I disagree on this one, I mean the statement could become true but they simply won't let us. The banking system is exactly what's controlling the governments nowadays while emails are totally under the control of the governments so there is no reason for them to stop it while having bitcoin (which is decentralized) used by people and leaving the banking system (centralized and control by them) is a threat for them.
While I understand what you are saying here... let me play devil's advocate for a second. You could argue that when email was coming out and people didn't quite understand the importance of communication over the internet, the governments probably saw email in this same light. They didn't know how to control it because they didn't understand the technology. Essentially all postal services are/were controlled by the government at the time as well, and as time went on, people in the government grew to understand it's importance of being able to control and monitor email communications. So now they give incentives to companies like yahoo and google to be able to monitor email accounts. You could argue the same thing will happen to Banks and Bitcoin. Governments have allowed banks to get "too big to fail". It is no secret that banks and government go hand in hand with one another. Bitcoin is "decentralized", sure, but everything on the blockchain can be observed and tracked by the government in real time. You think governments won't want to capitalize on that? Bitcoin isn't anonymous, it is pseudonymous; and being that the governments have good relations with the big banks, it will be relatively simple for governments to see what people buy and who they pay in real time, because people mostly move money in and out of Bitcoin through their banks. It's true, and it's interesting. They can link bitcoin public keys (wallets) to you, which was funded by your bank account, this is easy. But the next step is harder, if you send bitcoin from your 'marked' wallet (using the assignes public key) to another bitcoin wallet, then how will they know if it's yours or not? If it's a HW wallet of you to store your savings in it? Or it's someone else's wallet? Even if you are the only one who transfers btc to a wallet, how would they know if it's yours or not? They can just presume it, but it's not an evidence. |
|
|
|
How many countries do you know that would give up their local currency for some one world currency and what would be the benefit of that?
You have seen what happened to the Euro when some of the smaller countries economies failed.... the Euro suffered. Can you see Muslim
countries accepting the same currency as their enemies? .....North Korea using the dollar?
An interesting example could be Montenegro (South Europe, little country). They had their currency (or common currency with Serbia), but the country decided to use EUR. They're not part of the EUR monetary union, so officially they can't use EUR but people and the companies, banks are using it in everyday life, also the government. If a country wants to use a currency, they can. They just can't influence the currency with the normal cental banks' utilities like if it was their national currency. |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrencies are vastly superior to typical fiat currencies, but they are nowhere near as convenient at the moment. It will take a long time until a bitcoin world appears. For example, if you wanted to pay for a beverage like a Coke with Bitcoin, as of now it would be take around 30 minutes for the transaction to be confirmed, not to mention having to input the restaurant's address. It is just much quicker to hand over a note and get your Coke instantly.
I really don't understand these kind of problems. I have a XAPO debit card for years now, and I wasn't the first one who started to use it, so it's a known thing. It's linked to my wallet directly, and I can pay with that debit card instantly. The same as a normal debit card. Of course, it's not free, XAPO charges for the card yearly or I don't know, but it works for me, so I don't care. And it's not only XAPO, who can provide you these kind of cards, so you can choose. This is a temporary solution, until most of the merchants will accept bitcoin directly. In that case, only the speed of the confirmation will be important, but if the bitcoin debit cards can handle this problem, most of the people will live with it as it is. For the merchants, the bitcoin debit card is easier to handle, and it can also be important for them. Central banks are OK, and are handling the financial situation, and in my country they are sending out messages to the peope periodically to be aware of bitcoin and to be really cautious  |
|
|
|
Banks don't protect you from volatility in the real life as well. E.g.: You live in the USA and you want to have an account in EUR currency. The bank lets you open the account, helps you exchange your USD to EUR, but after the bank won't protect you from the volatility of EUR, that means you won't be sure that your EUR will worth the same amount of USD compared to the time when you originally had it exchanged. This is not a problem in real life, why should it be a problem in connection with bitcoin? A lot of peole use the volatility of different currencies and uses it to make money by exchanging the currencies at the proper time.
