My little idea about cryptocurrency has been created, but I do not have much idea about the blockchain. What is blackchain?
I do not understand the importance of blocking the crypto market! Please let anyone know about this.
simple terms take some data. and lump it together into a batch/block of data.. then when you give that batch block an identity. you link that identity to the next batch block of data. thus making the next block chained to the previous block... hence blockchain as for what that data is thats being batched together into a block.. it could be anything. cryptocurrency is the concept of the data in a blockchain being financial.(currency) where as the data could be cryptoID where the data is identification (personal details) cryptoland where the data is land registry (land ownership details) cryptocorp where the data is corporation registry(business details) cryptomed where the data is medical rgistry (patient diagnoses/test result details) |
|
|
|
|
without using the buzzword jargon that requires more explanation. or comparisons to cash which involves metal coins or paper bank note misconceptions..
bitcoin is a electronic cheque currency system fully validated and chain locked into blocks of transactions by random people using specialised computers around the world
why do i use these words
cheque:- unlike bank notes or coins. bitcoin is about transactions with a destination, amount and signature. just like a cheque
chainlocked into blocks of transactions:- better than waffling about blockledgers, hashes and immutability. it explains where the term blockchain derives from
random people:- no point waffling about decentralised and not bank institutional control
specialised computers:- standard computers are not enough. and waffling about asics just ends up with more questions
|
|
|
|
This is very interesting, it is suggesting that BTC may bottom any moment and someone is planning a huuuge buy.
it could also mean that exchanges are locking up their real fiat into the tether fed reserve. and getting tether bearer bonds in return meaning its not a buy thats about to buy coin. but an exchange just swapping real fiat for tether so they can arbitrage with othr exchanges in the background = no change |
|
|
|
Basically they counterfeit dollar bills  . It should be against the law if you ask me. They take 1 dollar fiat, and they create 1 dollar digital, but they use both. they are supposed to store those, usdollar savely, and they use 2 banks in china one in hong kong other one i am not sure, to keep those usdollars save, its ridiculous. google brock pierce scandal google brock pierce bitcoin foundation resignatons google brock pierce tether |
|
|
|
I am wondering how much the mining fee will be sending 1000 Satoshi? I am opening a paid to post and have the min. payout at least 1000. An estimate would be awesome because I want to plan how much extra to cover the cost.
https://bitcoinfees.earn.com will pretty much answer your question. Median byte size for a transaction is 226 bytes (approx). So, byte size * No. of satoshi per byte = mining fee. Currently the mining fee for sending 1000 Satoshi will be around 0.000002 BTC. Its better to refer that site while sending though. dont go by median. you will need to know how many bytes the actual tx is. and this can vary depending on how many inputs are being spent and how many destinations are to be included. (usually 2 dstinations.. 1 for recipient 1 for the change to be rturned to the user) as for how many inputs are being spent. well only the OP will know that by checking the details of th tx he is making. to get a proper figure |
|
|
|
Yes, the importance of running full, non-mining, validating nodes which some Bitcoin Cash people say "do not matter".
the importance of realising legacy nodes are not full validation nodes. and so you can argue all you like about backward compatibility. but code is code rules are rules and the current dataset of the blockchain is NOT in a format that is compatible with legacy nodes. and so needs bridging nodes to filter/translate th data into pidgeon english to an acceptabl level that legacy nodes ignore the issues. but then th data legacy nodes then hold cant be relayed out as part of the whole network. also you do realise that both ver and craig wright are not devs.. so while i shout out DEV problems. you continue to want to just scream social drama about faces that dont control the code.. take a step back from the social drama of the kardashians. lastly. if a 51% attack was going to cause change. then how come segwit didnt defacto change at 51% (because it needs nodes to accept a pool offering a different format) p.s stop with the foolish drama of if someone points out an issue against core then you must treat them as cashers.. no pointing out an issue with core is trying to get the community to realise something that needs fixing to make btc better. if that involves diluting core out and have it as separate nodes of separate teams all working on one network and all having to publicly cone to a unitd consensus by actually listening to the communities diverse desires and find some considerations and compromises until a united consensus can be established. rather than continuing with this one team is king and anyone saying a bad word against them is evil attacker minset.. is not helping bitcoin. its turning bitcoin into a centralised monarchy lastly people have been screaming about bitcoin nearing 51% ever since 2014 |
|
|
|
Very interesting find!
