There used to be a "coin selection" policy setting in Electrum with the options "privacy" and "priority". However this was removed as the "priority" concept in Bitcoin was effectively removed when zero fee transactions were no longer a thing. - "Priority" would spend your oldest coins, as there used to be a priority value in Bitcoin that would prioritise transactions for inclusion in a block based on the "age" of a UTXO... but this was removed at some point. - "Privacy" would spend ALL the inputs within an address regardless of how much you were actually attempting to spend. The change would then be sent to a new change address. The idea was to prevent a leftover UTXO in AddressA from then being used in another transaction and then linking all the addresses in the two transactions together. However, these options are no longer offered... (the concept of "Priority" in Bitcoin transactions isn't used anymore) Currently, I "believe" that the strategy in Electrum is to use the smallest number of inputs as possible to make up the required sending amount... but not 100% sure what the actual UTXO selection algorithm is... I haven't looked at that part of the code recently. Can users tell Electrum which strategy to use?
As far as I'm aware, the only way to tell Electrum what strategy to use is to do it yourself using the coin control methods of manually selecting UTXOs from the "coins" tab. There is no setting anywhere. Is the default strategy for other Wallets the same?
From personal experience... no. Wallets all use different strategies. I've seen some that work simply on FIFO... they just used the oldest UTXOs first. I've seen some work the same and try and minimise the total number of UTXOs required... and I've used some that just seem a bit random. Adding my own experience observed from 2.8x pre native Segwit update, when allowing Electrum to choose inputs, it has always taken the single input option when possible instead of combining multiple inputs, which meant I often had to perform consolidations myself or at times forcing spends from multiple inputs. I assumed this was just for smallest possible tx size. Since updating 3x and bech32, incidentally, haven't allowed Electrum to choose, so not sure of behaviour. |
|
|
|
One month to go Make that two months to go. Lots of suggestions already in mind for Round 2, esp at perhaps an additional condition to lockin potential profits, but let's put that up when new thread opens. I'm still working on the new thread. Taking profit when coins are up will be more work, as I don't want to keep funds on an exchange anymore. Ah sorry, misread the quoted May 4 date. I was thinking of simply reserving say 50% of the coins on an order at about 100% of the price bought and forgetting it for the entire duration. It is an extra step but would possibly take advantage of spikes in altseason, not uncommon as has happened at least twice to some of my "for fun alts". But yeah, leaving funds on the exchange is always an unacceptable risk if you're looking at the same 10-month period. I wouldn't go after you if anything happened to the wallet/exchange, though I suspect others might not be as nonchalant. Still looking forward to joining all the same. |
|
|
|
|
One month to go, doesn't look like things moved much from early May. For what it's worth, it would still be a pleasant surprise to see my PPC return me 90% of value in Bitcoin, if it stays this way in July, and to see dollar gains anyway is a bonus.
Lots of suggestions already in mind for Round 2, esp at perhaps an additional condition to lockin potential profits, but let's put that up when new thread opens.
|
|
|
|
|
It's difficult not to treat Bitcoin as yet another pyramid scheme when, in the eyes of the uninitiated, the very first exposure they're likely to get about Bitcoin is on mainstream media and/or online ads, all of them purporting profits and returns far beyond conventional methods, and even putting traditional HYIPs to shame (I mean, come on, more than x10 profit in a year?).
So it is unfortunate, in a sense, that everything about Bitcoin seems to boil down to its price. But people fail to look past the dollars and see the true value of Bitcoin, and fail to see all the absent characteristics of a ponzi (centralized management, money created and paid out to older investors from newer ones, for example).
But take what information they can see, and it makes sense that they'd form such opinions. Their loss.
|
|
|
|
|
@mobnepal: bitpanda user here, you CAN move your funds. I'm going to give my own experience and feedback from support, because I got this rude Verification shock much earlier in May when I logged in, some time after the news about EU AML laws affecting crypto.
1. They cannot verify anyone that their 3rd party Verifiers cannot verify (so basically, I tried both providers, and sure enough, they couldn't verify me). The 3rd party ppl actually suggested that BitPanda COULD do something about it but I tried, and didn't work. Note that I was ALREADY verified before, just that this time, they can't verify my country.
