|
Have mentioned a couple of times before how I haven't really moved past the 4 or 4.5k mark, particularly because the moves beyond that have been so fast with no real holding level beyond a week.
While I didn't discount a move towards 10000 by end of 2017, I have still been psychologically at 4500.
But the recent week, with BCH failing past the initial run, amd Bitcoin returning to pre s2x suspension levels with such strengths, I'm very ready to see the new stable price at 7000.
|
|
|
|
BTC fall was just temporary. In last 24hrs BTC gain about 10% and it is again on $7300 approx. Segwit2x cancellation just brings a correction and created an opportunity to buy BTC at the lower price. Hope many of us have taken the advantage of this situation.
BCH has lost about $300 in last 2 days and again come to $1200. BCH buying was just a FOMO and trendy. BTC has a long way to go and grow.
Yeah, I'm glad I waited one week to sell a significantly desperate stash. Going to have to pay about $40 in late bills payments, but I gained a couple of hundred dollars just by waiting from 6100 to 7300! Not exactly my proudest moment of self discipline but I was so certain the sell off was just too sharp. Also, I doubt it was really the Segwit2x suspension... after all, it was supposed to mean good news, surprising as it was to most of us (or to me, anyway). It was the unexpected blowback from angry miners and supporters... Bitcoin Classic group and all that just rushing over to BCH and carrying their hashpower with them. |
|
|
|
That is the main reason of why some icos try to get the best legal advisor that they can afford to hire.
Just imagine, if they want to withdraw that amount of money, then they will need a lot of effor from the law in order to be able to withdraw that money without being suspicious.
If they want to do it by the right way, then they are going to pay a lot of taxes, and of course, it will take some time. But if they want to do it by the Black way, then it is just matter of hours in order to get those funds and sell them for cash to another company.
Actually, not many ICOs have hired legal teams, at least not transparently. Cashing out large amounts is not the worry, believe me. For one, most onward payments are made in crypto. For another, it's actually pretty easy to stagger out cash outs, a hundred thousand a month over 10 exchanges is a million. More than enough to "fund development". All this can be done legally and legitimately. To my knowledge, and even by the information expressed, those who are engaging services now are actually just trying to avoid future crackdowns from financial regulators. And despite what a lot of legal firms are claiming now, there is no such thing as a fully compliant ICO, at least not yet. An ICO that is not in violation of any regulations, does not make it necessarily fully compliant, not without audits and open books to regulators. |
|
|
|
|
Amazing to see all sorts of people involved in crypto and Bitcoin. Maybe it's just Wednesday and I haven't cleared the haze from Monday but is almost every poster here just spewing random words picked up from the forum and crypto news?
"Yes, let's just wait for demand to increase" and "segwit is still around the corner". "Bitcoin price will increase no more explanation... the volume of coins will be up and the because too".
This isn't even about language anymore, I'm now more and more convinced that people actually believe half the things they read, and understand even less. I'm beginning to think the completely misinformed speculators are far more powerful a force than I'd estimated.
|
|
|
|
The answer may revolve around a basic question of: "would bitcoin be worth more if there had never been a fork". And "if the answer to that is: yes, then would that added value be worth more than whatever difficult to quantify positives which could arise as a result of forks"
I think it is in fact more complicated than that The answer to your question (i.e. whether Bitcoin would be worth more or less without a hard fork) would not be definitive either. For example, the price might be higher without a hard fork, but what if some necessary changes or improvements wouldn't be done, and Bitcoin would eventually kick the bucket due to lack of required changes? On the other hand, with the hard fork eating away at some Bitcoin value initially, it might in fact prove very healthy for Bitcoin overall in the long run, and its price, which could fall first, would make new highs due to improvements made and thanks to the hard fork? It's a possible way to look at forking but value means very different things. For most prominent people in the scene (made prominent by the media I will add) this value is simply put as price, which is their argument for forking, ie. to stop the stifling of price. But if forking makes it difficult or unpredictable for existing users and merchants to adopt seamlessly, that is a lot of existing value lost as a useful payment tool. Far sighted value is also inherently more difficult to establish and I believe responsible developers attempt this. |
|
|
|
Denmark distribution is already on the road though it was already very specific I lost the advantage after having scored 1 goal I think it had to evaluate the counter attacks.