You miss two very important points. 1 ~ I pointed the question of how banks would prevent people from being exposed to the volatility at the user I quoted. I didn't say anything about banks to offer protection against volatility. 2 ~ Banks/governments don't consider Bitcoin to be a currency that sits on the same level as fiat currencies. So your example/comparison is not valid. 1. Sorry, my post wasn't to be a reply but just a new post, I've clicked the wrong button, there's no need for an answer from you. 2. I reccommend reading this: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/bitcoin-survey/ This is a link to a survey about countries and the regulation of bitcoin in particular countries. E.g. EU countries consider bitcoin as a currency and not a commodity. Japan is even more bitcoin-friendly. |
|
|
|
|
How an Average Joe (like me) can avoid to get in touch with a B type of node? Does it depend on the wallet type I use or it depends on the physical location, if there is only B type nodes around me?
As far as I understood, now there are already nodes in the system, upgraded their software to be able to produce larger blocks (but not yet produced any, because they're waiting for being majority)
What can I do if I want to ensure the safety of my coins and transactions? Can I choose a wallet that only communicate only to old A nodes?
Or wallets are just put the transactions into the pool and the mining node selects the transactions they want to mine for the fee offered?
Is it possible to check if any of my earlier transaction's blocks have been mined by a node with 'upgraded' software? Just to be on the safe side, if chain forks...
Or, the software of the node doesn't matter as long as they produce only normal size blocks?
I'm all ears...
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, I'm not legendary unlike most of you in this thread, and I haven't got as much experience with bitcoin as you but I've just got shocked with this BU and SW things earlyer this week, and I'd like to ask for your help to clarify some things.
Before last weekend I was usually reading the forum and posting things about my ideas in connection with the future of bitcoin and banking industry, etc, At the end of last week I was waiting for a smaller amount of BTC. While I was waiting, I have realized that my little amount was not confirmed for 24 hours or so (0 confirmation). I was lucky and have used an accelerator at 0:01 AM, and this helped my transaction to get confirmed in the morning, at last.
I started to search for the forum about the possible reasons of this delay, and as I was digging deeper and deeper inside the threads, I just found the problem of the full mempool and the pricy confirmations of the urgent transactions.
As I'm not an expert, please forgive me if I ask you questions like newbies, but I'm really curious now:
Does it really the case that some groups from China spams the network with transactions in order to raise the fees of urgent transactions?
As I understood, that blocks has limited capacity (1MB) to include transactions. The transaction that pays more fee gets priorized (and there's no problem with this).
I saw that there are different solutions to raise the capacity of the blocks, but there's no consensus about the preferred way forward.
My question is:
If we find a solution somehow that fits for everyone in the system, and can raise the block limit, would this solve the problem of spamming the network?
E.g.: if we raise the limit to X MB, what is the guarantee that chinese groups won't fill that X MB capacity too, in order to prevent the fees from falling back to normal?
Before last weekend, I was really positive about the future of bitcoin, and now I'm really worried. Thanks for your help in advance!
|
|
|
|
IS there any Bitcoin Bank that really works like bank that provide interest for customer that available in this world?