2. All the below functionality still works (I confirm as have continued to do this without problems) with unverified accounts, like mine now, only with some limits (up to EUR 1k withdrawal daily IIR, I don't withdraw a lot):
- Deposits to Bitcoin wallets, it is only fiat deposits they have blocked.
- Sale of Bitcoin for EUR/USD/GBP (all work)
- Withdrawal of EUR/USD. They saved my old bank account info from before, and all my withdrawal processes were fulfilled as before.
3. About PANTOS, it is also withdrawable and/or sellable once it is listed, is what they told me. So our free tokens are "safe" for now.
And yes, I am quite unhappy because BitPanda was really absolutely my favourite non-P2P site (for their fast easy FREE SEPA) and I'm annoyed I now have to find something else.
|
|
|
|
|
No we won't. On the contrary, these implementations of regulations should actually see an uptick in people buying their first cryptocurrencies (as opposed to earning, mining or receiving them as payment). Think about it: many of the largest and fastest growing exchanges are regulated, and when they find trouble getting licenses like Binance did, they simply move to a jurisdiction that grants them that legitimacy. US and Japan didn't work out, so Binance finally moved to Malta.
Think about why people ignored or stayed away from Bitcoin for so long: because it wasn't regulated. It STILL isn't now, but people are under the illussion or misconception that it is, by proxy of exchanges.
|
|
|
|
Surprising to see that I'm only person voting for Monero. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks Monero (and possibly Zcash) are ideally suited for gambling with?
You're not, and I would have voted for it had I 4 choices! Bitcoin is my preferred currency over anything else for any reason, including gambling, simply because it's the one I use the most. My other two (ETH and LTC) are actually for reasons that I own some and would be happy to gamble them away (with the exception of Litecoin). Monero is something I would use for specialised purposes and not quite gambling yet, not when Bitcoin and others are available quite freely. Maybe if more casinos accepted it. I might add that some people actually see gambling with BTC as an extra level of "mixing" up their sources/spends... you put a deposit in and you get back unrelated coins when you withdraw. |
|
|
|
|
Most observations I can recall reading seem to agree that Satoshi was/were pretty decent at coding, stopping short of criticizing the work. Criticisms seem to have arrived much later. The same actually happened even with Satoshi's language. Those who paid attention noted the impeccable grammar and structure, others criticised (again, much later) the inconsistencies even with spelling.
As Carlton Banks points out, these could all be deliberate attempts at concealing identity, or simply a result of the multiple hands behind Satoshi.
It's hard to be a genius and not have people analyse every item connected to your personality.
But Satoshi's coding considered bad? I don't think anyone, not even DeathAndTaxes, would come close to thinking that.
|
|
|
|
Hey there Bit-Exo, professori, pablo, nice to see you all here after so long, faithful to Bit-Exo. I haven't visited in well over six months if not a year (I think?), just discovered my username still works via MP, though balances are 0 and leveling stats are wiped (wasn't much as I recall and I do remember an email from MP about balances but forgot and no big deal anyway). The 1 BTC to get to level 1 seems pretty massive for me too, but you never know, I might attempt a rediscovery of one of my favourite sites in the past... all those lovely coins added will add further motivation. Good memories over there, look forward to when BXO gets its dues. P.S. Hey SyGambler  |
|
|
|
The quality of a casino's customer support is obviously important for me, but I don't really mind if I have to wait a couple of hours or even days.
That said, I've never had to wait long before I've had my support requests dealt with. Especially not at the current website I'm playing, Crypto-Games.
Other casino's might adhere to offer support on business days only and I think that's also reasonable.
I'm with you on this. Customer support is always tricky business. Obviously, with money involved, customers get finnicky when support requests aren't handled immediately. Every passing day seems to trigger increasingly emotional responses and the humans on the other end of support can sometimes be turned off by impatience and lack of clarity with issues. On the other hand, I probably dislike even more those instant responses that don't seem to understand the actual issue: you get a generic tailored response that doesn't help the problem and only causes more frustration. The best customer support probably starts with a detailed FAQ as a first line of defence. And a good customer support knows it needs trained, knowledgeable staff who know the mechanics of crypto, who know how the site works. I play at CGN too and probably have only needed to reach out once. Issue was resolved quickly and correctly (missing deposit), not many words exchanged. Works for me. |
|
|
|
A less technical solution might simply be to look up the address you want to watch and bookmark it (I do that for a few addresses). So for example, if you bookmark https://blockchain.info/address/XXX, where XXX is the address, you just visit it on your bookmark (I name them too), and it lists balance, transactions. You can use blockchair to look up bech32 addresses. |
|
|
|
|
I've never "shared" my passions, especially when it involves money. I don't go to great lengths to hide that I use Bitcoin, I simply never mention it. But I do say something if asked - and people have been surprised when they learn I earn almost chiefly in Bitcoin and have even shed some old clients that haven't been convinced to switch to Bitcoin (this more because of restrictions on their preferred mode of payment, Paypal, which has caused me so many headaches in the past).