Well, you must be happy with the stark turnaround. Eriksen's hattrick and the 5-1 victory means that we're going to have the Vikings with us in this world cup! Looking forward to their massive chants, though I'll really miss having some of that Irish pluck bossing the midfield. Now we await Australia and my favourite vet of the tournament so far, Tim Cahill. Still playing to a scoreless draw at the moment. Sentiment in me is hoping for a Cahill header to break the deadlock, but I have a feeling this will go down to ugly penalties. Never mind the method, for now, to be honest can't wait for these last few games to play out so we can focus back on domestic leagues for a bit until Moscow beckons next year. |
|
|
|
|
Not true. The issuing entity has clarified it is an internal memo and does not constitute a ruling from the institution in represents, rather is a branch internal decision.
Summary : you can't cut direct deals with bitcoin miners to sell off surplus cheap hydro electricity. You want a business deal you have to negotiate a public interest deal with the state.
Fair enough to me, really. If Bitmain and other corporates can secure open deals, everyone else should. Further legitimises the industry anyway.
|
|
|
|
Looks like something is going on with the miners in China. The government is back at it with some sort of "crackdown on miners". Jihan Wu was supposed to be at a conferecne today and he wasn't present probably related to that.
And on other news.. Bithumb, the Korean exchange responsible for the mega BCash pump, visited by the police:
Get some popcorns because the drama never ends in bitcoinland.
You're up to date, jay, haha. But actually, this move should have come earlier. A lot of hydropower that is meant for industrial purposes (domestic) siphoned off for cheap Bitcoin mining. In fact, most of these "hidden" miners, and not just in China, are using electricity at domestic/household rates, which are of course cheaper than industrial rates. That has to change naturally. And the cops at BitHumb? That can't have anything to do with Bcash... the police have been expected at BitHumb since the class action lawsuit taken by a lot of angry people who lost money during their server outage at the Bcash frenzy. They're actually there to protect BitHumb in case the angry traders get violent. You've seen those videos where South Koreans politicians brawl with each other right? Haha Oh... okay I guess it has something to do with Bcash after all  |
|
|
|
Hey sumair, you're not the first to express interest in a Bitcoin (or crypto, anyway) rpg game. I myself have played with two on this forum, both unfortunately met their demises right around the time I got very interested, so for the time being, am not going to invest much time in them. However, I would point you to one discussion in particular, as it seems to have brought together people like yourself (MMORPG discussion with crypto integration): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2190459.0Maybe you can get in touch if you have something to contribute, or simply learn from there. From my experience, getting a game out is hard enough, getting people to keep playing harder... integrating Bitcoin is an added level of complexity. As others have mentioned, I think the languages to start mastering for a browser-based RPG are PHP and MySql (for database). But that's just the coding aspect. You probably also need a really good foundation for the game itself: business plan including business model, storyboard. |
|
|
|
|
Electrum doesn't have hidden fees. In fact, it has no fees. The fees are set by you.
According to your screenshot, this is what you did:
1. You spent 1,046 satoshis.
2. You set dynamic fees at 5 satoshi/byte. Your tx size was 226 bytes, therefore, you opted to pay 226*5, which comes to 1,130 satoshi (0.0000113 BTC), as shown in the screenshot.
3. The arrow you are referring to is a change address. You probably enabled change address in Electrum, which just means that you'll get that balance (0.00441999) into a different address, but still owned by your wallet. If you don't want this to happen again, disable Change Address. Tools> Preferences > Transactions > uncheck the box "use change addresses"
Check your total balance, bottom left window. Everything will be there.
Or check the Addresses Tab> Receiving> All. You'll find that 0.00441999 in your change address.
|
|
|
|
|
Relax, guys. We should be thankful for people like him, keeping the skeptics hopeful and stemming the tide of mass adoption that's surely coming to crash on our shores. Think there's plenty of people like me who want Bitcoin to grow, but not too quickly. Haven't had the time nor money to accumulate at the pace of Bitcoin in 2017, so we need this tiny sliver of "early adoption" to stay open just a while longer.
As long as not a lot of people realise that there is a Bitcoin economy growing outside the confines of speculation on trading exchanges (hear that, alts like Bitcoin Cash?), we can continue accumulating at current prices.
