|
I agree. I would only say that the USD collapse might be a little ways off. I'd say in 3 to 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Blockchain.info works perfectly. What did you wrong from your side?
It may work perfectly now but something was amiss a few hours ago. Someone in another thread reported the same thing. I was not using Tor. I double checked the address and security and all was well. I did nothing out of the ordinary. If you checked everything, and you are fine, its possible blockchain.info glitched and maybe thought you were accessing from a tor node. Blockchain.info can be glitchy sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
Are you sure you did not go to the fake blockchain.info?
I have heard of this before, but have never seen this myself on the real blockchain.info.
If you are not sure, might be a good idea to log in to the correct one, change your passwords, and then move your btc to a newly generated address.
Just to be extra careful.
|
|
|
|
It has already been proven, beyond a doubt, that terrorists are using Monero. |
|
|
|
Can somebody confirm?! BTC price just dropped 100% on that exchange!
Their API is reporting $217.70, currently. I don't have an account there, so I don't see what you see on their page. All these charts show same average as everyone else. (Winkdex, Preev, Bitcoinwisdom) |
|
|
|
|
According to what I've heard previously, most of the ransomware is asking for bitcoin.
This is the first time I've heard of anyone asking for litecoin. Kind of bizarre to ask for LTC, if you think about it.
|
|
|
|
I don't think that the ISIS is serious about Bitcoin. Right now, they are using a number of alternative methods...
^This is very true. One of the alternatives is Monero. Terrorist are big into Monero right now. Anyone who would deny this, is in fact, a terrorist themselves.  |
|
|
|
|
Blab blab blab monero blab blab blab...
Please... I thought that scamcoin died already.
|
|
|
|
... It is mind boggling there is such a resistance by some.
You are right. Maybe there is something more going on here. |
|
|
|
So what happens if you are on Chain A or C, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain B?
Or you are on Chain B, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain A or C?
Thats what I'm referring to. Doesn't the exchange not verify those coin and thus are lost?
The owners of Bitcoin exchanges are not performing chimpanzees at a tea party. If a fork occurred and two chains were similar size then the CEOs of Bitcoin businesses would quickly agree (with Core dev and the mining pools) which chain to use (B) and which chain to ignore (C) , even if this meant suspending trading in the meantime. This is why Gavin has consulted with many Bitcoin companies/players already, to find out what their view is. He reports that they support scalability by a big margin. Bitcoin businesses are going to want their business model to have the best chance of success, and that does not include crippling the tx throughput on the blockchain which wil also cripple business models. The rejected chain C will quickly find that the difficulty (40+ billion) is way too high for the devoted "anti" rump of miners clinging to it, and it will take several hours to mine each block. This will get worse as the coinbase rewards can't be sold for decent fiat at any significant exchange. Miners will to drift to the majority chain. It will probably take 1 year for the difficulty to fall on chain C until it is usable. So chain C will need to be forked in order to slash the difficulty for the few users who still want the 1MB lmit. Just for the record, because this thread has gotten pretty crazy with misunderstandings, FUD, and my inability to properly articulate, but I'm for the fork to raise the limit. My quote above wasn't meant as an actual question. But i would like to see some chimpanzees sipping tea with crumpets, and they need monocles too. I agree with Solex's statements. |
|
|
|
If the whole Bitcoin ecosystem forks, who you gonna send old fork coins to?
I think when you move your coins to a non forked system, they are now lost.
Any new coins you get on the old fork will not be usable in the new fork. That would be a new ledger that isn't compatible.
This understanding is wrong. Let's classify the Bitcoin of today as chain A. If we fork we will have a Bitcoin B (new chain) and Bitcoin C (old chain - classified as A, when it was the only one). 2 different ledgers will be created from 1. Now when it comes to Bitcoin holdings: If you had 5 Bitcoin on chain A, now you would have 5 on both chain B and chain C. I think when you move your coins to a non forked system, they are now lost.
You don't send coins from chain B to chain C. That won't work. So what happens if you are on Chain A or C, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain B? Or you are on Chain B, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain A or C? Thats what I'm referring to. Doesn't the exchange not verify those coin and thus are lost? |
|
|
|
The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.
Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins. So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork? The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional. Thanks. Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can. But you are wrong because no Fork in bitcoin history left two viable chains. All the other Forks killed off the other chain, this time both are functional. If we fork, there will be ample notice and people will prepare for the move with updates and etc., prob with 3 months advance notice of a date. Anyone who doesn't move to the new fork will be left behind. There will not be two valid chains. Only one that is valid and one that was the old chain. If your stupid enough to purposefully stay on the old chain after the fork, and continue to use it, you will ultimately lose everything. If we fork, we all move. But you are wrong I risk nothing by staying on the old chain its only those who fork that risk anything. I can send my coins to the new Giga-bloatcoin chain at any time. But those on the Bloated new chain can't move back to Bitcoin If the whole Bitcoin ecosystem forks, who you gonna send old fork coins to? I think when you move your coins to a non forked system, they are now lost. Any new coins you get on the old fork will not be usable in the new fork. That would be a new ledger that isn't compatible. |
|
|
|
So he took the fall for it. We can't really know if he was DPR or not.
I highly doubt that he was the only and main person behind Silk Road.
Didn't he set up the site using his own email address and the first postings about it was on here using a screen name that was traced directly back to him? I am surprised how fast this trial went, did his lawyers even try?
I hope he didn't pay for them.
They caught him red-handed, not to mention all the other evidence they had against him. He was fucked from the start, but the best they could come up with was pathetically trying to shift blame on to Karpales. I wasn't aware of this. Well this is why you never use a main address, especially when doing shady things (this even shows us more the need of encrypted emails). Indeed. Even though I do not think that he was alone, trying to shift it on Karpales without any proof was pathetic just as you've said. They could have come up with something better. Not looking at the other part of the trial (due to the 'hiring of hitmen'), he will get way too much time for "just" running a drug website. Actually the US government thought DPR was Karpeles, at first. The Defense just used US govs original theory. "The DHS witness, agent Jared DerYeghiayan, reportedly claimed that Mark Karpeles, former CEO of the embattled bitcoin exchange Mt Gox, was once suspected to be the online black market's mastermind, Dread Pirate Roberts." Here: http://www.coindesk.com/mt-gox-ceo-mark-karpeles-implicated-silk-road-trial/ |
|
|
|
The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.
Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins. So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork? The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional. Thanks. Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can. But you are wrong because no Fork in bitcoin history left two viable chains. All the other Forks killed off the other chain, this time both are functional. If we fork, there will be ample notice and people will prepare for the move with updates and etc., prob with 3 months advance notice of a date. Anyone who doesn't move to the new fork will be left behind. There will not be two valid chains. Only one that is valid and one that was the old chain. If your stupid enough to purposefully stay on the old chain after the fork, and continue to use it, you will ultimately lose everything. If we fork, we all move. |
|
|
|
Satoshi is Skynet
Satoshi is Kyle Reese. From the wiki: "[Kyle Reese] also assisted in stealing and reverse-engineering most of the Skynet technology (Bitcoin), pulling raids on gunshops and stealing most of the laser-rifle equipment with his troops for the Resistance. His troops are also responsible for stealing the time-traveling technology that Skynet has developed. He personally volunteered for a one-way mission back to pre-apocalypse Los Angeles to save Sarah Connor, mostly because he has her picture of her given by John(, as well as posting the Bitcoin Whitepaper on the internet and starting up the first miner)." Come on guys, this is a known fact now.  |
|
|
|
|
A pump and dump is not possible.
As soon as all the pumpers buy their coins, the market and trading bots are gonna dump into you.
Bitcoin is not a shitcoin that can be easily pumped, unless you have millions of USD to throw around.
|
|
|
|
Karpeles: "Goxed me another one. *Trollface*" |
|
|
|
After the beheading of American Journalist, European Journalist, now Japanese national ISIS is currently raising funds through Bitcoin http://bit.ly/1x0qDBUWell, I know for a fact what bitcoin can do for us, but will it help ISIS destroy US? Should Bitcoin regulated for this?   |
|
|
|
I did send you repeated messages but hear nothing either. Do you have proof that you bought the cards were bought recently ? and were not claimed before sending them to me ?
I am sorry but I didn't see the scam accusation thread here. I just came across it from my trust rating.
You are such a scammer, that I'm shocked you are bothering to defend this account, MilesJohan. I'm sure you have like 10 others. I never received any messages from you since you stated that you would pay me back. If you used a "broker" (which i wasn't aware of, since you said you were doing the trade), then its not my loss, if he stole from you. You still owe me for your misplaced trust in him. If that story is even correct. Which I'm sure is just a lie. Do I have the proof I bought them recently? Yes, physical receipts in hand from walking into the store. They were not claimed before sending to you? Yes, I checked the balance on all three before emailing a picture of receipt and card, as you requested. Have you paid me as agreed? No. Did you state that you would pay me back personally? Yes, see above PM convo. Have you sent me any PMs since? No. Are you attempting to sell your account now? Yes. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=942414.msg10325101#msg10325101Did I sell my other 2 cards with no problem? Yes. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=668416.msg10323830#msg10323830Based on your statements now, sure seems like I was intentionally scammed by you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
