Just came across this article in my news feed. Its a big ine and likely Launched at this very oportune time as the markets look ro be resetting. Revealed: Germany’s 2nd Largest Stock Exchange Listing Bitcoin, XRP, Ethereum and Litecoin on Crypto Trading Platformhttps://dailyhodl.com/2018/12/22/revealed-germanys-2nd-largest-stock-exchange-listing-bitcoin-xrp-ethereum-and-litecoin-on-crypto-trading-platform/Stuttgart Stock Exchange (Börse Stuttgart), Germany’s second largest exchange and the ninth largest in Europe, is scheduled to launch its upcoming crypto trading platform in the first half of 2019 in collaboration with Berlin-based fintech company solarisBank which will also offer crypto-trading banking services for the stock exchange.The headline is a bit deceptive. It makes it sound like Bitcoin and other coins are getting listed on Börse Stuttgart. What's actually happening is they're launching a new exchange. It will probably get a lot less public exposure than if they were listed on the main stock exchange. Still, it's a sign of latent demand and progress towards mainstream acceptance. |
|
|
|
its not helping scale bitcoin though. its helping divert people away from the bitcoin network
its diluting away the utility of the bitcoin network How does it dilute Bitcoin's utility? It can make micro-transactions long term viable, which adds a great deal of utility. Use Bitcoin for slower and more expensive but highly secure transactions. Use Lightning for cheap, instant and private transactions that still leverage Bitcoin's security for Byzantine fault tolerance. What's not to like? |
|
|
|
They're not the same person. So far no media sources have abused this thread to write a sensationalized story on the matter, so its safe to say this was just a weird but friendly dialogue between two every day white nationalists. If you look at the timestamps between posts, it seems pretty obvious to me. There were elaborate -- seemingly pre-written -- responses that were posted far too quickly to suggest a genuine dialogue. You really believe someone who knows this obscure/unknown person (jabowery) saw this thread and contacted him on Twitter? The odds of that happening are incredibly low. I have to admit it was pretty entertaining.
If anything it was a plug for a documentary, which I also have to admit intrigues me.
To each his own, I guess. I found it tiresome. Now I'm curious to see him plug his documentary.  |
|
|
|
schnorr has negatives. and trying to do personal attacks to hide the negatives is not helping anyone.
yes schnorr has negatives.
1. it hides how many parties are involved in a multiparty smart contract
2. when signing. even those involved wont know who signed it. These seem like positive attributes, not negatives. How is having more privacy a bad thing? 3. imagine some users are prompted with a smart contract under the belief thats its a 2-of-2 co-sign address.. but the reality is its actually a 2-of-3 smart contract and the other person has 2 keys and you only have 1.. guess what, chances are the other person will sign off funds to themselves when the 'pot' gets big enough that greed takes over morals
That argument applies to any smart contract. It's not unique to Schnorr, Lightning or anything else. This can be solved by actually reading smart contracts. For laymen, it can be solved by using well-written wallet software that easily thwarts such fraud attempts, using best practices and community ostracization of malicious actors. |
|
|
|
doublespend, why you are trying so hard to convince people to believe JB is SN?
Given that he keeps associating JB with white nationalism, maybe he's trying to smear Satoshi (and thus Bitcoin) via the Transitive Property: "If JB = white nationalist, and JB = Satoshi, then Satoshi = white nationalist." I'm still fairly sure that DT and JB are one person engaging in a dialogue between two accounts. I originally assumed his intent was to convince people that he was Satoshi. He might also just be crazy and disassociative. |
|
|
|
Is that necessarily a good thing though? I mean It's nice to see that and all but we have to not forget that the developers themselves asked to not use LN in mainnet yet. If something wrong happens and people lose their money, they will start shouting that LN is broken while It's only their fault.
True, but there's no way to stop them. They're pioneers and we should appreciate their willingness to gamble. The people using LN now are much like the people using Bitcoin in its early days. The software was buggy and unreliable, and the whole design was experimental. The old adage always applies: "Don't put in more than you can afford to lose!" |
|
|
|
Just heard about block stream today. To be honest, this is not going to have much affect on the current market situations. People that are arguing and saying that users from underdeveloped countries can now use bitcoin needs to think clearly and straight. Do you really think people from countries that have no internet access knows about crypto currencies? Do you really think they can afford to invest on crypto currencies? Are they actually going to use it to make day to day transactions?
It's not necessarily about investing in cryptocurrencies but using them -- namely, receiving/validating payments and propagating blocks/transactions. It's not really for day-to-day transactions since nobody can broadcast transactions via the satellite anyway. There are two primary benefits I see. It can help reinforce robustness (nodes remaining fully synced and at least locally connected for propagation of block data) where lack of internet connectivity degrades network performance. Secondly, anyone receiving payments can validate them without an internet connection. |
|
|
|
i don't see anybody talking about this here.
