Think about this though, these would-be manipulators would surely not want to kill their golden goose. Even if they brought the price down, it would only be for them to re-enter into long positions. Why make a few billion today when you could be making hundreds of millions for many tomorrows?
I see your point but you may miss a few other factors that may be in operation here. For example, it is sort of common knowledge that when Bitcoin price falls, most altcoins fall even harder, and harder may be a serious underestimation here. So what if would-be manipulators are really trying to move their financial capital from Bitcoin to some other coin like Ethereum or Litecoin? I think in this case they wouldn't care if Bitcoin dies in the process as long as the coin of their choice survives. Also, given the general negative attitude toward Bitcoin recently revealed by the powers that be, it may in fact be worth earning a few billions today because there might not tomorrow at all. What do you think? Not really common knowledge - there were actually times last year when altcoins rose as Bitcoin declined, usually in short spurts. To my understanding this can be rationally explained when people buy up alts with Bitcoin (BTC pairs are, after all, still the most common trading pair with most alts and the easiest way for people to buy alts without a fiat deposit). In other words, this is a form of shorting Bitcoin (selling it to buy alts). Of course, as January and early February has shown, the entire crypto market is pretty much reliant on Bitcoin's health in the long term. And that knowledge - that if Bitcoin as the most recognised, accepted and legitimate cryptocurrency fails, so does the rest of crypto - should still be the prevailing common sense of whales who surely built their digital wealth from Bitcoin. There may certainly not be a tomorrow, but the whales would want that event to be as far forward into the future as possible. That's my conjecture. |
|
|
|
I am playing against all odds this weekend. I just predicted 5 draws out of 10 games, I think this either make or break for this round for me. Next objective I have set to get the place of LFC_Bitcoin  and then I will see what I can do for higher rank positions. There are a lot of balanced games this week and it can be a good strategy to bet so many draws. you are well placed in the standings and you can easily get on the podium I've done that on a few weeks actually, but I tend to go for 1-1 draws instead of scoreless, since it's the Premier League and goals are a plenty. Then people like Chelsea and Arsenal especially shock me by not being able to score and then I get just the 10 points. I got my picks in for this week just about in time for the early kick off (can't for the life of me understand why I forget sometimes when I actually have a reminder!). I predicted a shock 1-1 Burnley draw for City... so far so good with Danilo scoring a minute ago. Liverpool 3-0 is my usual prediction and I have a personal straight Liverpool bet to win at just over 2.1 odds. Also got United down to draw but I'll favour Arsenal for a much-needed solid win today. Two assists from Mkhi, please! |
|
|
|
Today's games don't really interest me (still suffering from a Liverpool hangover) but I'm thinking some good value bets are to be had. 1. Staying away from Southampton-West Brom, but if I had to make a bet, Sturridge will get one goal on debut to get a point for the Baggies. 2. Leicester are expected to win, and they're at home... but I will see if Mahrez is in the team sheet before betting on a win @1.89. 3. Bournemouth are in a rich vein of form so I'm backing another win @1.91. 4. Staying away from Brighton & Hove-Hammers, but I'd put a low scoring game under 2.5. Arsenal, United and City should win, but poor value bets. manchester city this season only one lost from liverpool
only meet burnley is easy to win
but ussualy manchester city can't create much goal in every match
Dude City have the highest goal difference in the Premier League lol. What are you talking about? Been noticing a number of rubbish posts in this thread in recent months. Not that this is one, but I thought the one place we didn't need spammers in... |
|
|
|
Yes, economists. You know what the problem is with economists? I studied economy, and it probably isn't the same in every country, but we learned a lot about the common economic phenomenon (inflation, primary emission, money, supply, demand,.... you name it) and what they can provoke. But we never did any serious case studies. We never learned a true picture of how those phenomena all work together in an organic society. I believe that a bachelor of economy should be able to predict an output model based on some input parameters, but guess what - we are not able to do that. Also, there are quite a few things they won't tell you, and also - you learn mostly about old ideas, nothing about new ones, so when you finish your study, you are already a couple of steps behind.
