We live in some dangerous times, where countries are pointing nuclear missiles at each other. We should be prepared for everything and that includes, protecting our technology/currency.
...
How are you planning to keep the power on and where will you be buying bitcoins when the power is down at your local exchange? < One more reason not to store your coins at your local exchange >
...
Share with us, what prepping are you planning for in a Doomsday scenario?
If WWIII happens, and we're worrying about nuclear warheads and mutually assured destruction, then the last thing on my mind (and most anyone else's) will be Bitcoin. This is where a lot of bitcoiners have it wrong. Economic turmoil and global war would be devastating for BTC. People would be concerned about surviving and providing basic necessities, not transacting in digital currencies. Besides, much of the internet infrastructure could be destroyed in such a scenario, rendering the "network effect" of BTC mostly dead. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not for small transactions. There are so many other coins that can do that. High fees will not affect the price.
Not just other altcoins. In time, sidechains integrated via soft forks could allow other payment systems that can transact directly with the BTC chain. Similarly, coins can be locked into payment channels, enabling users to continually transact for very minimal fees, since their transactions don't need blockchain confirmation (except to open and close channels). |
|
|
|
let me make the things more clear. BTC-e okpay account is registered to "Eurostyle Advisor Ltd" so... Eurostyle Advisor Ltd = BTC-e EUROSTYLE ADVISOR LTD registered Exmo.com. what does mean?  Exmo.com = Btc-e .... it's simple Okay, I'll admit, you make it sound very simple. Clearly they are connected. But riddle me this: If this is all true, why didn't the FBI go after Exmo, too? If they are the same criminal money laundering organization, that is. I mean, if some anon forum account can figure it out, surely the FBI could have?  |
|
|
|
The fees are not so bad. Have you ever used a bank ? Their fee's are insane. Yes I understand when sending small amounta it can get pretty costly it's why I like to bulk send. I don't think it's anything to worry about but I do think other altcoins abould be used for smaller payments and that solves the problem.
It's not good to compare to bank fees, at least in the long term. Over time, BTC fees will be much higher than any banking fees, if it reaches the values people expect (six or seven figures USD). Fees have no relation to fiat money; they are built into the protocol with its native currency (BTC). Micropayments will hopefully be possible on the Lightning Network or sidechains, but they will always be expensive on-chain. And in someday while the fees when use Bitcoin very high, the user of Bitcoin will transfer to other altcoin cheap price soon. This is reason don't have cryptocurrency can stand still #1 forever  . Well, maybe, but altcoins may not be necessary. Sidechains essentially are altcoins, but they can interact with the BTC mainchain. The Lightning Network may also make altcoins obsolete from "cheap fees" perspective. The thing is, no altcoin has solved that essential problem: how do you provide cheap fees at scale and retain decentralization? |
|
|
|
The fees are not so bad. Have you ever used a bank ? Their fee's are insane. Yes I understand when sending small amounta it can get pretty costly it's why I like to bulk send. I don't think it's anything to worry about but I do think other altcoins abould be used for smaller payments and that solves the problem.
It's not good to compare to bank fees, at least in the long term. Over time, BTC fees will be much higher than any banking fees, if it reaches the values people expect (six or seven figures USD). Fees have no relation to fiat money; they are built into the protocol with its native currency (BTC). Micropayments will hopefully be possible on the Lightning Network or sidechains, but they will always be expensive on-chain. |
|
|
|
Most people are in bitcoin only to earn money, so they do not care if the forks weaken bitcoin as a whole, since a lot of the miners hash power is going to move to this new other coin, they are not even thinking about the fact that even if they got additional coins if the price of bitcoin goes lower they may end up losing money on the process.
If Bitcoin really does fork again and significant economic activity moves to the new chain, but both are still viable, then this could be really bad news for the price over time as investors choose which chain to support (and which to dump). With BCH, no one really believes that it's "Bitcoin." But if both the legacy BTC and Segwit2x BTC are fighting for the name of "Bitcoin" then I could see it getting pretty bloody. |
|
|
|
I wish this were the case & I think that this would be fair because most fiat holders were only holding fiat by chance and would probably have been in coin if the timing were slightly different.
However I think they propose to set the conversion date once the exchange is up.
"With a balance of 1000 USD, after conversion you will receive 55% in BTC, LTC, ETH (at exchange rate on the day of conversion) and 450 USDET. By this principle all koins and fiates will be converted. "
If not based on value at time of closure, then it should at least be converted as [date of closure] + [date of opening] / 2. This way, both crypto and fiat holders are hedged against the volatility that followed the exchange closure. Also, can anybody who reads Russian update us on the situation of US customers? Thanks! |
|
|
|
Awesome! Its nice to see them keeping their word and doing regular updates.
I knew BTC-e would never cheat their customers. F the Govt!