This is true. And I find it intriguing. I guess it's because it's the type of thing that'll gradually sneak up in increments rather than landing in your lap with a bang. If developers were savvy, and shallow, enough enough of them would collectively agree to have a 'launch'. Ah, the classic altcoin-pumping method! It's been coming in dribs and drabs. I think it's too early to expect much -- we're definitely not there yet in terms of usability for average users. The bear market has also sort of crushed all excitement about anything. |
|
|
|
Yeah, i used bank transfer and maybe this is why I cant use coins yet. Will wait few days and will see maybe after bank trabsfer will be fully approved, i would be able to use my coins. thanks for answer!
I've never experienced these problems myself, but I've seen complaints about them before. Most complaints are centered around the Coinbase direct buy service where you buy via credit card or bank transfer. I would avoid buying that way if you have the option of depositing and using the exchange. The best way to use Coinbase is to deposit USD, transfer the USD to Coinbase Pro, and then buy using limit orders. You'll avoid all fees this way and your coins won't be subject to any holds. This isn't available in all countries, though. |
|
|
|
It's old news with some new information, because these rumors have been appearing in the media for some time. It is important to emphasize here that this is only for users in India who use WhatsApp. Like before words will not be released anytime soon are used again in the context of possible realization of FB cryptocoin, some say it will take years for them to finish something like this.
If it's an actual cryptocurrency -- or a token traded on a decentralized platform -- how could they limit it to Indian WhatsApp users? If it became popular among the test population, I imagine the network would start spreading outside of WhatsApp and eventually outside of India. If it can be restricted to WhatsApp, it's not really a cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
I don't want anymore payment processors, I want merchants to stop being chickens and start accepting Bitcoin directly. Bitcoin was designed to cut the middlemen, and yet so many businesses only want to interact with Bitcoin through the middlemen. Don't they understand how bad those middlemen can be for users, for Bitcoin network and for their business?
Could you blame merchants for not wanting to engage in currency speculation? They're not day traders -- volatility doesn't help their business and may represent a far bigger risk than counterparty risk. I think people expect too much when it comes to merchant adoption. The way I see it, merchants who simply want to accept Bitcoin and therefore integrate it are irrelevant. What matters is whether merchants are being forced by the market to accept Bitcoin due to consumer demand. That demand doesn't currently exist, so merchants don't care. |
|
|
|
It's nice to see some new competition emerging to contend with Bitpay. They seem to have solid heads on their shoulders. Segwit-supporting, Lightning-integrated, and they plan to stay Bitcoin-only. The investor is Tim Draper, who I also think is pretty visionary. Some excerpts from the article: Bitcoin Payment Processor OpenNode Gets $1.25M From Investors
Bitcoin payment processor OpenNode has announced a seed investment round of $1.25 million with venture capitalist Tim Draper and early-stage investment firm Draper Associates. "We were very selective with whom we chose to bring on as our investor. We are very excited to have Draper Associates on board because they share in our long-term vision of hyperbitcoinization. We plan on staying as a bitcoin-only payments platform, and Tim gets that."
For OpenNode, the growth has been steady and healthy despite the downturn in the market. According to Almeida, the continuous development of infrastructure from protocol developers would see the company grow even further.
"By 2019, we plan to be the leading bitcoin payments platform. Also, more importantly, we aim to push microtransactions onto gaming/streaming/content platform and create payment models never before possible."
OpenNode was founded in April 2018 as a payment processor that facilitates bitcoin payments for individuals and businesses. The processor supports bitcoin protocol implementations like SegWit and the Lightning Network, offering instant settlement of transactions with low fees.
Perhaps, one of the standout features of OpenNode is its integration with the Lightning Network, which has seen much integration from blockchain startups, since Lightning Labs launched the first beta release in March 2018. Full article here. Draper said on Twitter, "Finally!! Now you will be able to use bitcoin to buy Starbucks, Amazon.com, Teslas, houses, etc. Fast transactions!" Interesting... |
|
|
|
Do you know by chance, if can I use wighted average instead of FIFO to calculate basis for 2017?
it is hard for me to comprehend how FIFO works because I have 50 or 60 buy/sell transactions...
or is there any simple way to calculate FIFI in case of multiple SELL and BUY transactions?
I don't think you can use a weighted average method. These are the available methods I'm aware of: Average Cost
First-In, First-Out (FIFO)
Last-In, First-Out (LIFO)
High-Cost, First-Out (HIFO)
Low-Cost, First-Out (LOFO)
Specific Lot Identification (SLID) However, the average cost method is only available for mutual funds. I'm not sure if HIFO or LOFO can be used here either. You might want to google for an Excel FIFO formula for capital gains. I'm pretty sure I've seen stuff like that around. I use specific lots myself since I don't trade very often. |
|
|
|
I don't think that using Bitcoin without the presence of internet is possible. I see it is very clear to see and woth sense that if we wanted to use Bitcoin crypto currency we also need to have an internet connection.