That's probably a criticism most long-time students of social and economic science will acknowledge to some extent! They do not yet embark on "serious case studies" using the same lenghty rigours of their more hard science counterparts. Another shortfall of all economists is their predilection for the old, existing economic models which simply do not lead us to correct results because of the mistaken basis of rational theories... and we keep learning the lesson that humans are anything but rational. I like how you noticed this non-centralistic interventionism (oh my gosh, what an oxymoron, but I think it is indeed true) as something new. Yes, blockchain, liquid democracy, equal money, basic income - those are all instruments towards the better future.
All of us that want a better world have leanings toward socialist tendencies. It's pity that humans spoilt the term socialism for everyone as it is nowadays mostly seen in a negative light. I am not against capitalism neither. It was Bill Gates that said - capitalism is a great thing because without it he would never be able to start from the garage and become a billionaire. We need a hybrid, much like Keynes proposed, but the Keynes based his idea on old economic theories and we need new ones.
Yeah... it's 2018 but my government, for example, still considers socialism taboo, we still run state-made documentaries on TV about how dangerous it can be (generously, erroneously plastering the communist label of course). Then again the same documentaries feature a collection of burning portraits of Marx, Attaturk and Darwin, so I guess no one buys the message! I dont have much background in economy so forgive me if im making dangerous assumptions. I dont think intervention should come as something that would force people to abandon a system to adopt a new. I think intervention should come as policies that would excite competition. Because competition would naturally make people adopt a better system. For instance in the present, we dont want to make people abandon the current traditional banking model, let them realize its shortcomings then maybe they;ll switch to cryptos.
As for socialism and capitalism-- I do like the idea of socialism but no one has ever successfully implemented it. I dont think it will work in the real world because it doesn't give much incentive to innovate, unlike capitalism. But then again, capitalism is the source of centralized power and the uneven distribution of wealth. It's a system where the poor keeps getting poorer and the rich keeps getting richer. I do agree with you, a hybrid model is very much needed. We need capitalism to keep pushing the boundaries of innovation and socialism to give the less fortunate equal opportunities to be a competitor.
Like dado says, there is no black and white, and hybrid or mixed concepts are what is practical and in fact already in use all over the world. We can see outwardly capitalist regimes with strong socialist desires at heart (I point at West Europe and how since mid-200s all have come to embrace universal healthcare, for example). On the other side of the world, we see staunchly socialist goverments practise all out capitalism. One mention of China and everyone in the Speculation thread wrings their hands. |
|
|
|
First off... don't be fooled by "Bitcoin stocks". Most are only Bitcoin-related or at the very most are companies that pool investments to buy and manage Bitcoin for you. I understant there could be a market for people who don't understand or have the time or desire to learn how to buy or store their own Bitcoin... but I cannot comprehend how the stock premiums are more attractive. So technically... you can't quote Bitcoin. Is Bitcoin a stock? - No
Can it be quoted on a "stock" exchange? As it isn't a stock, you can guess the answer.
However, there was a tradition of quoting all sorts of things unofficially on the old London Stock Exchange, so maybe there are some private listings. Don't forget that there is a Bitcoin futures market, and that is intended to be used by Bitcoin price speculators ( and the pumpers and dumpers ).
Yeah, Sweden's been offering Bitcoin derivatives for years. I recall trying to do a bit of research about this some time last year but I never got back responses from the people I contacted so didn't pursue it. Yes, that's a disclaimer for the info I'm sharing here. https://xbtprovider.com/#product is a sample of such a product... you get all the same information. The cert is actually a Bitcoin tracker, this was the first product offered and still trades on Nasdaq Stockholm. Unlike the US futures, they hold coins equal to value of certs issued. |
|
|
|
|
BitHodler and stompix nailed it on the head (it's one of those non-obvious PR articles, actually). Used to work me up actually, coming across articles and reading them for some seemingly newsworthy content and then discovering the ICO pitch at the end. But I've learnt by now to just deal with it. Can't really blame the monetisation strategy used by news sites, it's legitimate and at least informative (just wish more would be objective).
