do that? |
|
|
|
@OP, I cannot provide any suggestions as to where to invest, however I would like to remind you that right now you have 5 BTC which in itself is a good investment. If you choose to invest your current investment on something else then you might lose that 5 BTC investment you already have. Stay safe and don't gamble what you cannot afford to lose |
|
|
|
i read somewhere that if all or so many of the miners turn off their mining equipment and stop mining, then the difficulty would decrease drastically.
so i think blockchain can not be frozen! as long as at least one person is mining bitcoin. and since the difficulty would be so low by then, solo mining would be doable.
well yes but not immediately, it need two week for that, mainwhile other miners will jon the party, because of the poissible profit so in the end the diff will never decrease, and that's the reason why POW is great, because as long as there is profit to be made there will be always miners that will join the network it's a self sustaining thing Difficulty adjusts every 2016 block, not two weeks. Even when new miners join the mining, if remaining hashing power is let's say 10% of hashing power before, blocks would take an average of 100 minutes. If my calculations are correct, will take around 4 months to the next difficulty adjustment. After the adjustment, difficulty will drop very low, so blocktimes are back to average of 10 minutes.Actually, AFAIK, the difficulty will go down up to a point (and to gradually get to the point of a block found on 10 minute average). Basically there is a limit on how much the difficulty can go up or down. There are any number of altcoins you can look at to see what happens when the difficulty gets high and the miners move away ... the blockchain starts to crawl and it takes weeks or months to get to the next difficulty adjustment. Especially those that simply copied the BTC model of adjusting every 2016 blocks. So, yes the difficulty will adjust ... eventually. Yeah, sorry, I don't think I was clear about what I wrote. What I meant is that there is a limit on how much the difficulty can go up or down on each difficulty retargetSo, it can't drop/rise more than a certain number each time. My bad, I should have been more clear about what I wrote. |
|
|
|
Pump the price and ddos the exchanges, and use stress testing to slowdown the blockchain, so that no sell pressure can reach exchanges in the planned pump period
People's psychology is very strange, if you pump up the price by 50%, many of them will sell, but if you pump up the price by 10x, many of them will think that something fundamentally changed. They will hold and hope for a even higher price. So once price reached 10x higher, you have plenty of time to cash out the coin, it will never quickly drop back to the start point, due to that human are adaptive, they will get used to the high price after a while and buy during each drop from that high. At mean time the mining becomes extremely profitable and more miners will be produced and sold, the difficulty also skyrocket
Sounds like a good plan, but I doubt that is what is happening. I haven't seen much of a price change today which means whoever is behind this doesn't have Willy. And without Willy, there is no $1000+ Bitcoins. Ask Mark, he knows |
|
|
|
As you can see from Blockchain.info - their is a stress test going on - most blocks are close to 1MB in size. You put only 0.0001 BTC as fees - so just wait until your cheap transaction gets selected by the miners... These stress tests are annoying. They will proceed until they showed what they wanted to show it seems.  Yes, but as mentioned before they are useful as to know how much the network can handle. Obviously it needs more stressing than that But it's good to know the "limits". Don't you think? On another note, I think the "fork of July" was more stressing than the stress test. |
|
|
|
Will president Rand Paul pardon Ross?
i dont think a pardon is need it here, let him get a fair trial with out any corruption from the government or any political pressure and no pardon will be needed. Giving him a fair trial is basically the same thing as giving him a pardon, no? No. Giving him a fair trial means he will be able to defend himself properly without anything left out. And chances are that he will win the case once the corrupt cops that were working on his case get brought up. You cannot trust a corrupt cop to do his job honestly, can you? Speaking of which, how many honest cops are left do you think? And at what positions (VERY important)? |
|
|
|
Well, lets see what happens.
I know that the banks are closed.. But does that also mean that the online banking system is down?
Because if it was up, I would have bought all the BTC I could with my useless money in the bank.
AFAIK electronic banking is available but with limits. They don't want money leaving the country so sending money to another country is not possible unless for business and you need to prove that. So I don't think the Greeks are able to do what you are saying. |
|
|
|
$0.00 miner's fee transactions naturaly will not get confirmed quicker. If you were a miner, and you had to chose to accept a transactions with zero fees or a transaction with some fees, what would you choose? The "Stress Tests" is not a attack on the system... It's just a opportunity for miners to make more money from increased miners fees within the system. If it's raining money, you will have to be in the right place, wiith the biggest bucket. {Do not waste mining resources on transactions with zero fees} The result of these tests will provide benefits for the whole community. That is true. If you don't put something to the test, then you do not know what it can handle or not and how it will perform. None the less, the testers did inform the community about the upcoming test. What if it was an actual attack by a malicious party with NO warning/announcement of what's coming? |
|
|
|
Does Electrum have the -repairwallet command? IF it does you can run that and see how it goes, but remember to backup your wallet before you try anything. Just to be on the safe side. Better safe than sorry |
|
|
|
The fact that they didn't charge the investigators who stole the Bitcoins until after sentencing makes the trial illegitimate. Unfortunately the people in charge of deciding whether there should be a re-trial are the ones who facilitated the use of tainted evidence in the first place.
There is a lot of political pressure behind the trail so no wonder so much evidence in his favor was not allowed during the trail, just imagine hes lawyer talking about corrupt agents taking drug money for them self. If they allowed any mention of the corrupt cops the case would have probably been dismissed. That's why there was no mention of them as well as many other facts in Ross' favor that were not accepted. |
|
|
|
Did blockchain.info updated their stuff? If not then please PM me when they do i need to send a transaction, but i`m scared to do it at the moment.
Also do bitcoin in safe storage compromized? I mean do i have to create a new address, are private keys compromized because of this?
no no no there is no stolen information the problems are all for people receiving BTC on older or light security wallets and it doesn't even say that it compromises the wallet it might compromise the individual transaction you received I am a Bitcoin Core user myself, never needed something "lighter", however I need to ask: Do (any) SPV wallets have an alert system similar to Bitcoin Core to warn users? And if not, then why not? Also, edit all your posts in one, otherwise you might get banned by a mod. Just a heads up |
|
|
|
I think it's pretty cool to be world-famous for having bought a pizza.
So imagine becoming a millionaire for selling two..... Fuck fame, I 'll take the coins anytime  Also, here are the pics of the famous pizzas: http://eclipse.heliacal.net/~solar/bitcoin/pizza/ |
|
|
|
|
I am guessing it was by mistake.
3 of those transactions were made on the same day and the fourth was made the next day.
Wrong configuration probably.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