I am not really agreed on Bitcoin bank, I don't know why some of the people in this industry are trying to push or promote the bitcoin bank. Maybe he/she has an intention to get the trust of the bitcoin users which is once they get it and many are entrust their bitcoin in it. There is a possibility that the owner of the bitcoin bank can declare bankruptcy, so their client had nothing to do with it. Same as the policy in typical bank in the private sector.  ea Many are proposing a bitcoin banks because they wanted security against hackers and volatility. And if in case the bank will be hacked or anything there is an insurance that will refund the depositors. We cannot blame these people since they probably lost a significant amount from hacking and volatility of bitcoins. Bitcoin bank is not bad but it must exist when bitcoin has already met its maximum value at 100 million dollars each. I can understand that a bank in potential could offer people the security of insured coin balances, but how exactly will they prevent people from being exposed to the volatility? Bitcoin is a free market where 24/7 people with deep pockets can cause the price to plummet heavily, and I am sure banks are well aware of that. For that reason I don't believe banks will ever offer whatever form of protection against the volatility. It would basically mean that they are also an open target for extortionists as it can be used against the bank. Banks don't protect you from volatility in the real life as well. E.g.: You live in the USA and you want to have an account in EUR currency. The bank lets you open the account, helps you exchange your USD to EUR, but after the bank won't protect you from the volatility of EUR, that means you won't be sure that your EUR will worth the same amount of USD compared to the time when you originally had it exchanged. This is not a problem in real life, why should it be a problem in connection with bitcoin? A lot of peole use the volatility of different currencies and uses it to make money by exchanging the currencies at the proper time. |
|
|
|
|
Nearly nothing, bitcoin price shows nothing to banks. But when bitcoin will be used frequently by multinational companies or other export-import companies to speed up transactions, they will care about the technology. Banks nowdays are in the phase of developing a new, blockchain based solution for getting things done quicker, to meet the customers' needs. If they can finish this development before bitcoin will reach the status of mass adoption, it can have influence on the price of bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
How do I fund on Poloniex without a bank account? It says I need to use Tether.I want to add USD funds but I need a bank account verified and I don't have the necessary documents with me at the moment to scan and send to them. It also says I can fund from a bitcoin wallet using the really long code. Where do I open a bitcoin wallet and can I fund it with US dollars easily to transfer to Tether and then into Poloniex?
THANKS
Let's have a look at the Beginners & Help section in the forum, you'll find really useful hints there. e.g.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1631151.0This thread helps you to choose and open a bitcoin wallet. There are a lot of wallets, so you have to choose the one that fits your needs the best. If you open a wallet, you can send funds to your wallet via bank transfer (like web type wallets where they exchange your fiat to bitcoin) or you can find an online job (or micro job) to earn some bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Banks would use blockchain because it is more affordable and also it can expand the number of its users because those people who are using blockchain will try banks that use blockchain too. Blockchain is much cheaper than the traditional system and it also offers fast transaction, So i think banks should use blockchain as soon as possible.
It's not so easy. There are two different things: - Banks would use blockchain, because it will be faster and cheaper: Yes, it's blockchain, not Bitcoin - People are using blockchain: Yes, because people use Bitcoin which is blockchain too - People will search for banks who have implemented the blockchain technology: No, because people won't mind what's behind the scenes in banks' system, is it a blockchain or not, they only want cheap and quick service, and they don't care about how banks solves this inside their systems. If banks can solve it with blockchain or without blockchain, people usually don't care - Banks should use blockchain as soon as possible: Yes, because they can cut their costs on international transfers (with blockchain and not with bitcoin). National transfers and intra-bank transfers are quick and cheap without blockchain, so banks won't develop this. International transfers are mainly used by companies (most of the people start international transfers really rarely, few times a year). People won't choose a bank depending on the usage of the blockchain for international transfers, because this is not their main interest. It's only companies (export-import companies) who can benefit from switching to blockchain, but really big companies has discounted fees at banks, so it's only the time that can be the real benefit for them (nowdays international transfer takes 2-3 days, with blockchain, it could be some hours, but in this case all the banks should use the same blockchain system) |
|
|
|
 sad days for users of XAPO wallet, i dont know when it starts but with those fees they will set to all deposits and withdrawls im better moving to another wallet https://in.xapo.com/fees/Bitcoin Transaction Fees
Bitcoin transactions from your Xapo account to other Xapo accounts are not subject to processing fees.
Outgoing bitcoin transactions from your Xapo account to a bitcoin address outside of Xapo will be charged a fee of BTC 0.00025213.
--snip-- I will not leave the xapo wallet, I think a nominal transaction 0.00037819 is not huge, so it is natural that if less than they will make cost. The most important thing is there is no fee for transfer and I think the xapo is secure and fast. Uhh... Did you read the fees announcement properly? Because actually, there are fees for transfer. The outgoing transfer is understandable as almost every wallet require this, but I don't really understand why they require us to pay for incoming transfer too. I don't think many wallet provider had this policy. We have already discussed it some posts above in Feb.2017 that the fees are only applies for incoming transfers when you receive a really little amount (roughly $0.3) in a transaction (usually from a faucet) 2 things: - they want XAPO users to use the faucets which has XAPO wallet, because if you transfer between two XAPO accounts, there's no applied fee at all - they want to force faucet providers to have a wallet at XAPO to be able to transfer to XAPO users internally, because a lot of people have XAPO wallets and there's a demand from them to receive their little amount without fees |
|
|
|
My long term investment goal is to grow my BTC position (regardless of current exchange rate in terms of USD).