Good thing you realised what money does to relationships. People have incredible expectations from friends, and even more so from family. So if you have to talk about Bitcoin, do so without ever touching the aspects of profitability. I mean, if you loved writing, you wouldn't want to tell people they could make millions if they wrote well enough, would you?
|
|
|
|
Zverev has been doing really good , but today I can't see him overcoming Thiem since Thiem is way better IMO and he is well experienced
so taking Thiem -2.5 at X1.85
also I have a long shot for Putintseva to win with X4.00 , the match should be great and I believe there is good value in pick Putintseva at that price I'm also taking Kasatkina to win today
Your Thiem bet is won, Thiem was better and Zverev also injured. Cecchinato has just beaten Djokovic, didn't see that coming. First he defeats Goffin, now Djokovic. It is a real life fairytale for him lol  wow still can't believe it , Cecchinato played epic tennis and so does Djokovic it was really the greatest match I watched this year , with such performance I won't be surprised if Cecchinato passed the other guys and won the trophy since he was just amazing today I had a loss at that match since I placed a bet on under 31 games before the match start , was expecting Djokovic to easily win it 3-0 Djokovic will probably slip down to below 25 in ranking after this loss. Odds were around 75/10 on Cecchinato if I recall, would have wiped out all my losses up to yesterday, but at least we're now guaranteed 1 first-timer in the final! 40/1 odds on Cecchinato to go on and win it is tempting but Nadal's still the better bet at 4/1. Well done to the unseeded underdog! Both QF men's are good games today. I'll go for a testy Cilic win @2.5 and Schwartzman to force Nadal to over 28 @2.1 |
|
|
|
|
Well, looking on block explorer, you did indeed send everything you had (minus fees) from 1gUeBSBavyTZmK7UCRctofWoVsfdmWLV3 to 1HFtpsYZx6WdXezvKyE1LtSSxX8tR76Pb9.
Just to clarify, where does it say only 0.00014 is available? Your balance should be 0.01442409.
This is an issue with dream market so you'd have to reach out to their support (just add "/support" after your url after logging in), providing the tx and perhaps a screenshot of the deposit address on your account. Check your trade history also to see if you didn't make any purchase (maybe you were phished)...
|
|
|
|
What happens with the accounts that has won the Lottery, like the 2 x lottery ticket winner of the last draw? Say, they just logged in to test this site and used a throwaway email address to register? I know I do this a lot for many shady sites on the internet, so I might even be one of those people. The only reason why I do this is to protect my main email accounts from becoming a spam nest.  There should be some rule enforced that all accounts with no activity for say 10 years should be closed down and all money on those accounts be transferred to the faucet or lottery pool for a bonus draw.  If they don't check the email they used then they won't see the notification of the win. I don't think we could really introduce a rule like that retrospectively. If the coin just sits there unclaimed that actually helps us as it increases the size of the bankroll which in turn allows us to have a larger maximum win on the Hi-Lo game (currently 20 BTC which is competitive with other dice sites). Yeah, that's always been an unfair rule - retrospective or not. We all have been there, leaving accounts inactive inadvertently, I know it's happened to me more than I care to remember. Could always make them tagged as dormant, requiring reactivation, but never to confiscate monies that are simply left on accounts. It's not really like they're taking up so much resources, are they? @kakmakr, I use plenty of throwaway emails too, but if I even had a small chance of winning a lottery, I'd use an email I could at least check back. Freebitco.in is whitelisted from my email haha. |
|
|
|
Goffin was a shock loss losing in 4 sets to the unseeded Cecchinato. This might make Djokovic's job a little easier facing Cecchinato in the quarter-final instead of Goffin however Cecchinato is playing some good tennis so I wouldn't be surprised to see another upset. I'm really looking forward to the other quarter-final between Thiem and Zverev, its a shame that they must face each other now as this would of been a great semi-final and I also have bet on both players to win the French Open so I'll be down to one after this match. I also think Thiem can get the win here and I may also place a bet if the odds are good close to $2.
