i find the process of becoming a "guru" very funny. these random dudes start making random guesses and call them prediction, and there is only two possible scenarios. price either moves in that way and they become the "guru" so they start spamming their random guesses, or price doesn't go in that direction and they will simply be forgotten since there are lots of them making these random guesses. and it goes both ways. it is not just predicting rise or fall. it is interesting to see how some of them like MacAfee start to use this "guru" power too. he practically has a twitter pump group going on  or.. they make 5 predictions each month. all time stamped. and after 6 months just delete the 24 video's that were wrong. to only show the 6 videos that were right. all time stamped to show videos were made and published before the predicted event and then promote that he only ever made 6 predictions and every prediction was correct... then beg for people to pay him membership fee's if they want prediction number 7 |
|
|
|
he had a solution in 2010 It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
|
|
|
|
its also worth noting and people need to accept the risk that their funds are no longer 100% theirs in a channel.. its not a sole holder bank account. its a joint account. because it requires the other person to agree on what you want to do with "your money".
and we agree when we do that, that the lock-out time is 1 week, still needs agreement, thus LN is not peer to peer its partner to partner, just to clarify the inaccuracy of LN promotional material .. anyway, without 2 signatures.. funds cant move |
|
|
|
after spending a while reporting scam artists i thought i should use one of their guru's sales pitches.. but then twist it please note this is  (satire) in 1984. a japanese bitcoin prophet predicted what the price of bitcoin would do 30+ years ahead, and he done this while painting a fence click the imgur link to see the punchline https://imgur.com/UfxyGcU |
|
|
|
|
another tip is the know your recipient
if you dont know enough about the person your handing funds to, to be able to later slap them with a wet fish(court order) should they do you wrong, dont hand them any funds.
dont simply trust that because they have a glossy website that they are legit. check the WHOIS of the site. get a real world postal address. then google that postal address and see if its a real office with a company registration of the business you wish to fund.
also check google to see if its a 'virtual mailbox'(unofficial POBOX). this is usually easy to spot if there are loads of businesses linked to the same address.
get details of the CEO. check out if they have company registrations on country/state services. check their social media is not only available but also not recently created. even look if they have family/relatives in their friends list to make sure its a real person.
in short
if you had a suitcase of banknotes. instead of bitcoin. would you act any differently before handing over the suitcase to someone you never met
|
|
|
|
issue arises though is when there is a situation where person A cannot get a refund for bad service from B so A hopes B goes offline before B can send TX2.. so that A can send TX1 and hope that B doesnt wake up to send TX2..
This is kind of stupid. Like in normal bitcoin transactions, payments are irreversible. If there's no escrow, there's no way to "get a refund". Once you've paid, you've paid. What you are complaining about, is essentially that A has no possibility to steal back his money, and if he tries so, he risks to get screwed. Well, the whole idea is that if you try to steal, you get screwed, yes. With a normal bitcoin transaction, there's not even the smallest possibility to steal back your previous payment (unless you attack the block chain, and orphan the prong in which your payment was done - usually a more expensive undertaking than just propose someone to pay him if he kills B, say). Now, the LN system may let you a tiny hope to steal your payment back, but it was designed to make this very risky. You cannot use the tiny risky potential to steal in an LN as a normal way to "get a refund". im not saying its the way to get a refund. im saying that B can blackmail A, many people over many months have been promoting LN as the trustless system of decentralised control. the reality is that LN is (using a bank analogy to ELI-5 it) a joint account with a spouse.. and that spouse has another joint bank account with the plumber if YOU want to pay the plumber. you tell your wife she can have a % of you and your spouses account balance. if she then uses her other account with the plumber to give the plumber a % of that separate joint account. its not about your funds entering the plumbers account direct its also worth noting and people need to accept the risk that their funds are no longer 100% theirs in a channel.. its not a sole holder bank account. its a joint account. because it requires the other person to agree on what you want to do with "your money". but back to the topic as the scenario has meandered. the revocation key is not something you request when a dispute arises. its something thats already part of the latest tx, to revoke any disputes of using previous tx's (but a slight risk the prev tx can succeed if the latest tx is not transmitted in time) |
|
|
|
|
the "revocation key" of say TX1 becomes part of TX2 when tx2 is formed and agreed
so if a sends out a "stale" tx(tx1) then all that needs to be done is the other party needs to send out the latest tx(tx2) to overrule tx1
..
issue arises though is when there is a situation where person A cannot get a refund for bad service from B so A hopes B goes offline before B can send TX2.. so that A can send TX1 and hope that B doesnt wake up to send TX2..