For making more bitcoins, I guess you need not looking for shorting altcoins. Making use of altcoin trading and just holding bitcoins will help you to earn better in more effective way within short period of time than you expect.
I am not looking for a profit from the short. I want to hedge my investments, so that I have a net neutral position in that currency while investing in it. To help illustrate, I'll give you an example. Let's say that I can earn 3% return on an investment by paying the borrower 100 LTC for a period of time. However, according to my stated investment goals, I do not want to be exposed to the risk of fluctuations of LTC. So 1) I buy 100 LTC with my BTC 2) I make the investment 3) I short a further 100 LTC This has the effect of canceling out the gains or losses from changes in the value of LTC relative to BTC, leaving me with only the stated 3% goal (minus the fees and vig of these transactions). While many investors use shorting as a high-risk/high return method of investing, using shorts in this way is a more traditional method of hedging an investment of activity. Is there any specific reason that makes you lend in LTC instead of BTC? You could avoid the risk of the exchange rate changes, if you keep your invesments in BTC and also lend in BTC. Does lending in LTC offers better ROI? If yes, do you trust BTC much better than LTC and this is why you won't keep a smaller part of your investments in LTC on the long run? If you trust both BTC and LTC, why don't you just keep a constant amount of LTC (let's say 100 LTC) and lend it to borrowers again and again? In this case, if you really don't want to grow your LTC position but only BTC, you only need to hedge your 3% ROI (3 LTC) and you're protected, you can exchange it to BTC without worrying about the exchange rate anytime. This costs much less (to hedge only 3 LTC compared to 100 LTC). Or LTC was just an example, and you plan to lend in several kind of alts (even parallel) and you want to protect yourself from the exchange rate change? As you're the lender, you can tell the borrower that you lend e.g. 100 LTC (and it worths e.g. 200 BTC at that moment), and you want to get the repayment in BTC (200 BTC plus 3%), and you're covered, without a need to hedge anything. This makes the borrower to run the risk of the exchange rate change, and you're fine. |
|
|
|
I have thought a bit about that question. At a first glance, it makes no sense for a bank to use neither a centralized blockchain - because it would offer no advantage to traditional database accounting systems - nor an open blockchain with PoW or other consensus mechanism - because they would give up control about the transactions and expose them to certain risks. An interesting post has been written in the Ethereum blog. There are two main categories where "restricted" blockchains could make sense. First as an "inter-banking" transfer mechanism ("consortium blockchain") where the trust between institutions can be lowered a little bit (blocks must be signed by the majority of connected institutions, but not by all, and one malbehaviouring node - e.g. after a hack - would not be able to bring down the system). And then as a private "in-bank" blockchain - but such private blockchains would not be actually very different from the traditional databases, only that they would add a kind of "cryptographic proof" for the state of the system. It would be a kind of additional security layer. The author of the blog post, however, thinks that with less complex measures like libsnark that could also be achieved. What would have to be analyzed if these two ways really represent a more efficient approach to security than already known traditional security mechanisms. I think the real benefit of the blockchain is that it enables decentralized systems to work - so "bank applications" would only be a side-effect and not be at all important for Bitcoin. I've read the linked ethereum post and found it pretty interesting, thanks. In connection with the above mentioned in-bank blockchain, I don't think that a kind of solution like that will be implemented at all. My opinion is that banks don't need a blockchain like solution just for intenal purposes. They already have their own system that's accurate, fast and has security functions implemented. In-bank transfers usually complete in a second, or even less, it's just modifying 2 values in a database. Making the system redundant (2 server farms in the country) can provide enough security for disaster recovery purposes with a proper backup procedure implemented and used. If they create a new blockchain solution to eliminate the 2 server farms and they provide dedicated computers in each branch to keep the database always up-to-date and updated, they can save the price of the server farms but current blockchain solutions will lead to slower service, which is unacceptable now. Blockchain solution is needed in case of inter-bank transfers because the current system is relatively slow. In my country, transfers (same currency, same country) completes in an hour usually, but in peak time it's a bit more. This could be done faster using a restricted blockchain, used by the banks in the same country. Blockchain for international transfers can be a real challenge. |
|
|
|
Why do banks use blockchains? Because most people don't understand what it means, and it's great PR to show they are moving with the times. It also gives them a chance to dump the toxic debt that is associated with the current virtual fiat currencies.