In sci-fi currency backed by energy, or in the form of energy itself, is a pretty popular trope, so maybe the last quote was influenced by it. But I wouldn't say that Bitcoin is backed by energy or hash power, because PoW is "wasted" in the process, you can't get it back like you could have exchanged banknote for gold. So, Bitcoin and other coins are secured by PoW, but not backed. There are projects like Storj and Gridcoin that actually try to make coins backed by storage space and computing power, but so far they were not as successful as PoW coins, and there's a lot of criticism towards their security, which I think is valid.
The current state of your coinbases are increasingly backed by the "wasted" energy as more blocks get pilled above the previous one, so personally I think one could use the word "backed". cellard is indeed correct. the cost of mining is not locked to the block it mined but also to all previous blocks after all if someone wanted to counterfiet satoshis first tx to hal finney to make it pay someone else. they cant just use the same CPU hashing speed that satoshi had to create that block.. they would need to re-hash the whole network. and do so with more speed than now just for a chance of catching up yep they would need to rehash over 529,000 blocks just to change a tx in the first hundred blocks |
|
|
|
interesting thing...
one thing is sure: Adoption will not come easily.
what I would like to know is: why a central bank should hold some cryptocurrencies?
what's the main reason?
its not about them holding bitcoin.. its about them changing their own systems so that they can sack their IT staff, sack their auditors and sack their IT security department because by using DLT(closed blockchain) the chains self secure/audit and maintain the network automatically.. thus saving them millions a year on labour they no longer need. |
|
|
|
Thanks for all the info. I'll be honest I haven't really looked into the core team. I like to try and spend about half my time reading up on the progress/damage done over the years.
So you've given me some good places to start reading up, as I've mostly focused on scams and vaporware. I've only spent a little time reading up on LN because I had no idea wht it was, now I just have the basics.
Know to best the dead horse so to say. Isn't a 51% attack supposed to hijack the blockchain for a time, through forking and running parallel so to speak. Using this time to usually create transactions and move/sell double spend coins.
Then, and I'm really fuzzy on this part, releasing control back to the original blockchain.
This is what I assumed was in mind.
a 51% is an empty argument scare tactic. imagine if you had 10 friends(nodes). your all handed a piece of paper thats green 7 of your friends. reject it.. but you and 3 friends continue. all that happens is that 70% of people just delayd.. THEMSELVES ... now imagine those 7 friends were making the paper. like a 100metre relay-race where everyone crosses the line after 10s but there is only one winner 7 friends hand out pink paper. they hold onto it but they dont accept the green paper. you and 3 friends ignore the pink paper and wait the 0.001s for the runner with the green paper to arrive.. there is not much difference in the time you and your friends get the paper they want. but now they are ultimately forming thier own network(altcoin) where green rejects and bans pink from communicating and pink bans green from communicating.. thus green only talks to gren and pink only talks to pink no disruption.. just social drama and a fork now its just 2 different coin networks.. the only real disruption is not from altcoin creating (pico's challenge)... but.. to really disrupt a network is to have enough mining power to regularly make blocks and then . make blocks.. following the rules so that they are acceptable.. but then simply dont add any transactions into the blocks and while doing this. spam the mempool with transactions the other pools would include, to cause a bottleneck.. as for the argument about "rejoining the ntwork"... wel btc is several blocks ahead of bch.. so why doesnt pico just try making a clone of btc data chain rejoin bch to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and btc are not compatible and thus reject so why doesnt pico just try making bch rejoin clams to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and clams are not compatible and thus reject so why doesnt pico just try making bch rejoin btg to disrupt bch.... the answer is simple. bch and bitcoin gold are not compatible and thus reject |
|
|
|
I also ran out of money in early March. The market's prices fell sharply and I still think that prices will definitely recover. But my predictions were not accurate and now I do not have enough money to continue investing
bst game plan for you. for next time if you have $10k fiat break it up into 5 allotments of $2k buy bitcoin with one allotment. wait for 1-3% and sell it. then buy again and wait for 1-3% the price tanks. dont worry. leave that allotment set to sell at 1-3% profit as you still have 4 allotmnts to take the next dips dont hold for 10-100% jumps. just grab 1-3% and rinse and repeat. think about it. if you can make 1% a day thats 365% a year dont be greedy waiting out for how high a price can go. just grab your 1-3% and keep repeating |
|
|
|
|
firstly. when people are panicing and selling. there are buyers.