B does not need to ask for a TX1 revoke key. as i said its already part of TX2
..
and as i said before B can blackmail/ refuse to make a new payment(tx3) to refund A. and as such forced A to just cry, or send out tx1 in the hope that A can get some funds.. but if B is greedy. B will send out TX2 to overrule tx1. and thus B keeps the goods and the funds
and as for Cbanks comment.. uni-directional (facepalm)(im laughing)
if a channel is you to you... you can only pay yourself in that channel.
if you want to pay others. you need other parties in another channel. but you cant move funds out of the uni channel and into a bi-directional channel without closing the uni channel to then deposit them into the bidirectional channel
i think people need to run scenarios and play around.. instead of just reading they promotional hype on reddit
EG
[A:10-A:10][A:10-A:10] [A:10-B10]
if A moves all its funds t one side in a uni.. it does not make A's bi directional suddenly fill up with an extra 40btc within LN while the channels are open
i think people need to run scenarios and play around.. instead of just reading the promotional hype on reddit
ok the first 2 channels are unidirectional.. and they do not matter at all because there is no routing.. there is literally no reason/utility in setting up [a-a]
because the [A-A] channels wont ever change.. at opening A put 20btc in.. at closing A gets 20btc out per channel
EG
true:[A:0-A:20][A:0-A:20] [A:10-B10]
false: [A:0-A:20][A:0-A:20] [A:50-B10] {magic used}
false: [A:0-A:0][A:0-A:0] [A:50-B10] {funds magically move without closing channel}
easier and common sense to just leave the 40btc (uni funds) in a legacy address without even wasting onchain fes to open a stupid uni channel... get a piece of paper and write to yourself i have 40btc and of that 40btc i owe myself 40btc
its far better to not waste onchain fee's to store funds that wont move.. and just put the 50btc total into the [a-b] because the 40btc in the unichannels wont move as routed payments. because A will always be paying A
|
|
|
|
In the field of economics, it says that, there are characteristic to determine if an object has value.
First, scarcity, if X (E.g. Bitcoin) has LIMITED supply then MAYBE it has value. Same in the nature of gold, gas and other minerals, one of the reason why its very expensive and it's getting more expensive as the time pass because it has limited supply.
If you read it carefully I use the word "maybe" because scarcity dont mean value, It's a factor that affects the value. If X is scarce but it has no use or not needed, it wont matter.
my analogy for this is: my dog does 2 poop a day. for the first 4 years thats a total of 2920. poops for the next 4 years, my dog only does 1 poop a day. thats 1460 poops then for the last 4 years of life. only 1 poop every 2 days. thats 730 poops my dogs poop is scarce, only 5110 poops will be available... want some?.. its more scarce than bitcoin .. reply. nope |
|
|
|
DO YOU THINK WE CAN HAVE A PLATFORM WERE WE CAN TRACE BITCOIN THAT IS TAKEN FROM US?
its called blockexplorer. as for WHO took the bitcoin. the lesson is simple. would you hand banknotes to a stranger ... apply same money safety common sense, when using bitcoin. if you dont know enough about someone to slap them with a wet fish(court order).. dont give them your funds |
|
|
|
The real problem of bitcoin price decline is that more of 50% of cryptocurrency community are most of them ignorant and lazy people , they just follow rumors ,
nah.. out of nearly 17m coins.. only a few hundred thousand are on exchanges affecting the price. so thats only say 1% (170k coins) of the community per exchange of that 1% not all are panic selling. there are also buyers. for every seller there is an equal buyer. so that makes 0.5% of the community is panic selling. ... the real problem is that the bitcoins "price" is not affected by nearly 17m changing hands, but instead by orderlines of exchanges that dont even have 1btc per different price offer. yes thats right. the bitcoin price and market cap can shift easily by a few$ per btc or $16million for the cap can change. just buy buying/selling less than 1btc |
|
|
|
It isn't just the supply that gives something a value, it is the demand as well.
Supply doesn't really affect Bitcoin's price that much as it is always accounted for, because it is predictable without a doubt.