Enel is one in many, energy providers and resellers will soon be plenty, most more than happy to supply to miners at a commercial rate. Come to think of it, why should they single out crypto mining when there are so many other wasteful non-industrial activities people? Just some principled big banker on the board, my guess. They must really not want to survive in the industry that's getting very, very competitive now.
|
|
|
|
|
As Bonsaiv points out, this single-stroke, one fell move, would never have the intended effect, if in fact the manipulation were to happen that way. It might result in a momentary flash crash, but then prices would restabilise pretty quickly. Single entities have been discussed of course, with some compelling evidence, especially by this guy from Hackernoon: hackernoon.com/meet-spoofy-how-a-single-entity-dominates-the-price-of-bitcoin-39c711d28eb4 and his other articles.
Spoofy may not be real, but the narrative is interesting and not entirely unscientific (otherwise ignoring the choice of language).
Think about this though, these would-be manipulators would surely not want to kill their golden goose. Even if they brought the price down, it would only be for them to re-enter into long positions. Why make a few billion today when you could be making hundreds of millions for many tomorrows?
|
|
|
|
If you're suggesting intervention in the sense of creating strict rules about how people should be limited in how they keep their funds, then surely that itself is an erosion of decentralization?
Hm, yes, you are indeed right. However, I have to say that by my economic beliefs I am, besides being rather eclectic, more prone to support the theories of John Maynard Keynes then those of Milton Friedman. If you are not familiar with those guys, the main difference is that Keynes is supporting the interventionism (by governments that is), while Friedman is supporting non-interventionism - laissez-faire, or self-regulating economy. While I believe that full interventionism is not sustainable (fast decision making is the best thing about it, but the human nature is the worst), I also believe that self-regulating economy is not sustainable either. Slight interventions are always needed. That is what Keynes was arguing about too. It's just that the supply-demand rule solely cannot be beneficial for the whole society (it is like letting everything to nature - but is the nature really fair with it's "the strongest survive" policy? Maybe it is, I don't know, I don't have the capability to understand such things) - technically the idea behind free market is de-centralisation, but the survival of the fittest will always lean everything towards centralism. Also, those greedy on power will always find a way to influence things on some level. Hence the interventionism of some sort is needed. However, that is how the society works nowadays. Blockchain with smart contracts can help the idea of laissez-faire really live, it can help the market and society to self-regulate and become fairer. I do believe that some kind of "interventionism" has to be built in the technology though. Adams Smith's "invisible hand" could be redefined just a little for the benefit of us all. I won't pretend to understand much of the deeper academic disciplines (even if am familiar with at least Keynes) but I guess this is the reason why some economists can't see blockchain as a mere disruptive tech but a foundational one, a building block (no pun intended) upon which emerging industries will establish themselves. Bitcoin was very ideological, but perhaps deliberately left out certain economic aspects of serious consideration. But I think decentralisation allows or in fact encourages diverse reactions to the free market - so even intervention and attempts to influence is a natural product of that, simply that anyone is free to do so and none represent a central authority. We can see this happening within Bitcoin itself, even though it is barely ten years old. We've got people like the Bitcoin Foundation advocating their views, we've got the Global Blockchain Council exerting their influence right now even within the EU parliament, we had the miners backing the NYA last year, and eventually abandoing it. All are interventions, but none of these actually representing a still very much decentralised network. P.S. I'd guess I have a leaning towards socialist tendencies. Like Keynes, I think the survival of the fittest cannot be applied to our society because that simplistic nature does not extend to intelligent species, even if it governs basic sentience. |
|
|
|
|
I'm probably close to being the average Bitcoin user:
- with very average technical understanding
- owning a modest sum of coins (and in possession of and controlling even less)
- using mainstream consumer hardware and OS
- transacting at most once a day
I've tried many wallets in my time and Electrum is still the best fit for me, based on above reasons. As others point out, that the developer(s) behind Electrum respond quickly and effectively to vulnerabilities makes me even more confident. That said, I don't think I can ever trust anything I don't fully understand. That's not a criticism of Electrum, that's probably just a best practice of security.
|
|
|
|
Additional question to upper one - is it possible to void, modify results, unsettle bets manually? Jurisdiction rules (Regulation organizations) will be applicable (which one?) to bookie or you will be some type of outlaw?