in a market for every seller there is a buyer. thats how markets work
dumb invstors buy high and sell low.
smart investers buy low sell high
right now people SHOULD be thinking its discount week. not panic sell week.
but im probably guessing ther isnt much real panic selling going on.let me explain
if you imagine there being a buyer with 100btc. i could use one of my play money stashs of just 20btc and fill that guys order twice over.
yep thats right..
yep using real funds and using real legal trading techniques. it can be done
its simple imagine we have a big exchange that other exchanges follow when there is "panic"
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-eth.. then on the eth-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-bch.. then on the BCH-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-eth.. then on the eth-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-bch.. then on the BCH-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
i sell my 20btc on btc-usd.. then i buy an altcoin, on lets say usd-ltc.. then on the LTC-BTC orderbook buy btc.. then i.. wait for it
this is called arbitraging. and can be achieved in many ways. by using different alts, you dont impact their markets which means it doesnt hurt you next round
..
any way
that said a few people could easily move prices LEGITIMATELY (no spoof/ghost acounts) when volumes are low
and without having to risk 200btc to move the price down by 200btc.
and yes the same can be done in the opposite direction to move the price up
|
|
|
|
I just assumed it was going to be machines from their group running the attack. Maybe any anti Bcash miners out there who jump on board if that option becomes possible.
Based on that, I was guessing they aren't planning on keeping any of the forks alive (nothing to back this up) just using this as a disruption to the Bcash network to show its vulnerabilities.
It would seem really counter intuitive for them to create these forms and then keep them alive. Unless their only issue is that Bcash is claiming to be Bitcoin. If that's the case why a waste.
if it was just miners. then when the pico pools make a block that deviates from the rules the bitcoin cash network has, the network would just reject the block. it would need to be a node AND pool attack.. but the end result is the same. they just hash blocks only their system accepts. its not disruption. its just altcoin creating and social distractions. anyone can create an altcoin from any network. it does not even need to be 5000 nodes and 51% of hashrate to achieve it. thus its just distraction drama to keep the "lets keep fingers pointing at ver" drama alive. much like kardashian drama, in the end the core supporters have already done damage to the community with things like "blockchain cant scale". meaning they are saying that satoshi's invention has failed saying LN is the only solution. which is not an immutable ledger network and not even a network thats uniquely going to be used purely for btc plus they are saying with factories. the users never have to resettle to a blockchain ever again... showing that it can fork into altcoins the revolution has been CORE-poratised funny part is. ver, bloq(segwitx2) samson mow/lukejr(USAF) and core devs are all paid by the same investors which is why fee priorities, onchainscaling, trust of zero confirms, bypassing consensus and soon even PoW were/have/will damage the origiinal 2009 ethos of bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
so a bunch of core supports want to make more and more altcoins that have a satoshi genesis block and hundreds of thousands of blocks of tx data..
ok. let me guess bitcoin copper, bitcoin zinc, bitcoin nickel, bitcoin tin. bitcoin aluminium
more social drama distractions.
|
|
|
|
What is the opinion of everyone?
nerds get excited about number patterns. anyway its old news now. moving on |
|
|
|
|
bitcoin monopoly (market term not board game)
bitcoins mining algo is PoW in which it actually costs users funds to maintain the network and create the coin. this mechanism puts a lump of value underlying the price a miner is willing to sell at as they wont want to make a loss.
bitcoins hashrate is more than other networks because the community have put effort into mining it and caused a good underlying value (bottomline value support) for the bitcoin price.
bitcoin has monopolised the mining industry as it has the highest amount of hashrate compared to other coins
unlike PoS coins that create coin and maintain the network at virtually no cost. which is where these PoS coins will not surpass bitcoin. unless bitcoins mining costs deminish substantially
that said, since 2013 bitcoin has LOST other unique benefits that could have strengthened its monopoly (top position) so things to need to be fixed if bitcoin wishes to remain in its top spot and not be replaced by another network that may surpass it if all the mining pools jumped ship and the merchant tools/'we accept crypto' stores swappd networks
we are already seeing signs of the merchant tools monopoly to bitcoin die. just look at coinbase and bitpay. which used to only offer merchants bitcoin as payment. they ave recently added other coins.