It is the demand that affects it's price the most. The demand decreased for whatever reason (some sort of panic selling probably) and therefor the price fell.
correct. the supply has been a known factor since day 1. it has not changed, everyone knew and knows the supply. but the demand is the variable. demand affects price more than supply. but the price is not just supply/demand. its also speculation/manipulation which affects the price the most. for instance. i could make an exchange where each order line is set to $8,000 -1 btc $18.000 -1 btc $28,000 -1 btc and someone just buying 3btc total (of the near 17mill coin supply) can turn bitcoin from being priced/'valued' at $28,000.. yes, just 3btc can make that much of a difference in this circumstance screw it, lets make it easier $80 -0.01 btc $180 -0.01 btc $280 -0.01 btc now someone just needs to be the third person to buy 0.01btc, and for only $280. and this too results in a bitcoin being valued at $28,000 screw it, lets make it easier $0.80 -0.0001 btc $1.80 -0.0001 btc $2.80 -0.0001 btc now someone just needs to be the third person to buy 0.0001btc, and for only $2.80. and this too results in a bitcoin being valued at $28,000. my point being is that the whole near 17m coins in circulation so far are not 'valued'.. just the manipulated small amounts on some orderbooks of popular exchanges, which other exchanges blindly follow like sheep |
|
|
|
|
most media advisers try to publicise to the world to buy when there is hype. as its advertised that "things are going good".
they love to say when prices are going down that its time to sell... as its a "train crash"
this is bad bad advice.
smart trades buy at the doom and gloom, because the prices are at a discount.. and sell at the highs
so as others have said, avoid the "doom! sell sell sell" panic adverts
|
|
|
|
- snip -
None of what you wrote is an accurate description of how Lightning Network works. Furthermore, A would have to be pretty STUPID to think that he can chargeback by broadcasting tx1. It should be obvious to A that broadcasting tx1 will not help him at all. He has already sent the 10BTC to B and he has no way of getting that value back unless B is STUPID. If you are engaging in a transaction with someone that you do not have a trust relationship with, you need to take actions (BEFORE YOU SEND THE TRANSACTION) to protect yourself. As an example, perhaps use an escrow provider? ofcourse its not 'accurate' as i done it in ELI-5 human understanding. if i wrote it at code level i might aswell tell people to just read github A's hope would be that B would be offline for the timelock period and hope he can spend the 10btc before B realises that B should send tx2 because if A does not act.. B could still transmit tx2 anyway and all is lost. so A might aswell send out tx1 and hope B dosnt notice. (no guarantee it will work but its his only chance) .. but this proves that LN is not 'trustless' because humans are greedy. also its pretty stupid to think my post was about A charging back.. my example was where A tried to withdraw funds due to B not honouring a service, however B done a chargeback on A's withdrawal much like a paypal CUSTOMER doing a withdrawal. but then paypal doing a chargeback against the customer B is the charge backer... not A.. just B had to make A try to withdraw so that B could trigger the chargeback |
|
|
|
The meaning of word revocation means that I can somehow cancel the tx, however given the nature of blockchain transaction I struggle to understand how this is possible. Could someone please explain meaning of revocation in this context?
When a new commitment transaction is made, the old one should become invalid. However commitment transactions are not broadcast to the network, rather they are kept private and only broadcast when you want the channel to close. But because all commitment transactions are technically valid, we need some way to prevent people from broadcasting old commitments as they would effectively allow them to steal money. That's where the revocation key comes in. and here achow describes bank2.0 chargeback scheme imagine [a:10-b:10] where the channel counterparties each funding 10btc they make their first commitment to agree on who shares what of the 20btc available in the multisig(channel) in human language its like tx 1 [input A:10 B:10 output A:10, spendable if tx2 not confirmed in 3days B:10, spendable if tx2 not confirmed in 3days ] now A wants to buy something from B for 10. so the new commitment is made. tx 2 [a:0-b:20] but each party has a sight variation A in human language its like tx 2 [input A:10 B:10 output A:0, spendable if tx3 not confirmed in 3days B:20, spendable if tx3 not confirmed in 3days ] B in human language its like tx 2 [input A:10 B:10 output A:0, spendable if tx3 not confirmed in 3days B:20, spendable if tx3 not confirmed in 3days ] -note: they both have variations(but not shown varient) because the 'spendable if' can have extra outputs if TX2A is transmitted or TX2B is transmitted but that would take longer to explain this way it become self destructive for a counter party to send a previous TX but imagine if B was to not to deliver the goods and refuses to make a 3rd tx to refund A his 10btc A is then going to be forced to send out tx1 to HOPE to get his 10btc back, because tx2 wont give him his 10btc back. A transmits tx1, HOPING B stays offline/doesnt notice for 3 days B can then transmit his tx2 to overrule A's tx 1 and then B not only gets to keep the goods, but also gets 20btc by blackmailing A into forcibly making A transmit tx1 to then allow B to use his tx2 CSV exception (i think achow hates it when i highlight the pitfalls but LN is not the utopia people promote.. there are pitfuls) --- |
|
|
|
this person below is right
you misunderstood the news!
