Yes I am new, but learning thanks to you all.

When Starting a new coin, how do you know what to set the initial value of the coin?

Can you set it at something like 1.00 if not listed on a exchange?

The people of this coin will only be trading it for a year before they start to sell it at market value.

Just need to know how to put an initial value for the coin, I know not all coins are in the exchanges so how do they place a value for it.

Please list your wallet ID and I will send you a small amount of bitcoins for real answers.

Which coins can do instant confirmed transactions? As far as I know it's Dash, Byteball can do it too due to fast confirmations by witnesses. Probably some DPOS coins can process instant transactions too, does anyone know some?

Water off a duck's back. When the price dipped down briefly, all people saw was a massive buying opportunity.
The doomsday prophets have been proven wrong.


I heard of one bear who made a 50x short and lost all his money. That was because the price went up to #1325 and wiped him out, before it started crashing. 

Time to hype for Gold Coins. I don't mean that digital crap, 1's&0's by the way. I mean real physical gold coins which you can hold in your hands. Liek this:


Damn this picture itself makes me drool.

What does BU have to do with the TxOut script referenced in your quote?

Nothing.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

Since 2007.  At some point I became convinced there was a way to do this without any trust required at all and couldn't resist to keep thinking about it.  Much more of the work was designing than coding.

Fortunately, so far all the issues raised have been things I previously considered and planned for.

Eventually the largest merchants and money exchangers will control what is "standard" bitcoin.

Take the "50-coiners" scenario, and imagine that they manage to get 75% of the CPU power on their side.

But imagine that the biggest merchants and money exchangers are more conservative, and are in the 25% minority.  I think they will be-- I don't think they'll be the ones in the business of generating coins (they'll be busy selling products or doing the exchange thing).

What happens?

Well, the block chain splits.  Transactions using coins minted before the split will get added to both block chains, and accepted by everybody.

Transactions involving "50-coins" (generated after the split) will be accepted on the 50-coin chain, rejected on the 25-coin chain.  And vice-versa.

"50-coiners" would quickly find out that they couldn't get rid of their newly minted money because who wants bitcoins that are rejected by the biggest money exchangers or merchants?

If the big merchants and money exchangers disagreed, I bet you'd see Bitcoin clients that ONLY accepted pre-split coins and did no coin generation (since those transactions would be accepted by everybody).  If it was never resolved, I think the number of Bitcoins at the time of the split would become "the number of Bitcoins, period,"  because most people will not want to use money that is accepted some places and not others.

By reading the article it was mentioned that the user started with a 0.16btc bet  he might have a bankroll ranging from 5-10btc since he's betting that big right away on his first bet. I want to know how long did it take for him to hit the jackpot it doesn't say in the article though.

Mature.

gmaxwell the devs 'boss' (CTO) works for blockstream which have an agenda and their own platform.
Gmaxwell loves Monero.

gmaxwells wage comes from AXA and DCG, which DCG owns coindesk and many other services. and also zcash.

DCG and blockstream is also involved with the bankers hyperledger.

also another blockstream employee, who invented FIBRE (ringfensing blockstream nodes around the bitcoin pools as the top of the network topology) (termed upstream filters). is now working with 'chaincode' to create hyperledgers 'fabric'

My name is Dustin Freeman. I've been involved with Bitcoin since early 2012 after hearing about it on HARD[OCP], and subsequently reading Satoshi's white paper.

I did not doubt that Bitcoin would be success until Core's abrupt about-face on that white paper. But Core does not control Bitcoin, as much as they would like you to believe.

Core is poison, and so are you.

Good. I've got my node up and running. If you're reading this and run a node, you should as well.

to quote Mike:


Myself and many other early adopters and developers went down this rabbit hole because we wanted to support a world changing technology that takes power from the elite few and puts it back in our hands. The Bitcoin Core project is no longer aligning with these ideals.