Besides, journalists have a tough time of finding new stories. I suppose you could do a lot worse than a former chess strategist who's the face of a security firm.
|
|
|
|
The efficiency of your fee is not dependent on the actual amount of coins, but on how much they are in proportion to the size of your transaction, expressed in satoshi per byte (sat/byte). So in your case: 175028/input size = fee in sat/byte Assuming you only have 1 input (we can't know for sure, but you should be able to preview your tx in your wallet to see) with an average of 250 bytes, your fee would be just above 700 sats/byte. That would get you confirmed fairly quickly right now (within 2 blocks estimation) Check it against https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ for an estimation of how long that would take to confirm. Thanks a lot buwa  I have got 4 inputs (4 different times I bought btc) and now want to move from exchange to wallet. So it would be 175028/(250*4)=175.028 sats/byte? Cheers! Not exactly... I was just estimating on average input size. You mentioned that you were moving from an exchange to wallet? Exchanges don't usually count input size and put a flat fee on withdrawals, so I doubt you'd be able to set an exact fee. Just got to trust the exchange will do right. Can you provide more detail: are you making a spend or withdrawing from an exchange? If making a spend from your wallet, what wallet are you using? You should be able to view your input size, set fees and preview tx, depending on the type of wallet you're using. |
|
|
|
The efficiency of your fee is not dependent on the actual amount of coins, but on how much they are in proportion to the size of your transaction, expressed in satoshi per byte (sat/byte). So in your case: 175028/input size = fee in sat/byte Assuming you only have 1 input (we can't know for sure, but you should be able to preview your tx in your wallet to see) with an average of 250 bytes, your fee would be just above 700 sats/byte. That would get you confirmed fairly quickly right now (within 2 blocks estimation) Check it against https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ for an estimation of how long that would take to confirm. |
|
|
|
Adios Italia,surprise even not Italy is simply playing very poor football,now thay have to think a lot to make comeback
Agree, Italy played poor football tonight and to be honest, Sweden deserved to play in World Cup. Italy have amazing defence line and goalkeeper, but with lack of high class forwards and midfielders they didn't had many chances against Sweden bus. For me it looked strange that Insigne was left on a bench. I'm very sad for Buffon - it's worst way to retire from national team. Now it's interesting who will become new coach of Italy - it's obvious that Italy was too high level for Ventura and Italy need something more than no name manager. And maybe with new manager we will see Balotelli in Italy squad - I'm missing him a bit. P.S. Today it was several questionable 11m penalty moments, but referee didn't saw nothing wrong. The prudent betting man would have stood to gain a lot from Sweden over the two legs. Sentimentalism will make me wish Italy did a bit better to qualify, of course we want them to be in Russia next year. That anguish from Buffon will also probably be the last I'll see from him at this stage - he is my age too, so I grew up watching him from his teenage years, so imagine all my boyhood heroes one by one retiring. But I think if we're being objective, Sweden earned the right to progress. And we want a World Cup worth watching, so Italy simply didn't make the cut. Ventura can't bear the weight of this failure, even if he will. There just haven't been enough in the new crop of players to take over from the old guard. And I'm not saying Italy's mindset of playing with veterans isn't good either. I think players can play well into their 30s and even 40s if they are fit and have the right mentality. But you can't expect the veterans to keep lifting the team. |
|
|
|
There was once a project called edgeless back then, not sure what happened it it. But to contradict everyone here, it is possible to create a casino without any house edge.
Statistically, having no house edge will mean that when the number of games nears infinity it will result to zero (zero profit or loss on both player and casino). However, since casino still have a bet size limit, that expected 0 value will not be achieved. For example, if they have a max 1 btc bet and the gambler uses a regular martin gale system with 0.001 bet and doubles every bet.
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.008
0.016
0.032
0.064
0.128
0.256
0.512
1.000 - Max bet
Which means if the gambler does even win on that 1 btc bet then he is already losing and worse he can't bet higher than 1btc after it in case he loses again. It is not uncommon that a gambler will reach that much losses even at 50% chance to win. The casino will not be as profitable as one with house edge but it will still profit in the long run.