Facebook will no longer allow you to place any advertisements which involves ICOs and other cryptocurrencies.
you can still post things about bitcoin, etc on your profile or facebook page.
hopefully. then Google ads and all the rest of the major ones. we can finally get rid of all of them and with it all the FUD that comes with them.
this is about the "suggested ads" not peoples personal comments/posts and in another thread i explained why FB done this the reason is because most bitcoin adverts and ICO adverts are scams
trying to get people to use 'investment' schemes where the people never get to own/trade real coins, but instead gamble the scammers database entry using a price that 'emulates' a real exchange price
and facebook just dont have time to vet all these scams or wish to become liable for causing people to become victims.
imagine all the lawsuits of "facebook told me to go to this site and hand a scammer my life savings"
|
|
|
|
|
the reason is simple.
buyers want to buy at the cheapest price possible. and when the price is low they like to test the water to find out what is the lowest of the low (the resistance point) before the bottom true value emerges.
so throwing out FUD and also highlighting real problems evaporates all the over hyped speculation and gets to show where the true value is.
and if it shows that no matter what is thrown out at media, only reacts to a price hitting $xxxx but never going lower. than that resistance point is the new yearly low that people can use as their start point
smart investers:
don't invest when the price is high
don't invest when emotions are high
do invest when the price is low
do invest when emotions are low
..
EG
the richest guys of fiat made more money due to the 2008 crises.. making far more after it(in the depressed period) , then before it(in the too big to fail hype period)
all you have to learn is, if with all the doom and gloom bitcoin is still worth many thousands and a house is still worth hundreds of thousands. then your safer in the knowledge of where rock bottom is. to then plan future growth
|
|
|
|
for those wanting to learn beyong the promotional "cheap, instant, unlimited" buzzwords and find out about the critical parts that dont meet the promotional promises.. another thread (link below) highlights some limitations/issues. ofcourse some people in the thread try defending/deflecting the issues to keep the hype of empty promises alive, but its worth knowing the limitations aswell https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2819956.msg29007219#msg29007219 |
|
|
|
Do not use public wallets like blockchain.info and others | use proxies,vpns,dedicated servers,ssh for transfers better actually rdp as vpn, proxy can be tracked and overcomed by icmp messages by mtu size etc | use mixers | keep your coins in cold storage
Dread pirate roberts used proxies, tor, he used mixers.. and even used other peoples internet (coffee shops) so that nothing can be traced back to him directly.. guess what he got caught it does not matter what you do in the middle to anonymise yourself, if your publicising the start(bitcoin addresses) and end points(postal addresses), given enough time a trail can be found to link the start point to the end point. EG mixers if a known bitcoin address puts 10btc into a mixer and the service is known to charge 1% fee.. with enough data mining it wont take long to retrospectively check around the time of the 10btc deposit. a mixers output that totals/aggregates to 9.99btc |
|
|
|
|
strange for a legendary to ask.. but here goes
dont publicise your bitcoin address
it took me 3 seconds to work out that these are a few of your addresses you have in your wallet
1Q8egmKmoqjAbnr5k8vNd2oqNcpiQV4cbz
1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
1P4Bvu7d9z8JCGsVYUNMaQMxBQjVZvL6bc
1577fY8jhqmHTBfbNFrvmLjpFn9nQgWBb6
|
|
|
|
I believe bitcoin has an impact on fiat.
The more fiat that is allocated in bitcoin, the less fiat that's out there. Sure, governments can print more fiat, but this comes with a price: devaluation of the currency: angry people, riots etc. At some point it would be chaotic. I don't think you can't just claim fiat moving into bitcoin is irrelevant. It may be irrelevant at current valuations because it's tiny, but if trillions moved into BTC, it would have an impact on fiat, since fiat is tightly connected to government decisions and governments would take decisions therefore as a result BTC has impacted fiat's development.
"allocated to bitcoin" (facepalm) "moved into bitcoin" (facepalm) LOL you make me laugh when someone buys bitcoin.. that fiat is not locked in some safe and lost forever.. the seller has given his bitcoin away to the buyer, gets fiat from the buyer and then the seller spends that fiat in his real life. just the same as selling an ipad on craigslist. the seller then goes and pays his rent and buys a few beers. the fiat is never lost/forgotten or destroyed |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