Yeah, quite a few mouth-watering Semi opportunities missed out, I'm also backing Thiem but not yet placed my bets. I've not been doing well at all with Tennis, as usual, so probably just going to enjoy the games and take small-sized punts. Today's game's are not too bad but Nadal's too far a favourite for ML odds that I'm actually going to sneak in a tiny bet on Marterer to win @33.4! A more realistic hedge will be for both Cilic and del Potro to win for a total parlay of @2.09 I have actually placed a bet on Fognini to win against Cilic. In my mind this match is much more open then the bookies believe. It will be decided on Fognini side and the amount of errors he will make. Cilic will play his game and hit his usual share of winners with usual amount of missed balls as well. If we see Fognini on more than 75% percent of his best tennis he is winning this one and odds are very good, I managed to place the bet @2.95 which has good value in my opinion. I won the simple parlay finally, still so far from recouping losses and my tiny bet against Nadal of course didn't work out! Didn't watch the Cilic game actually so not sure if Fognini played to your expectations. Women's was a huge huge disappointment because Williams Sharapova would have been the best to watch. The American seemed all gungho even if she was slightly uncomfortable in her previous win so her withdrawal really a downer. Maybe she didn't feel confident against the Russian. Wozniacki also out so maybe the road is a little clearer for Sharapova? |
|
|
|
Also quantum teleportation would... you know... kill you.
Unless you're a die-hard philosophical materialist that assumes that quantum teleportation transmits information perfectly and assume that the positions of your molecules in spacetime have nothing to do with your being and are pretty sure that a clone of yourself with a perfect copy of your mind would be you as well. That is unless you alternatively assume that the I, ie. the self, is merely a mental construct anyway in which case knock yourself out! (whatever "you" and "yourself" would mean in that case)
But yes, it'd totally kill you.
(sorry for off-topic)
That being said, remember that the future applications of quantum computing is still for the most part speculative; let alone practical applications of quantum physics beyond that.
Not really off topic, because it underlines the fact that quantum is as you say, very much still in the realm of theory with very little implementation, even under laboratory conditions. And here's another editorial that further explains Brennen's work (which I shared above) and stresses what I believe: that the threat is real, but has been far overplayed, and that current blockchain tech and iterations have a ten-year head start to improve. And improve they will. A quote about Bitcoin: "it struck me how precise and intense is the brain trust behind this technology" |
|
|
|
In a study published Monday, the EU parliamentary think tank has concluded that cryptocurrencies present no more of a threat to terrorist financing than fiat currencies, while improved regulations, industry intelligence, and community relationship building offer the strongest policy actions to combat the threat. The report was commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, conducted to asses the risks imposed by the rapidly changing, decentralized space of virtual currencies. To read more: https://bitcoinnews.com/eu-terrorist-funding-study-crypto-no-greater-threat-than-traditional-currency-increased-regulations-required/ |
|
|
|
|
As you note, whitelabelling saves you that extra step of debugging and support on your own end (you pay extra for that of course) while you get the advantage of platforms that already work and are at latter stages of maturation.
Honestly can't say I know what works best but you should try the platforms you found and see. Some whitelabels even have options to share in lifetime trading fees... Saves you subscription rates but may appear unattractive to users for whom cost is passed onto.
Personally, as a trader I don't mind slightly higher fees if support is excellent and platform is stable, since my frequency of trade is low.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for bringing this up for discussion... it has actually been pointed out before, especially during mid-2017 when Poloniex troubles began. To someone like me, that specific line that forces users to waive legal rights (which they later also amended to specifically include class action) just smacks of unfair consumer practice. There is one case in the EU (almost similar) where a company forced users to waive their withdrawal rights to "lapse" if they agreed to buy in-game tokens (considered as digital content). Courts found that it was permissible, but on highly complex procedure. You can refer to this: http://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/court-decision-consumer-withdrawal-right-waiver-possible-for-virtual-currencies/Now of course waiving legal rights is completely on another level. It's very common now between employer-employee, and unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has been extremely pro-business, considering legal waivers as legitimate in cases against Google, Facebook, in the past. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