Actually, good question. At the moment, only one or two crypto-accepting bookies have good documentation on some of the unconventional rulings for sports bets. In general, most bets will be easily settled, but when there are contentious events (was the goal scored in 90th or 91st minute?), how long must the boxing match round last to be considered a full round (remember the controversy with Mayweather/Connor in August on a lot of bets made lasting 10 rounds)? I'm guessing any blockchain-based sportsbook (I don't know Peerplay very well unfortunatel) could benefit from smart contracts that make some rules very clear, arbitrated by... some parties? Right - on-chain smart contracts are at the heart of what Bookie is doing. The actual algorithms that are used to settle any particular market will be published for anyone to check. We do not foresee a need for arbitration (these settling algorithms should just do their job) but, as above, manual settlement by Witnesses is always a last resort. As always, a majority of Witnesses need to agree on a result/settlement before it gets executed. Thanks for the response - like I said, I'm not aware of any smart contract model used yet for sportsbooks, but as you explain, that very basic application is already extremely useful in sports bet settlements. I have only been betting in sports for a few years but have seen several contentious decisions taken by bookies even with comprehensive rules on settlement. But with newer sports like MMA especially or even e-sports, I doubt bookies have really refined the rules, or there are too obscure for players to understand. Publishing the algorithms for every market - and every bet even, would go a long way to mitigate this. Don't take too long to update us about this - we gamblers tend to move on quickly  |
|
|
|
When bitcoin is claimed as great decentralization tool and technology which is not compatible with word "centralization", we can't say it is decentralized in real world. Amount of top wallets with over 50% coins, huge rate of wallets located in one country sounds like great reasons.
Yes, I mentioned that "the whales" are a problem. On how to solve this problem - well, this board is open for discussions. I was never against private property, people getting rich because of their capabilities etc. I just don't see a decentralization working when it's beating its purpose. Maybe a new token/coin should be created with strict rules about this, incorporated in the technology. Maybe not a new thing, maybe a fork? Maybe it can work as it is as well? I think Bitcoin's decentralisation is still true; the power of decision making does not lie in the hands of the few, the oldest adopter and today's newest user still has equal, full control over what happens with their funds, still has equal access to the network. How it develops and progresses is still a matter of consensus. I would say this is a rather different thing from the geographical concentration of users or the concentration of wealth among a relative few - that problem should solve over time, at least speaking about Bitcoin itself. If you're suggesting intervention in the sense of creating strict rules about how people should be limited in how they keep their funds, then surely that itself is an erosion of decentralization? In this respect, I think we've seen plenty of altcoin projects purport to "redress" the problems perceived with Bitcoin, hence the so-called third-generation blockchain projects, hence the multiple forks of Bitcoin. Most are thinly-veiled attempts at creating new wealth, but I think some are genuinely motivated to continue building on the ideals of decentralised money. |
|
|
|
I think it's pretty much equal both ways, with some majority creeping in as the market swings in favour of agreeing view. This is how it works in what we already know is an extremely volatile market. I must admit I felt a little gulp logging in today to see the prices, I felt Bitcoin seemed to be quite comfortable swimming around the 10k level. Holding bravely right now is probably what holders are thinking now. I'm still rather unperturbed, happy to be earning a little bit extra during this dip. From now until the next all time high we're gonna be swamped with geniuses in retrospect.
What I find tiresome is the endless search for definitive moments.
Perhaps we can forgive it, if we assume that the majority of posters are in fact still finding the experience new. But I agree that this endless postulating by accounts that eventually get abandoned, only to resurface months later with some victory parade celebrating their preordained moments. |
|
|
|
Theoretically, there IS a way to avoid paying fees. This is achieved simply by not including a miner's fee in your transaction. You'd be extremely unlikely to ever get it confirmed though, unless you intervene by somehow getting it submitted to a miner to include it. Deliberately sending low or zero fees is not good behaviour though. Just learn to pay what you need to.