It is entirely different from what you think it is,blockchain and virtual currencies are entirely different and banks are not using blockchain to build a currency of their own ,instead they will be having their transaction records in the blockchain and it will be a closed one without any doubt. Why would you need a block chain in a closed system? What advantage does it give you over your current system? The fact it is de-centralised means nothing if you are using it in-house. Block chain can be termed as a permanent database storage system and why wouldn't a bank use the latest concept and use it .You do not need a huge infrastructure to start that and the transactions will be transparent and government or any investigating team can follow things up pretty fast with the help of an open ledger .These are some of the things that comes to my mind and the advantages of block chain are limitless . People use banks not to reveal their financial situation (account balance, transactions history etc.). If you use an open ledger, the information is not private anymore. Banks can use a closed ledger to maintain all the neccessary transactions, and it won't be a problem for the governments (and for the tax authorities) because they will have access to the closed ledger of course. |
|
|
|
Although this does sound like a great thing for bitcoin, will it not also have the undesired result of further centralizing bitcoin to the Asiatic countries? Not trying to FUD, was simply my first thought after reading this.
This bank just want to be the first who realise this idea of bitcoin use in banks activity. I'm agree that it's the first step to centralization of bitcoin. If China has not centralized bitcoin already, now when there will be more and more big players on the market I won't think about centralization but just about finding the balance. There are several other players who have already invested a lot in bitcoin (Dell, etc.). The new Japanese bank just can't centralize bitcoin. What they can really do is creating a system with an UI similar to the online banking systems. That could help the mass adoption of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Why would any centralized company/organization wants to use blockchain? they are in control of everything and they have all the records.
It's not like banks trying to double spend their own money, since people can't access their system there is no need to implement such technology.
Becasue they're connected to each other, and they're using an old and slow system at the moment to exchange data between their systems. World is changing, now, when you can send an email in some minutes to the farest country, why your money would still remain slow? Today, if you want to transfer money from a bank to another bank in a different county, you have to wait 2-3 days. If banks have a blockchain based clearing system, they will clear transactions in an hour, and not in 2-3 days time. This is the goal, this is why they're trying to find a solution, but as long as they are only developing the technology, it's quite a slow process. |
|
|
|
I think if the banks will be allowed by the governments then they will be allowed to use blochchain and then they will start to create their wallets and will accept bitcoin for their use etc. If they will collect enough data for themselves and will be satisfied with it then I do not think that they will need to show their transactions or the transactions of their clients to other people so they may tr to hide or if everything was the same as now then they will not be able to hide bitcoin transactions with them of their clients.
There's no point for the banks to create a wallet and to start accepting bitcoin. Banks have their own group of curencies they accept, they keep the accounts in those currencies. They don't need a new currency at all. What would be the blockchain technology good for them? If you want to send a transaction intrabank, it's usually done in a second, and it's usually free with the banks' current systems. If you want to send a transaction in the same country but using different banks in the same currency, nowdays it's just max. an hour to complete. If you want to send a transaction in different currency, that needs time (2-3 days) to arrive to the different country, to a totally different bank. Banks need to speed up this kind of process. But, they don't need a new currency (bitcoin) for it, they just need a quicker system handling the transactions between banks. If banks could change SWIFT system to a new one, based on a closed blockchain, they would have the new and really quick, but still reliable system. The problem is solved, without bitcoin, but with blockchain technology. Another typical solution would be the share market on exchanges. Nowdays if you want to buy shares, it clears in 2-3 days time (e.g. if you want to bus shares from overseas). If you could use a blockchain based technology for it, buying-selling shares and registering the ownership would take half an hour. It could speed up the current system. These are just a few possibilities, but there are a plenty of them. |
|
|
|
Banks are starting to use blockchains to send bank wires that confirm in minutes, it's still centralized wires of fiat money that you have to store with a bank if you want to store it digitally but do you think it's good or bad for Bitcoin adoption in the short/medium term ?
