It's at 450 now but bear in mind this is the estimation to very likely get confirmed in the next block... the median fee is half that and still gets confirmed in hours (yes, I can't believe I'm thinking hours is reasonable now but I actually am getting used to it).

To be fair, my largest txs are all around 250 bytes or so... after learning to keep em small. So I'm still paying a pittance in terms of %.

If you're asking about payouts, then just be patient. I'm not entirely sure how the system works but at times, I notice hourly payouts but at other times I've seen even a two-day gap before lumpsum payout. I'm not concerned anyway since at current price I am earning perhaps 4 cents a months haha. To the moon, they say!

I just had a thought. If a group of miners, very late in the latter stages were rewards are negligible, realise that if they're the only ones accumulating coin from fees, and if they decide never to spend it, then the coins in circulation get fewer. So price can only be driven higher. Even more so if miners decide to simply ignore txs with fees they deem too low.

Wow. I had been waiting quite curiously to see the results of the first pump. I must admit I thought it would go well, seeing as I actually found out about PumpMyCoin from a link (Personal Ad, if I recall) on a very trustworthy member of this forum.

OP, it would seem that you did not organise this pump well. Everyone needed to be on slack BEFORE the pump. You should have advised ENTRY price and proof of the trades that you made as well. This will be the only way to convince people you did nothing dishonest.

Let's see you organise pump 2 better.

Thank you for that, jonald. I note that your letter is vastly more objective than many we've seen pit against others in the mire of scaling debate threads here. I would hope to see even better ones. Everyone needs to do more to use less antagonistic language like "foolish" or "cannot be trusted" because that just detracts from what we really want (a compromise, right?).

I'm not an investor - simply a recent enthusiast late to the party but I probably represent the majority if we use that aspect of depth and experience in crypto.

You've argued well against the reservations of Core. But you did not provide rationale against SegWit.

Yes, I think the whitepaper and original devs did not rule out size increase and I don't actually think "Core" is either. Isn't it a case of just that there is a better solution for now (SegWit)?

To me, and I hope I speak for the layman, there are two options, simplified as:

1. A direct, more complex technological innovation (SegWit)
2. A temporary, more simple technological tinkering (blocksize increase)

Personally, I think most people who want to see Bitcoin reach its potential would opt for the former.

I suppose this is relatively minor but as I've not (yet) made any bad decisions with my coins - holding and earning as the price keeps climbing - I guess the worst decision for me early on was to spend weeks on faucets to make my first 1 million satoshi. I didn't realise anything until I earned very close to that in my Electrum wallet. Sent it to consolidate everything into one address and realised I'd amassed all those bytes from dust.

Luckily this happened before the crazy fees we're seeing now. I waited for days but at 10 sats per byte it was a kindness to have all my sats in one place. I still occassionally collect sizeable dust (50k instead of 5k!) but they all sit in one address I just save for later.

Gotta say that any exchange that doesn't require verification nor uses it as an excuse to freeze accounts will win my membership any day. So of course Poloniex seems to be the obvious choice for most if only for this one very important requirement, or lack of, rather.

I have seen a few more creeping up but they're not as good for volume but I would mention Liqui at least for to get in on action for coins not yet launched.

The ones listed here are already very good examples. If you want something seldom shared or found easily by Google, you might want to try checking out some blogs/news sites in foreign languages - try the one from your country first if you have a local language.

I don't read Chinese, but I reverse translate my search into mandarin on baidu.com and get some interesting (different) takes. You can do the same for Russia as they also have a lot of blogs and sites.

Yes, I run them back to translation and yes this makes for awkward reads due to translated text but I get a lot of much more awkward reads here on bct and I still enjoy them =)

Still waiting for the correction to below 1,500 because I still felt the bull was a bit too much on afterburn. Because the longer it takes, the more extreme I suspect it could be.

However, if this blip below 1,700 is it (or was it) then Bitcoin is a hell of a lot tougher than we thought.

Hi Dev! Decided to check back in here after a few weeks of wondering where you went. Thanks to Testing Crypto for helping out here. Opened my wallet today and still syncing, hope all will be all right.

Dev: saw your updated first post, I see there are no more bounties... but you didn't reward out what you still owed from our last votes when the bounties were available? =) We worked hard for those votes!

It's just the deadline to submit petition for review. Perhaps it was even already sent a while ago. Then it will be a matter of days at least to hear back.

Likely to still be a no, in which case limited effect on price. If a surprise yes happens, will also have limited effect. Happy to be proven wrong!

I'll admit I've been way too long out of this to know how high-end those stats are (they seem at least entry-level high end) but the only mining anyone would want to consider now on a PC is for newer alts where difficulty isn't so high yet and you could look at modest returns as an early miner.

Take a look at the forums for ANN threads. For starters, an easy to set-up Minergate can help you mine the most efficient coins.

Yeah, POSWallet's a little bit slow in adding BRO. It got its 1,000 votes more than two weeks ago and we've been waiting for its listing for a while. Going to check out how much fee it charges for BRO withdrawals before I decide to stake there - not that I've many BROs now haha. I seem to get sometimes close to 1 BRO for 24 hours, sometimes half.

No, I get that now. I think it's a great way to improve the network at the same time as getting rewarded from crypto. Thanks again for the clarification - it really helps. Looking forward to movement on this thing!

Hey. I've found this happens every now and then with my qt wallets, especially staking ones. Try a few of these:

1. Download the latest version of the wallet and install then try open and sync from there.
2. Hover your mouse over the progress bar and see if the block # updates. If it does, then your internet is probably just a bit slow and it will take time to fully sync.

All right, thanks for the very clear clarification and kindness to alerting me to the term called staking. Indeed it is very new to me that leaving a wallet open to stake is the same as running a TOR Node. Your illumination on this subject is much appreciated:)

Copy and pasted from first post of ANN, it's quite early on:

First, TorCoin rewards people for running a TOR node.

NOVA works fine on Chrome BUT you have to force refresh the page completely (Ctrl+F5) to ensure you keep it working. I've not tried it on any browser other than Chrome but I have noticed Nova isn't the only exchange that gives me this issue.

Hi vega, you misunderstood my question... I wonder why you would assume anyone would assume what you thought I was assuming. As I said, several people have asked about it, and none are expecting rewards for using the TOR browser.

I'm asking, if there is any information on how one might claim TORcoin for running a TOR node for the TOR browser, as mentioned in the ANN. Or did I misunderstand that point?

Thank you very much both for clarifying this! I'd known before from reading that difficulty is adjusted but somehow failed to realise that it was part of achieving revenue equilibrium.

Now it's a common perception, at least that I've noticed from voiced opinion, that mining has become less and less profitable (at least for the hobbyist or even semi-large entrepreneur). If what you're saying is accurate (that this system ensures BTC fiat price doesn't matter) - then is this situation  merely a result of more miners sharing what is essentially an assuredly consistent value of revenue?

ie. It's become less profitable because shares are getting smaller, as opposed to decreasing value because of increasing difficulty (expressed as hashing cost). I even see people saying it's getting exponentially more difficult and costlier.

If the above is true, then it makes for interesting considerations when it comes to say, for example, expansion of cloud mining contracts. Because I see some contradicting assumptions:
1. If we can get more hashpower from pooled resources we can earn more
2. But if we get more hashpower, our share gets smaller

Thanks again.