I wonder when was the last time that a 0 fee transaction was ever mined successfully? This would be an interesting stat to know. I guess after 2012 it was just impossible, probably earlier. Last 24 hours there were 10 such txs confirmed according to one aggregate, so it's definitely still possible! I imagine at least in one situation where this might happen: a miner performs a low priority zero fee transaction and simply includes it in their block. Here's one from just 7 days ago: https://blockchain.info/tx/06d89bb591064c0c807ad2edb27656b49d4dae2f60181781d19b9939e7a09b8cFor "standard" txs... I can't seem to locate older posts where someone had tried this, or my own posts where I've done it for testing purposes but definitely as recently as last year, first quarter when I was learning how to use Electrum. I don't have those wallets anymore so can't even look them up. Initially I thought latter versions disabled zero fees but someone told me around v2.9 that it was still possible, and when I checked he was right. I also recall using the antpool acceleration service to successfully help confirm a few zero fee txs - all this when mempool was nearly empty. |
|
|
|
Bah, just can't get it right. 90 points isn't terrible but I made a few bad calls when others made even better ones. Keep seeing quite a bit of people drop off with 0 points. Have some of them just given up or were they really gunning for impossible outcomes? Good week for most of you though, racking up those 100+ scores. Well done. Trend so far this season which holds well. New management (Swansea) can bring good early results. Damn Swansea =p ^ Lmao! Hilariousandco would have been sitting pretty with .03 BTC right now. I was pm'ing him too to set up the escrow address and get the bet going for the three of us. Next time sir, next time... Btw Here4Trades has already paid me. Thanks man. Now my sights are on buwaytress. That 10 bucks is gonna be mine! Lol. Edit: Here's the transaction for transparency. He paid me in ETH, which I'm ok with. https://etherscan.io/tx/0x74af83abd73d659acc15b9f659619dd7c17803f5bad1858fb848fac4eddc55efBe thankful I never got in with Salah, cause he's going to pip Kane for topscorer end of season, just you watch Oh and that 10 dollars has a name on it that's still very obscure, so keep your hands off |
|
|
|
If I have 31 inputs on my wallet and send everything to a new address. My new address will have only 1 input and so on I can have small transaction fees because of less transaction size?
Short answer yes. Consolidating inputs is just spending all the inputs used in the tx to one output (which, goes to yourself so you have 1 input to spend onwards). It doesn't even need to be a new address, just one that you control. Note, you keep having to consolidate future inputs you receive, it's just part of fee/wallet management (with a small loss of privacy). I used to do this about once a month or when I have more than 20. Mempool hasn't been this low for months, so you should go read Loyce's thread above if you want to take advantage of this (possibly temporary) network situation. |
|
|
|
Every transactions that you will make from that wallet will be charged by a certain amount.
It is better to make another wallet if you don't want to pay for a 2FA service.
Simply create a new standard wallet and send all your funds into it.
To check, your new wallet should start with "1" rather than the multisig address "3".