Like a phoenix rising from the ashes! Many long-awaited questions are being answered today. Although I'm still confused at the 55% amount, given how much value cryptos have gained since the time they gave this allocation. Since they are socializing the loss from crypto holders, the amount should now be higher than 55%. Anyway, I am pretty blown away by the level of engagement by the admins here. They almost make me believe that the relaunch of the site is going to happen. But I wouldn't get my hopes up too much yet. We'll see what happens at the end of the month. |
|
|
|
It is widely predicted that stock markets will crash in 2017 because of historical antecedents. Should this happen, what is the fate of the cryptocurrency ecosystem?
I've been hearing for years that the stock market is going to crash. Sure, it'll crash eventually, but you might waste your whole life trying to time it. If the market really does crash (like 2008 or potentially much worse), then I think this will be very bad for cryptocurrency values. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are extremely risky and speculative; during times of economic turmoil, people turn to safe assets. I don't think cryptocurrencies have achieved enough consumer confidence yet to compete with traditional safe haven assets. |
|
|
|
I prefer BCH, because as someone below post, BCH is just a new born cryptocurrency and it has many potental. Its price change unstable like BTC, but with a wider range, means more chance to investors
That's the main value of BCH--speculative value. It's illiquid and backers like Bitmain have an interest in seeing it gain in value. So there's a good chance that you can profit by holding it. Long term (years), I don't think it has much potential. But in the short term, there is much to be gained by holding some. I think Bitmain has a few more tricks up their sleeve. |
|
|
|
Post below to explain your reasoning. I'm deciding whether I want to sell most of my BCH or whether I should keep it 50/50 for both. I'm leaning on selling BCH, but maybe some people here can convince me otherwise.
There's no doubt in my mind. I view BTC more favorably. But that doesn't equate to me wanting to sell my BCH. I see Bitcoin Cash as Bitmain's fork. Some businesses also profit from the big block model (e.g. Bitpay and Coinbase...payment processors who need low fees). So, it's a corporate fork with corporate backing. That said, Bitmain and co. are willing to manipulate the price and the hash rate and they have a lot of $$ and coins. So I'm holding both, because you never know how the markets will react to these shenanigans. |
|
|
|
I dumped it as fast as I could export my private keys, believe it was at 0.109 or there about, should've kept it bit longer in hindsight, but hey it's free money, lost nothing.
Well, there is always opportunity cost. I may not think Bitcoin Cash is worth using, but there are powerful forces backing it. I was tempted to dump in the .06-07 range, because it looked like it would die. But now, anything can happen. I could sell at 0.5 or even parity. If any altcoin will get pumped, it's this one. |
|
|
|
If you feel strongly enough about it, there is literally nothing stopping you (aside from possibly the confines of your own wealth) from buying some hardware and pointing it at the chain you want to support. You don't have to rely on their resources, you merely choose to. That doesn't mean you get to decide how they use their resources. Use your own if you can't agree. That was true when home mining was viable. Engaging in a viable mining operation nowadays runs at least six figures USD to cover overheads and long term contingencies. I keep hearing this argument that "everyone" agrees with this one single development group and that "everyone" thinks the miners are wrong, yet no one seems to want to put their money where their mouth is and point some hashpower at the ruleset "everyone" supposedly agrees with. I mean, there's a whole forum full of you all. Surely if you all chipped in, because you believe in this, you could muster adequate hashpower of your own to do what you want with. Just a thought...
Maybe there is something to that. It wasn't clearly a problem a year or two ago. I think a lot of us have been blindsided by the fact that miners with entrenched interests and average BTC users may have conflicting interests. If you're operating on a completely separate chain, remember that you wouldn't have to equal the hashrate of the miners on the chain you disagree with. You could get by with lots of smaller mining operations working in unison towards your desired goal. The world is only as you want to build it. Contribute what you want, where you want, when you want. Just don't tell others what/where/when they can or can't contribute. If they don't share your interests, just leave them be and do your own thing. Such is the beauty of open-source crypto. That sounds great and all, but it takes time, effort and lots of money to organize such an effort. Powerful, entrenched miners know this and can leverage it against users. The unfortunate reality is that most users don't want to bother with mining; they just want to invest. Maybe this will change with time, if miners try to flex their muscles too much. At this point, though, a small fry like me has very little to contribute and no technical know-how to even get the process started. Again, miners know this. Like everything else in capitalism, those with large amounts of capital can easily outcompete the small fries, who have no idea where to begin organizing the required capital. |
|
|
|
If you feel strongly enough about it, there is literally nothing stopping you (aside from possibly the confines of your own wealth) from buying some hardware and pointing it at the chain you want to support. You don't have to rely on their resources, you merely choose to. That doesn't mean you get to decide how they use their resources. Use your own if you can't agree. That was true when home mining was viable. Engaging in a viable mining operation nowadays runs at least six figures USD to cover overheads and long term contingencies. I keep hearing this argument that "everyone" agrees with this one single development group and that "everyone" thinks the miners are wrong, yet no one seems to want to put their money where their mouth is and point some hashpower at the ruleset "everyone" supposedly agrees with. I mean, there's a whole forum full of you all. Surely if you all chipped in, because you believe in this, you could muster adequate hashpower of your own to do what you want with. Just a thought...