we are starting to see other PoW coins use the same ASICS as bitcoin for mining. and there is a chance if those other coins include some of the benefits bitcoin is missing. that mrchants and miners will jump ship.
so never think that bitcoin is "too big to fail". instead demand the devs re-concentrate their efforts on the main bitcoin protocol and fix th mainnet issues instead of being financially incentivised to scream out mainnet cant scale, mainnet shouldnt be used as a currency. just to push people into other networks that are not unique to bitcoin
|
|
|
|
Probably, Litecoin has a 2.5 mins block time but it didn't take off though. They have the option to use that if they feel Bitcoin is slow for them. I'm not encouraging people to use Litecoin because of what I said, invest at your own risk. For now it's not necessary to speed up the block times because the network would always be empty.
What's not to like about the Lightning Network it's like squeezing multiple transaction in to one.
block times is not the issue. its the trust of zero confirms that has been lost since ~2013 but it really is funny that people, instead of demanding devs fix zero confirm trust or fix onchain scaling. they try to tell people to just use another coin or use another network... (facepalm) P.S LN is not a solution for bitcoin. scenarios have proved this. and also LN is not a feature that is only utilised for bitcoin, so its not something thats unique to make bitcoin better. othr coins will use LN and thus bitcoin has lost more unique benefits that separate it from other networks |
|
|
|
Imagine the queues in the shops if Visa batched their transactions up and authorised your payments in 10 mins blocks. That is probably the main reason Btc hasn't (and probably wont) taken off. People just don't want to wait. Even if they halved it and halved it again, that would still be 2.5 mins waiting for payment to clear. The lightning Network is ok but if your main selling point is something that just bypasses the main protocol, then why bother with the main protocol.
1. visa takes seconds because they DONT settle the transaction in seconds. they just see you have balance available and sign that funds will eventually reach the shop LATER. visa is like a zero confirm transaction. its signed but not settled. shops dont get the funds until 3-5 business days later. check your bank account you usually see 2 lines. one 'available balance' one 'pending'. then even once the funds leave your account the next day they dont arrive at the shops account for another couple days. and even then are still reversible(chargebacks) 2. originally people could trust zero confirm transactions. but the down side to the core devs decisions of functions like 'replace by fee' and 'child pays for parent' is that some zero confirm transactions can be swapped out even when the network has them in the mempool waiting for confirm. even lightening transactions have this issue where users can abuse the system of replacing out an signed transaction with another before its comfirmed onchain thus changing its amount/destination at a whim. and lets not forget their 'penalties' (chargebacks). so even lightening is not a solid system 3. i do agree that devs have put in stupid loops holes and not bothered fixing issues onchain to strengthen it as thier way of pushing people to use the mainchain bypass (LN), but these devs have been given over $100m to create a system to make corporations money by making blockchain look bad. by saying blockchain is slow, untrusted, cant scale.. (facepalm) and that putting funds into 'managed accounts' (multisig channels) is the only way forward(facepalm) |
|
|
|
|
if bitcoin price depresses you. then you are not seeing the signs
here are the signs
"70% off"
"special offer"
"spring/summer Sale"
dont worry about selling.
remember buy low sell high
so the price is low. meaning its time to buy.
|
|
|
|
|
registered 2 years ago
yawn .. old news then
i wonder why people ar bringing up old out of date crap that does not affect the code.
usually this occurs as a distraction from something that does matter that people dont want people talking about..
EG
craig wright craig wright drama was brought up the time of the 2015 consensus roadmap.. then a few months later at the consesus backtracking roadmap. then again as the blame of cash.. when in reality it was a push forward of the core segwit split.
CW is a fraud and not even a coder. so have no clue why people even talk about him. but every time there is a big consensus conference or some new bip that core wants to be trojaned in.. social drama about things unrelated to new code is brought up to distract the community.
all i can guess is that people have lost desire for the CW social distraction and now a new foe has to emerge as the distraction.....
but again this ronald guy.. is just that.. a pointless distraction.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