No, the 0.002 that OP paid the first time is a batch payment for 20 transactions, that's how TrustedCoin works if you don't bulk prepay. So OP actually has 19 more txs he already paid for. And also OP doesn't have to create a new standard wallet. As is explained in the message that shows up when you choose the 2FA service by TrustedCoin, your coins aren't locked in the service. If OP doesn't want to use it anymore, simply restore wallet using the seed phrase, without the service. |
|
|
|
Now that it's official, I really can't believe it. Auba signed with Arsenal for a club record 56M GBP. After being linked to Man City, Real and even Bayern at the last transfer window it feels like the Gunners is a down grade for him. Lol. Tho in fairness they did a good job in making Ozil stay and sign a new three year contract. There's prolly something brewing behind the scenes...   Aye, toke. Arsenal's transfers this time around seem to be pointing at massive changes behind the scenes. I can't believe Wenger would suddenly turn his head for that sort of price tag, that's seriously not in his keeping. If the club is preparing for his exit, it could be that they just want to ship out all the players who might actually drop in performance if Wenger goes, while the Auba move is going to anchor down some quality to help fill the management void at the end of the season. At the same time, his discipline problems might be the reason City and other suitors weren't a 100% keen. Maybe I'm sentimental but after Ferguson left Utd, and now finally Wenger about to go, we've really seen the end of the Premier League era as we've known it. Arsenal fans can't be blamed for being hungry for more than the past decade.... but I'm not sure they appreciate fully how difficult it will be for any successor. |
|
|
|
Surprising results today:
Chelsea, shocking performance, if freaking Bournemouth scored 3 goals today, imagine what Barcelona is going to do in a couple of weeks. Also, poor Giroud, lost to Swansea and Bournemoth is just 24h, the guy probably thinks he's still in Arsenal after watching that terrible defense in the second goal.
Machester United, I watched the game and to me Pochettino was the MVP. The goals came from two mistakes (it is a miracle that Jones is playing in the starting XI of Manchester United, unbelievable), could've been 4-0 or more , but the tactical plan by Pochettino and the Spurs was absolutely brilliant, they dominated the entire match and outplayed Man United in every aspect.
Everton, finally, after 7 games in a row without winning, they got a victory today. Good to see Coleman back, and what a debut for Walcott (2 goals).
For me Chelsea was the only surprise. I actually put them down for another draw after getting their 4-0 win last match as I am suspecting that they haven't fixed their scoring problem... but I never saw the huge defensive giveaway on the cards. Giroud will definitely have nightmares, and he's not the kind of guy with much mental resilience. Spurs learnt from Liverpoool: the only way to dismantle big teams is to after them and force the errors. This is what happened to United. Their defence is not that great in the first place, but smaller teams rarely want to trouble them. Instil a little panic and it gradually builds up. Walcott's a steal for Everton, agreed! Though this could have swung either way, like most of the other games - just too little to differentiate and the way everyone seems to be performing without consistency. Look at the points gap from #10 to bottom! Only 8... practically half the league is fighting relegation. |
|
|
|
This is not from Jaxx itself, but the source is reputable at least, as far as tech forums go, and as far as the user's concered. It's posted in June 2017 but doubt much would have changed since. Original comment: https://vxlabs.com/2017/06/10/extracting-the-jaxx-12-word-wallet-backup-phrase/#comment-122446macOS desktop: /Users/[username]/Library/Application Support/Jaxx/Local Storage/file__0.localstorage P.S. as you can see, the discussion is about a vulnerability in the way Jaxx encrypts the wallet seed which makes it easily extractable... something they haven't fixed to date. In case you're wondering why a lot of people don't recommend Jaxx. |
|
|
|
2017 has being one of the phenomenal years for the people who had stayed invested till the last. It has given some of the unexpected rise during the last couple of months in 2017. Though the start of Jan 2018 was good the market kept moving up but during the later half the market started to sin and back to 10k levels at present.
How do you predict the 2018 year to be for bitcoin. Will it rise back like 2017 and if yes than what could lead to those rise and if no than what factors could be accounted for the downfall?
Phenomenal is really perspective. The technological phenomenon of Bitcoin is approaching a decade in age, the still incredible idea that no one but yourself controls your funds is still a concept that many will have trouble wrapping their heads around - evidenced by the sheer number of "crypto" labelled projects that tout decentralisation and transparency yet still exert considerable control over their concepts. Even if we talk about price... will this year be more of a financial phenomenon than last? Was 2017 really phenomenal price-wise compared to when its early years when it made the jump from fractions of a cent to dollar parity from 2010 to 2011? This year will definitely be incredible for Bitcoin, regardless of what happens to the price. We'll see serious Segwit adoption, we'll see Lightning Network propagate, we'll see the highest influx of new money yet, we'll see derivatives take off and mature, we'll see regulations take root and the powers that be come to terms with a world where they cannot ignore Bitcoin anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