Maybe there is something to that. It wasn't clearly a problem a year or two ago. I think a lot of us have been blindsided by the fact that miners with entrenched interests and average BTC users may have conflicting interests. |
|
|
|
If you willingly rely on someone to do something for you, are they in control of you?
Keeping in mind, if you don't like what they're doing for you, you can rely on other people to do that exact same job the way you want them to do it? In order to use Bitcoin effectively, there have to be miners and non-mining nodes securing that chain. But everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on. So if the miners you currently rely on to use the chain you're interacting on, suddenly decide they want to use a different chain, does that sound like control to you? Or is that freedom?
Why can't you just rely on some other miners to secure your preferred chain and leave these miners to do what they want to do?
This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves. It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around. You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.
Think on that.
Users depend on miners for transaction confirmations. This is why, for example, if 99+ % of miners hard forked, that it would be coercive. Due to the difficulty algorithm, users would have no choice but to follow the miners if they want a functioning network. It's not that miners are "slaves." It's that the protocol was designed to incentivize miners to work for block rewards because of user demand. The way you frame this throws the incentive mechanism on its head. And you propose we gauge user demand by arguing hypotheticals for the rest of time? With everyone speaking for everyone else? The perpetual tribal conflict with neither side backing down, bickering for the rest of eternity. Yeah... sounds like fun.  The only way this works is to get on with it and see what people actually use. There's also that tiny and persistent non-sequitur where people can't logically make the argument that " non-mining nodes are vital and the network can't survive without them", whilst simultaneously claiming that " miners supposedly make all the decisions and the non-mining nodes are completely powerless to prevent it". You can't have it both ways, so which is it? My stance is that non-mining nodes do matter, so if they don't support the miners, the issue should be swiftly resolved and the miners won't build a successful chain (but you still have no right or ability to deny them the chance to try, though, precisely because no one is in control of anyone). So again, let's just get on with it. There is literally no other way through this unless one of the two sides starts making concessions. I don't see any hint of that happening yet. So the two sides are going to do their own thing. And fair play to 'em. In the scheme of things, I don't think Bitcoin Cash was coercive. It was an opt-in hard fork intended to split off from the network. That's the ideal way to hard fork. But I do think that Bitmain et al would do whatever is in their power (manipulating the BTC and BCH markets, and using Bitmain's hashpower to give the appearance of market demand when that demand may be fabricated) to see their side win. |
|
|
|
Why can't you just rely on some other miners to secure your preferred chain and leave these miners to do what they want to do?
This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves. It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around. You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.
Think on that.
Users depend on miners for transaction confirmations. This is why, for example, if 99+ % of miners hard forked, that it would be coercive. Due to the difficulty algorithm, users would have no choice but to follow the miners if they want a functioning network. It's not that miners are "slaves." It's that the protocol was designed to incentivize miners to work for block rewards because of user demand. The way you frame this throws the incentive mechanism on its head. |
|
|
|
from Antpool twitter today: "AntPool has already launched BCC mining pool for miners. We will launch a smart BTC mining service that switch from BTC to BCC automatic." AntPool is the biggest miner for Bitcoin. [https://twitter.com/AntPoolBITMAIN/status/899543208106926080]( https://twitter.com/AntPoolBITMAIN/status/899543208106926080) BTC can stop working if the miners are moving to BCC for profitability. Which is happening right now. BTC will not disappear but it will become unusable and technically dead. Wow, these guys really are clever as hell. Bitmain covered every angle. It's not Bitmain flexing it's muscles and pointing hash power away from BTC and at BCH, it's just the benevolent pool operator ensuring the highest profitability for all its miners! This manipulation game goes way deeper than I thought! |
|
|
|
So when can we expect a new response?
They didn't say. We really can't have any expectations beyond what they've already said: End of the month (~August 31), they are supposedly going to relaunch. The next update will include a FAQ. That's pretty much it. They haven't logged into the forum account since they posted their last update. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave another update tomorrow or the next, ~ one week after the last one. |
|
|
|
Anyone with a right mind can't think that is possible. I mean come one, BCC is just copy/paste of Bitcoin code with changed configuration file, now can a copy ever be better than the original ?
That's basically true of any hard fork upgrade. It's just a slight change of consensus rules and copying the UTXO set. So the question then becomes: are all hard forks illegitimate? Was the DAO hard fork illegitimate in ETH? Because the vast majority of the ecosystem accepts the DAO forked network as the "real" Ethereum. |
|
|
|
As long as the Bitmain cartel can keep the price propped up on bcash, they created a perfect way to manipulate the system to get what they want while making record profits. We all have to give them credit, it’s brilliant!
Bitmain has got some smart people working for them and they got some balls. As much as I detest them, give credit where its due.
Here's the problem: Doesn't this threaten to significantly deteriorate Bitcoin's network value? If both coins remain viable long term, that means that BCH is cannibalizing BTC's network. That means the combined value of both networks should be considerably less than if we had remained one, cohesive network. Now, new investors need to choose one network over the other (or split their investments between each). That means less growth for both networks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
