Ok as a btc hodler i read many topics about the fork
So i want to know is the hard fork gonne happen ore is bu dead meat?
So that we Dont need to worry about it
for now look like BU is doomed to fail, the manority of the vote are undecided and are not in either segwit or BU, likely we will remain with current situation for a long time you don't need to worry about this, at best BU will be an altcoin listed on exchange with a lower value than bitcoin, pretty much like eth and etc or zcash and zcash classic Even with 51% of total hash power of the network BU miners will have to produce blocks larger than 1MB and the majority of nodes will have to validate those blocks for up to 2 weeks I imagine to successfully perform a hard fork but they won't do it why? answer is really simple, exchanges won't trade and list that second coin even if it has the majority of hash power behind it unless they show BU the green light there will be no hard fork.
If they manage to reach 51% they will surely get a lot of donations and offers from wealthy investors that will allow them to persuade the owners of some exchanges to list their coin. This is how it works in capitalism, money can open every door it's just the matter of digits. That said I think they won't reach even 51% with their falling support. No fork this time folks  no because that would kill bitcoin effectively, and destroy the business of those exchange, if bitcoin is at risk i'm sure the exchange won't fall for any corruption miners aren't stupid they won't do any 51% either, they know it can lead to nothing but less profit for them, because the value would suffer from this action |
|
|
|
Anything sub $1,000 is an absolute bargain & if you can afford to, should absolutely be investing a couple of grand into bitcoin right now.
It's almost certain that good profits will be made buying at $1,000.
I do not think so. If the Core team does not allow a block size rise soon, the bitcoin price will drift lower in the short term. if this did not happen already with all the drama what make you think that will happen "soon"? bitcoin value is dependent on the amount the investors bought at certain level there is no way that those investors will start to dump their amount and lose their investment just because of some fud here and there these investors don't really care much about the technical aspects of bitcoin, they buy to sell later at higher value, they will not dump for any reason now |
|
|
|
|
xapo and other are probably doing this to increase their userbase, they would charge you later something, it's a known tactic in these sectors of business
probably they don't have many transaction(talking about xapo) now, and can handle to pay out of their pokcets the miners fee but remember that no one work for free in this world, and if yes he is already rich
|
|
|
|
but the vast majority rejected BU
Where do you get this from? Don't listen to propaganda. The vast majority wants their transactions to be processed quickly and with low fees, the vast majority doesn't care about BU, Core and other fancy names. They want to do their business with as little friction as possible. they should at least care about the fate of their coins, because you know fee is onyl a small problem if the entire system is compromised but the vast majority rejected BU
Where do you get this from? Don't listen to propaganda. The vast majority wants their transactions to be processed quickly and with low fees, the vast majority doesn't care about BU, Core and other fancy names. They want to do their business with as little friction as possible. If this is true then the vast majority can go to alt coins. many people already use altcoin, monero is used in the deep web, but the altscene doesn't have the same number of merchants that bitcoin have, otherwise the competition would be fierce The idea was that as bandwidth and technology capabilities increased, so would blocksize. Bigger blocks does not mean centralization.
To a point, yes. Truly massive blocks would lead to centralization. everythigng is leading to centralization at this point, bitcoin was more decentralized at launch |
|
|
|
The most important is we must install the anti virus is the best, I'm using avira and I the settings for an auto update, things are going well and never found any problems.
if their package doesn't include this virus they can't detect it, if it's an old virus it will be detected, new antivirus have heuristic to identify zero day virus, but still soem can be undetected because use stealth technology i use malwarebyte to detect most of the threat the last version can even detect stealth malware, avira i remember lead to too many false positive when i used this and slow down the computer start-up |
|
|
|
FYI:
Increasing Blocksize or a Faster BlockSpeed , Either would Solve the Current ONCHAIN Issues.
Take a note that fast block speeds aren't a bed of roses. And miners will probably be against it (higher chance of orphans) Oh Please, don't tell me you believe their Crybaby bullshit. Change the Block speed to 5 minutes instead of 10 , you double the transaction capacity without touching the blocksize. If they are that scarred of orphans , they can change the recommended confirmations from 3 to 6 , it would be finished in the same amount of Time either way. LTC does 2½ minutes with only 6 confirms and never has a problem. BTC code is not as Lame as Core makes out, Alts running at adaptive Blocksizes and faster than 1 minute blockspeeds have been out for years. Core just wants you to think BTC is Lame, so they can force LN\Bankers Offchain Network down your Throats.  altcoin, can do hard fork without worry too much what are the consequence, because they are not as a big as bitcoin, they have no merchants not anything important that need to upgrade their blockchain in case of hard fork this is a big difference, with an hard fork(not chain split) all miners and merchants need to upgrade, what if someone do not? might result in a mess with some transactions that are lost, because sent to the old fork |
|
|
|
|
people will still use it as a speculative tool like gold, to store wealth, and someone will still use it as a currency with the merchants that are accepting it, will remain without any much doubt a niceh market
but if you think about it, if few people will begin to use it, the fee shoudl decrease over time, thus making it usable again
|
|
|
|
Can you tell me the specs and maybe pics?
can mine x11/x13/x14/quark and qubit, 50-60db not too loud, consumption is 200 watt for all algo, minux quark and qubit which is 150watt or lower i can't do a photo now but the miner is this  |
|
|
|
|
i was thinking of selling my baikal giant a-900 for 5 btc if you are interested we can arrange something
|
|
|
|
|
if you have 1000 gpu you can pay your bill in one day, why dumping lbry for that?