Someone needs to have an internet connection -- if a transaction needs to be broadcast to the blockchain. But if you had no internet connection, you could sign a transaction offline and transmit the raw transaction to someone else using paper and pencil or thumb drive. They could broadcast the transaction or keep passing it along until someone can. There's also the idea of bearer instruments, like Opendime. If there is a set value loaded on a device like that, it can be used like just like cash. |
|
|
|
If only a minority of miners switches to the new rules, there is the risk that the blockchain ultimately forks. We end up in a situation similar to a hard fork. Miners running on the new software will only recognize blocks mined by miners who have updated and reject blocks that have been mined by miners running under the old set of rules. Since miners who have updated their software are in the minority, their chain is not the longest chain. It will therefore be disregarded by miners operating under the old set of rules which results in a permanent split of the blockchain.
Is that understanding of a soft fork correct?
Yes, that's an accurate description. The only distinction I'd make is that it's only permanent if the legacy chain remains the most-work (longest) chain forever. If the soft fork chain ever overtakes the legacy chain regarding accumulated work, it'll result in a chain reorganization. All of the legacy chain's history between the fork and the reorg would be lost. This is why it's ideal to have a supermajority of miner support before activating a soft fork. It ensures backward compatibility so there is no chain split. |
|
|
|
Blockstream Satellite Now Means Most Of The World Can Use Bitcoin Without Internet. What's your opinion on this one? Do you see it as progress or not?  It is a progress. Bitcoin needs an internet connection in the past to send a transation and most of the time, it is really frustrating especially when you are in a place that do not really have a great connection. That's still the case here. You can only receive data from the Blockstream satellites. This allows people to validate transactions they've received and sync the blockchain without the internet. You can't broadcast transactions the same way. That still requires the internet. |
|
|
|
I'm not too informed on the Blockstream satellite stuff. I'm reading an article about it now. Can users who set up nodes via satellite only receive the blockchain? Are they not able to broadcast transactions as well? See here: “The benefits include prevention of network partitioning, the ability to use bitcoin in remote areas where internet connectivity may be limited, and it can also be a way to have a secure, fully synced node for a wallet (as it’s receive-only, [there’s] no risk of getting hacked).” It's a cool idea, but if the internet infrastructure really goes down, I'm not sure how much more resilience it'll actually provide. |
|
|
|
Just as expected, perma bulls like Mike Novogratz will again emerge and say that we have reach the bottom and there's no way for the price but to go up. It's too early to say if we indeed have reach the bottom or if this is just another bull run because we have same the pattern repeating again and again so I would still be cautious but its good to see the price going green for the past couple of days that might give investors some confidence to try and test out the market again.
My thoughts exactly. It doesn't inspire much confidence when he just repeats the same thing every time the price falls. We all get it, Mike -- you're a Bitcoin bull and every bottom is "the bottom." But you should probably stop promising people "no further losses" in the middle of a painful bear market. He sounds like a broken record. |
|
|
|
While volume on centralized exchanges is down as a whole, Bitcoin OTC (over-the-counter) markets have seen a surge in buyers leading to a shortage of sellers, according to the latest data from Diar. This may suggest that institutional investors are quietly stocking up on bitcoin while looking to keep prices low for the time being. https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-otc-trading-volume-accumulating/The evidence is very weak. They only compared Coinbase to GBTC over two different periods. And because they saw a 20% increase in Coinbase volume "during OTC market hours" they are bizarrely attributing that to OTC market growth. They also note that GBTC volume has been in decline. They don't have any numbers to support their theory. The remarks about "exponential growth in OTC volumes" from HodlHodl's CEO stem from the fact that their exchange launched literally last month. Exponential growth is very unimpressive with that in mind. He obviously provided no volume numbers because if he had, they'd be laughable. It's a P2P non-custodial exchange that launched a month ago... |
|
|
|
Isn't JP Morgan's CEO, Jamie Dimon, a known hater of crytocurrencies especially Bitcoin? I won't be surprised if they'll be creating headlines saying "I told you so" to us supporters. That's probably not what's going on. JP Morgan also released a report a year ago claiming that Bitcoin could emerge as a traditional, reliable asset class like gold. That's a pretty glowing endorsement. In fact, that report was done by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, one of the analysts cited in the OP. “Participation by financial institutions in Bitcoin trading appears to be fading,” the JPMorgan team wrote in a December 14 research note.
“Key flow metrics have downshifted dramatically.”
Panigirtzoglou says crypto trading volumes have plummeted, as has interest in bitcoin futures. This has spawned a crushing fallout across the entire market, he observed. That makes sense given the state of the market. The past several months obviously wasn't a time for accumulation by trading institutions. Money continues to flow out from the market. I imagine interest -- both retail and institutional -- will eventually return after the market turns around, just like we saw in 2015. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
