... But it is patently obvious that I have come up against a stone wall of distrust and simple unbelief.
An anonymous person with no track record makes an outrageous claim that they are unable to support. What do you expect? |
|
|
|
Sorry, that has already been tried. Look up "onecoin" and "paycoin". They are all scams, of course.
I dont mean scam ones ! Which ones do you mean then? Only a scam can guarantee that the price always rises. |
|
|
|
Shower thought: If we're going to take bitcoin in a currency perspective, would it make more sense to say "convert to bitcoin" than "buy bitcoin"? Since when we're talking about acquiring some foreign currency like the JPY, we mostly say "convert our USD to JPY" and not "buy JPY".
I totally agree. Unfortunately, most people now are hoping to get rich from "buying" BTC now and "selling" it later at a higher price. They are not converting. Of course, the "true" HODLers are converting now and hoping they can use the bitcoins later rather than sell them, but true HODLers are rare. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that has already been tried. Look up "onecoin" and "paycoin". They are all scams, of course.
|
|
|
|
Discovered it last year, its not a model that you constantly move the parameters, but all the math's stays the same but for one sequential variable which changes because of the halving. ...
Generating models and testing them against the data until you find one that fits is called "p-hacking". It doesn't matter how many variables there are and whether they are tuned or not. How many models did you try before you "discovered" this one? If the answer is more than 1, then that is p-hacking and you can't use the same data to validate your model. The issue is that if you derive the hypothesis for the model from the data, then you cannot use the data to prove the hypothesis. It is called "begging the question", which is a kind of circular reasoning. It doesn't mean that your model is wrong. I means that you have absolutely no evidence that it is correct. |
|
|
|
|
I think there are two reasons:
1. People trade all the different coins for the same reasons. So, any reasons for buying or selling bitcoin would also be reasons for buying or selling other coins.
2. Nearly all trading pairs include BTC, and the relative price wont change much without information that distinguishes between the two.
|
|
|
|
It's just busy grinding through all the transaction/block verification etc... and a lot of the calls are not "async", so it causes the UI issues occasionally. There are already a number of issues on the github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+UI+freezeIf you know you want to just look at the wallet and aren't fussed about the syncing, click the little "network" icon in the bottom right corner and it'll instantly disconnect and stop syncing... then you're free to do whatever you like in the wallet without needing to worry about the UI freezing up on you... once you've completed whatever it is that you want to do in the wallet, just click the icon again to reconnect and continue syncing: Thanks. That's the answer I was looking for. |
|
|
|
|
I don't run Bitcoin-qt continuously, so it takes a while to synchronize whenever I start it. The problem is that during this synchronization period, the UI is frequently completely unresponsive. Sometimes, I just want to look at the wallet and I don't care if it is synched or not, but I end up having to wait for a long time because it is so unresponsive.
Is there a configuration setting that will help? If not, then this seems like this is a problem that should be fixed. Should I post on github?
I am running 0.20.0 on Windows 10, i5-7600 @ 3.5 GHz, 4 cores, 16 GB
|
|
|
|
1.The solution I propose doesn't require any change to btc's protocol (not even a soft fork). The Smart Network project is an initiative to build a DApp that runs on top of btc's blockchain (all the data will be recorded on a side chain).
Actually, what you are proposing is a hard fork. Nodes that don't upgrade in order to follow the new rule (side-chain vote vs. longest chain) remain on the legacy branch and the result is a fork. |
|
|
|
The model predicted price high for 2013: $1,239.43. Actual 2013 high Mt Gox $1,241.92, Cryptocompare.com, 99.79% accurate
The model predicted price high for 2017: $20,038.41. Actual 2017 high $20,088.99 Coinmarketcap.com, 99.63% accurate
When did you create your model? Did you create it prior to 2013 and it has been validated twice? Or, did you create it recently and use backtesting to tune it? If it is the latter, then you really have nothing of any value. You can't use backtesting to validate a model created with backtesting. |
|
|
|
Polo7 was completely wrong. So the USA dollar Will have Some tremendous growth.
But USA and Canada stock market Will Not do great.
The US dollar has dropped 10% since his prediction. Th US stock market has risen 20% since his prediction. |
|
|
|
|
The dollar has dropped about 11% since its high about a year ago. The recent 1% rise is not that significant in comparison.
The drop in the value of the dollar raises the price of global assets in terms of dollars simply because the dollar is worth less. However, people buying assets to avoid a falling dollar may increase demand, causing the price to also rise in absolute terms.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Price = Demand / Supply
Did you just make that up? Here is the correct formula: D(q) = S(q) To find the price, you solve for q and then evaluate D(q) or S(q). When supply reaches zero and demand is a positive number, Bitcoin’s price is infinite.
The price when the supply is 0 is D(0). D(0) is not necessarily infinity. |
|
|
|
The simplest is addr(): scantxoutset "start" "[\"addr(1CUTyyxgbKvtCdoYmceQJCZLXCde5akiX2)\"]"
{
...,
"unspents": [
{
"txid": "f9a7240ad23bc84044ab83b593e11dd6686a2cfbc13731944259a6ee0f10295f",
"vout": 1,
"scriptPubKey": "76a9147ddb236e7877d5040e2a59e4be544c65934e573a88ac",
"desc": "addr(1CUTyyxgbKvtCdoYmceQJCZLXCde5akiX2)#nsvz5zvh",
"amount": 2.15076162,
"height": 668945
},
{
"txid": "4aa8d886f4a799b08b0063562f76dfd1bbe200ca3dc2bf39935f341fa9e44ffa",
"vout": 1,
"scriptPubKey": "76a9147ddb236e7877d5040e2a59e4be544c65934e573a88ac",
"desc": "addr(1CUTyyxgbKvtCdoYmceQJCZLXCde5akiX2)#nsvz5zvh",
"amount": 1.14902796,
"height": 668944
}
],
"total_amount": 3.29978958
}
This does not answer to the question: "how to know how much an address own" or at least "how to know the source of a transaction". It only gives you the sum of all the BTC spent by an address (in the case of the 'addr' command) It looks to me like it gives you the amount of unspent. Isn't that what you want? |
|
|
|
What is the evidence that Faketoshi was the source of this hoax?
It's from BSV's paid Slack group called MetaNet. So then faketoshi isn't the source of the hoax. It is from someone in a BSV Slack group. |
|
|
|
|
You can still buy tulips. Bitcoin has gone through several bubbles already and it is still here, just like tulips.
|
|
|
|
The hilarious error on Faketoshi's part was that he didn't even bother using an old browser because take a look at the scroll bar on the Message part, apparently Satoshi was a time traveler and had access to Windows 10 in 2009.
What is the evidence that Faketoshi was the source of this hoax? |
|
|
|
Yes. When I turned on my 1st newbie miner on October 18th, 2013, Bitcoin at least 'some-time' that day was $150.00 even when I looked and I made about
1 BTC a day....Well, the price to just have the equipment to make 1 BTC a day is 'supposedly' by the math: $4,500,000.00 USD investment.
If that does not tell you 'big farms' are not the future, not sure what will. The big farms also probably by now need 2c-3c kWh electric 'at least' to boot!
You are comparing the cost to make $150 then against the cost to make $35000 today. How much would the equipment cost to make $150 today, or $35000 then? Those would be fair comparisons. |
|
|
|
Do you have example of command that works? I read the description of scantxoutset, but there's no example and i'm confused about 2nd parameter.
Nope. I have as much information as you. I read the description and it looks like the right command to use, but I have never used it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