1000 gpu consume $3600 a month and earn 3 btc a day(300k satoshi per gpu)
|
|
|
|
|
this version is still missing neoscrypt sib and cryptonight optimization from alexis/klaus
|
|
|
|
|
still holding, 6 months of holding basically, this is not the real pump, i want 10x at least
|
|
|
|
When you install windows wallet you may encounter Microsoft runtime error.
C++ runtime problem that has nothing to do with the wallet.
... try reinstal 2010, ... close all browser and apps, and reopen wallet ... try reboot  What is the next answer, if that also dosn't help? Maybe: Buy a new computer? Everyone is using the wallet perfectly i dont know why they are having problem. if you can write down what redistributable package version do you have maybe... |
|
|
|
that is unexpected they said thta bitcoin was not banned anymore and indian people were also buying it in mass, why suddenly they changed their mind? are they following what russia did with bitcoin where they don't know what to do and keep changing their sentence... i think it's just momentary while they reach a solution, if they regulate it it's better for them because they would get an additional money from taxes, people in their ocuntry moved to bitcoin on some extent after the ban of the big notes i rememmber |
|
|
|
they should be work on antminer 10/11 for now
There is no new process available for the next year at least, more likely 2-3 years, to MAKE such a miner on. They might be able to eek out some small improvements on the S9 using updated 14/16nm process, but the improvements available will be too small to matter (ref the announced specs on the upcoming AMD RX 580 vs the RX 480 - 5% or so improvement in clock rate with same to a hair less power usage) and likely would NOT be worth it to Bitmain to go through the major cost of redesigning the 1387 for the upgraded process that have become available through TSMC or GlobalFounderies in the last few months, especially when they're STILL the most efficient chips on the market. To NotFUzzyWarm: To be technical, all so-called "ASIC miners" should be properly called "ASIC-based miners" but that's splitting VERY fine hairs for no reason. The term is NOT interchangeable with FPGA miner at all though - very different concepts and implimentations and efficiency potentials. NO current ASIC_based miner uses a FPGA - been a few years since any FPGA-based gear has been made for SHA256 mining, and I am not aware of ANY that was ever build for any other algorythm (other than one-shot experiments). 2-3 years for the next asic? isn't that too much, i don't remember such a void between s7 and s9, and the same between s5 and s7 if they keep waiting so long s9 will be rendered useless, it's already earning below 0.008, and it's inefficiency would increase over time intel for example is near the 10nm in the next year they should present(icelake) something that run with that efficiency |
|
|
|
|
i would not mind hard fork to change the algo, if needed and make it truly decentralized again with gpu mining, i would really love this to happen, but an hard fork to change the block like unlimited it's not something i would support
everythign that make bitcoin better is welcome, and more decentralization isn't a bad thing, but almost none would agree with this change
|
|
|
|
the worst case would be a split, on which you can dump 2x the amount of coin, nd destroy the value of bitcoin, no one would hold in a "double spending" scenario like that Market will determine their fates, right?
What is the worst-case scenario? Are they acceptable to you?
Miners will determine their fates and chain with major support will survive while minority will suffer from 51% attack for several times Miners would be irrelevant I mean miners from the opposing camp after the split comes about. It is actually not about whose... chain is longer. If you were a miner you could continue or start mining any chain of your preference, and as long as you won't be alone, there shouldn't be any issues with that. After the split a new altcoin (or just coin) will be born, and their paths won't intersect in the future. In fact, the chains could be reemerged later but that is said to wreak total chaos in Bitcoin and unless someone is actually looking to kill Bitcoin, that's unlikely to happen either well miners can attack the short chain and make it irrelevant, so miners being irrelevant is a moot point, they always retain their power, unless you chage the algo, but you are effectively making an altcoin |
|
|
|
All BTU shills dont understand that Bitcoin is valuable because it's decentralized and limited in amount. Unlike your shit alts. Eth is fully controlled by Buterin for example. Who would buy this shit? Only Vermin pumping it to pretend that Bitcoin is dead.
in one way or another all coins are a bit centralized, some more than other, bitcoin have the upper hand, because it can be used as a currency, but what if one day one of those coins will be accepted too? it could put some serious competition to bitcoin some of them have features that bitcoin don't have like untraceability, maybe bitcoin is not mean to govern the world alone, could be good to have some alternative for soem for of payment, we knoe thta bitcoin will never solve the fee size you simply can't and it's not relate to the block limit, because if one bitcoin one day is worth 10k or 100k, even paying 10k satoshi, the old minimum, you end up with a high fee anyway, and miners need their fee to have a high value when the reward in two halving will be almost useless |
|
|
|
bitcoin only need to fix the block limit issue currently, that is the big problem here, the other is the centralization of mining, aside from this there is nothign really to improve much, minors thign maybe, like adding more features to the core(exchange directly there for example) The biggest improvement I can imagine is finding a way to return to decentralized mining.
which can only be done via changing the pow algo, agian and again like vertcoin, because no algo is asic proof at best asic deterrent but we need consensus for this and any miners out there will never do it, would mean losing billions of invested dollars for them |
|
|
|
When you install windows wallet you may encounter Microsoft runtime error.
C++ runtime problem that has nothing to do with the wallet.
i have all the package and their last version and still have that error, if you can tell me what version is needed at least from the redistributable... try reinstal 2010, i did many times, nothing changed, what is the version you have? i have currently the 10.0.40219 for both x86 and x64 close all browser and apps, and reopen wallet that can't be, and it doesn't make sense at all, but i tried and in fact nothing changed, if someone can tell me what version of 2010 he is running... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