Have you any links to articles that back up your statement? and even if they are that has no effect on bitcoins decentralised nature which is one of its key features. the banks will never have that. Here you can find a lot of articles/examples about the subject. Banks doesn't develop a new currency, they just need a new system to handle time consuming and administrative everyday tasks and processes. It will be neutral to bitcoin, because the banks' customers usually don't care about the technology behind the scenes, as long as their orders are completed. If banks implement a new technology, the customers will only notice if the processes become quicker or easier, because banks won't change the UI if they change the core inside their system. Customers (and everyday people) won't have a clue about the similarity of the banks' system and bitcoin's system, so it won't legitimate bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Sziasztok. Szeretnek nekiallni bitcoin banyaszatnak, de barmilyen egyeb altcoin erdekel, valaki aki privatban egy aktiv uzenetkuldo feluleten pl facebook, vagy viber vagy whatsapp vagy akarmi tudna nekem segiteni, esetleg informaciokat adni a kezdetekhez, nagyjabol lefesteni, hogy mi kell, hogy mukodik stb. Egy korabbi uzenetben mar leirtam, hogy mi az ami rendelkezesre all, az elozo oldalon meg is talalhato, es kaptam is ra egy szep hosszu valaszt, de kicsit reszletesebben erdekelne. Profit lenne a fo cel. Tudom eleg lusta dolog utanaolvasas helyett segitseget kerni, de ha valaki segitene azt nagyon megkoszonnem, mert ahhoz, hogy elkezdjem szabadsagot kell kivennem, es hazarepulnom magyarorszagra, vinni a felszerelest stb, szoval nem ket forint, es keszen szeretnek hazamenni, hogy csak be kelljen allitani a rendszert. Ha van valaki aki regota bent van a bizniszben, es segitene az legyen oly kedves es egy privat uzenet formajaban jelezze ezt, es ott leirom a szemelyes adatokat, amelyik szimpatikus a fent felsoroltak kozul. Koszonom szepen elore is! Cserebe megprobaljuk aktivva tenni a topikot is Have a nice day  Hali, nem bányásztam még, ehhez mérten vedd figylembe (vagy nem) amit írok. Abból biztos nem lesz bajod, ha utánaolvasol és csak utána vágsz bele Mostanában azt olvasom mindenhol, (de majd megcáfolnak, ha nem így van), hogy bitcoin-t bányászni már nem éri meg, inkább mást, altcoin-t kell keresni, amit aztán kibányászás után lehet trade-elni bitcoinra. Szokták javasolni még, hogy eszközbeszerzés nélkül lehet bányászati részt venni nagy bányászara specializálódott csoportosulásoknál, ahol befizetsz valamennyi bitcoin-t és ebből ők finanszírozzák az áramfogyasztásukat, eszközigényeket, karbantartásokat, és a megtermelt profitból befizetett részesedés arányában visszaosztják bitcoin-ban a profitrészt. Itt csak azt nem értem, hogy minek adják el a részesedést, ha az nekik is termelhet profitot, de biztos ennek is megvan a magyarázata. Ha én lennék a helyedben, óvatos lennék és utánaolvasnék, de nem én vagyok a helyedben, úgyhogy ha rám hallgatsz, azt csinálsz, amit akarsz |
|
|
|
|
Úgy tűnik, megint kihaltunk, pedig most kezdtem gondolkodni azon, hogy körbekérdezek, mi kellene ahhoz, hogy saját topic-ot kapjunk a Locals-on belül, hogy lehessen teljes értékű magyar fórumot használni itt, az Other languages/locations helyett, itt alig találni meg minket...
Azt hiszem, valamilyen mértékű aktivitás elvárt, de lehet, hogy inkább mégis teszek egy próbát és megkérdezem a Meta-ban, hátha szerencsénk lesz...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