Apt point to be made and given that a lot of people try martingale strategies at risky values, to hit that max bet on features like autobet would take you little over an hour on a 50% (0 edge) chance to win. Set the minimum deposits and withdrawals a bit higher, give wagering bonuses, give faucets and you've got a real recipe to get people to play long and often enough to bust. But back to 0 house edge casinos, I don't recall one in all my time other than promotional offers from various sites at various times. But I *do* know that crypto-games.net has had a negative house edge on their lottery games (held every week in several crypto too!). What happens is you buy tickets to the lottery, 100% of ticket proceeds goes to the prize pool, awarded to 3 winners. Then, the house adds 1% to the pool as a bonus. |
|
|
|
|
Not that many people here will have been following the Asia Cup internationals, but as someone with ties to Malaysia, I would like to denounce their performance resulting in a 4-1 thrashing at the hands of... the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. I actually thought taking a Draw No Bet on Malaysia @9.00 was very good.
Never mind that this was the second 4-1 humiliation of the Malayan Tigers in four days. Never mind that Malaysia finishes bottom of their group behind minnows Hong Kong. Never mind that the squad. Never mind the first time ending up without a single victory in the competition for over 10 years.
No heart in the game. Not even a yellow card to show some grit.
|
|
|
|
If any of these people making the comparisons here actually used Bitcoin Cash since its inception, they'd have experienced how slow it's taken at periods to find blocks. In fact, for every so-called advantage they've measured, not a single one would stand in the same performance as Bitcoin were BCH to undergo the same conditions: tx volume, tx frequency, attacks etc. Apply the stresses of Bitcoin to BCH and they'd see exactly how wrong they are about BCH superiority. And they'll never get to experience it either, because BCH is still not used by merchants, still not accepted as normal payments for the normal user. Heck, still can't even cash it out easily without converting to... Bitcoin. So, this is a deceptive way of presenting the situation. If either coin is going to "win", then when did the competition start? And does the competition only end when the BCH price is $0.01 above the BTC price? Oh please
Exactly. They're running in their own race, with everything to prove... it may be that Bitcoin is better off with the existence of other crypto, but Bitcoin's never had anything to prove. |
|
|
|
I did, but I can't access "viabtc", the website does not work on my computer. Why is it a bad time, if you don't mind me asking? Is there something going on?
Thank you so much, you are a lifesaver! I really, really, really appreciate it. I was not aware about the issues related to Blockchain's wallets and will definitely change it to something else. Any personal recommendations?
Have a nice day
Bad time = high number of transactions in network. Once it gets above 50k, viabtc's accelerator limit of 100 tx per hour is gone in a minute. Confirmtx seems to halt free service around 120k. Both anyway have requirements yours might not meet. Only antpool's will work in general but you gotta sign up with a verified phone. If you read the sticky post I linked to above it explains in detail but just do 2 really quick things when you spend bitcoin: 1. Check network situation: https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions2. Visit a fee estimator like https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/Add some room on top of the estimate and you should get things done in a time that's fairly predictable. I don't think blockchain's wallet is bad actually... I believe it uses dynamic fees and you can use advanced send to set it manually. But I've not looked back after switching to Electrum. Light and simple to use, just as secure with a great deal of control. |
|
|
|
I hope you read the sticky post on what to do with "stuck" transactions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1802212.0You've caught the free accelerators at a bad time. Viabtc is always clogged up and even confirmtx.com has stopped its free service (but at $4 I suppose it's still a fair deal considering the bloat). Anyway, transaction accelerated. Learn your lesson and spread the love. |
|
|
|
|
Been a few threads on this already, but the evolving situation is this: most services previously able to provide simple Bitcoin-enabled debit card payments have been forced to apply more stringent regulations. This is down to the fact that Visa and Mastercard (basically THE card providers for all these services) have adopted more AML/KYC procedures that are compliant to international standards (in other words, within the EU jurisdiction). So those like Xapo et al have been scaling down supported countries to just within the EU. You might want to look at new card projects like Bonpay and Monaco.
The former already has a product, the latter about to, both have had ICOs. While they still have the above restrictions currently applying, supposedly both are in negotiation to work out deals with Visa to offer a true global coverage. Whether that happens or not is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
