|
So i'd like to become a publisher and earn money from ads on my website with CoinAd, but they require an invite... Could someone possibly hook me up with one, OR perhaps guide me where i could get one?
|
|
|
|
|
Could someone elaborate how SONM is hype? There is literally zero hype about SONM at the moment. It's ONLY 30M marketcap. They raised 42m$ during ICO, so the price is UNDER ICO price. They can compete with Golem which is 200M marketcap.
I believe SONM will yield from 250% - 750% once in the next few months(up to a year).
|
|
|
|
So yeah i'm selling OG twitter for a crypto project that raised more than 200m$.
Sorry but what is this mean (the bold one), so we buy for nickname and empty follower, am i right ? you get the @name on twitter. It has some followers because people comment on the project and say @projectname and they automatically follow me. But there are not that many followers(few hundred) If project proves to be successful, or even when the coin and the mainnet launches, the account could be worth a lot for a few reasons: 1.) Potential scammers could make a lot of money pretending to be the leaders of the project when they are actually not and could scamm a LOT of money. You don't want to sell the account to scammers though! But for that reason, it will be in the best interest of the actual project to obtain the twitter name from you and could get quite big amounts.  |
|
|
|
|
Well what do i know..any other oppinions
|
|
|
|
Is Charlie Lee a bad guy. Is he sabotaging Bitcoin?
No. Good technical advantage of 1mb block? Are we stuck with 1mb forever and even after? If Bitcoin ever gets popular and even if lightning network pans out, the 1mb block limit still won't fit enough people, ending in enormous fees. Is that a good plan for Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@satoshibakery/satoshi-lite-is-sabotaging-btc-in-advance-of-litecoinCharlie has mentioned it multiple times that he supports core due to their current roadmap - small blocks.  We know exactly what you are doing, Charlie. So snake Charlie - the creator of Litecoin(he surely owns a LARGE LARGE amount of Litecoins, plus it's his own product so there is obviously a conflict of interest. Will Charlie decide in the favor of Bitcoin or will he sabotage Bitcoin if that's what it takes to bring Litecoin to the front. What do you think? 183k followers on Twitter, one of the biggest if not the biggest person of influence when it comes to crypto. He is a developer, so surely he knows what's good about Bitcoin and since majority of the people know NOTHING on the subject because they lack the technical difficulties, they will just trust someone who they think is knowledgeable about the subject - who else than Satoshi Lite?? So Charlie Lee's plan - which has worked VERY well - was to stir up the biggest [no2x] vs [segwit2x] war and create as much drama that he could. All of this just for the advantage of Litecoin. Proof:  Is Charlie Lee a bad guy. Is he sabotaging Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
|
So yeah i'm selling OG twitter for a crypto project that raised more than 200m$.
If the name were(hypothetically) namecoin, then i have twitter @namecoin
They have also twitter, but it's not og like @namecoinsomething
BIN is 1BTC, you can also make your own offer.
|
|
|
|
When are the masternodes coming? None of their blog posts work. Nginx error  |
|
|
|
|
EOS is raising ETH with their ICO, but they are the one building competitor platform to Ethereum.
By the end of the crowsale they will have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ether. What if - when they launch their platform, they decide to sabotage the ethereum network.
There are many ways how they could cripple ETH, which would then benefit their platform, for example;
1)By then there might be Proof of Stake - they will be able to do "fraud" and they will be able to sacrifice those "staked" ether as they have so much(note that this is a question, i don't know how exactly PoS works)
2)spamming and congesting the network, increasing the fees dramaticly. With so much Ethereum available they could just spam so many transactions and pay the fees for them, which would increase the transaction fee dramatically for all the other legitimate participants making Ethereum useless for transacting as fees would be so high
Any thoughts? I mean with so many ether they would purposely lose their ether in order to sabotage Ethereum, which would cause their platform to be adapted.
They are keeping their ethers raised from the crowdfunding - so the question is: with what intentions? Is it for the reasons i mentioned, OR are they holding ETH because their platform might fail and they secure and increase their wealth by holding ethereum?
|
|
|
|
|
EOS is raising ETH with their ICO, but they are the one building competitor platform to Ethereum.
By the end of the crowsale they will have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ether. What if - when they launch their platform, they decide to sabotage the ethereum network.
There are many ways how they could cripple ETH, which would then benefit their platform, for example;
1)By then there might be Proof of Stake - they will be able to do "fraud" and they will be able to sacrifice those "staked" ether as they have so much(note that this is a question, i don't know how exactly PoS works)
2)spamming and congesting the network, increasing the fees dramaticly. With so much Ethereum available they could just spam so many transactions and pay the fees for them, which would increase the transaction fee dramatically for all the other legitimate participants making Ethereum useless for transacting as fees would be so high
Any thoughts? I mean with so many ether they would purposely lose their ether in order to sabotage Ethereum, which would cause their platform to be adapted.
They are keeping their ethers raised from the crowdfunding - so the question is: with what intentions? Is it for the reasons i mentioned, OR are they holding ETH because their platform might fail and they secure and increase their wealth by holding ethereum?
|
|
|
|
|
Any details on the ICO? How much was raised?
|
|
|
|
Anyways do you have any prediction over what is going to happen? Since those exchanges will list segwit2x as the Bitcoin, this will be the "legitimate" bitcoin /most used, most traded, priced the highest.
Not necessarily. A lot of exchanges have not said whether or not they are supporting Segwit2x and what they are going to do about it. I don't think many exchanges will list Segwit2x as Bitcoin as many people have threatened to sue them, and at the very least, it will be some very bad PR for them. Why doesn't core just say okay and agree on the 2MB fork? Because i would say this could get ugly otherwise ruining both of the Bitcoins.. :/
First of all, it is not a 2 MB fork, it is an 8 MB fork. Calling it 2 MB is disingenuous. Why should Core do something that we believe is harmful to the network? Sure, it might avoid a split now, but it can have huge negative consequences in the future that we want to avoid. Also if the majority of the hash power goes to segwit2x, the old chain will be stuck and useless. So doesn'+t seem like there is much choice?
No. Miners do not control Bitcoin. Just because the hash rate moves does not mean that Bitcoin is redefined to whatever the hash rate wants. The hash rate will follow whatever makes them the most money (unless they are insane). If few users are using Segwit2x-coin and few exchanges list segwit2x-coin, then miners won't mine it for long as there is no money to be made there. Even if they did go to Segwit2x-coin and stuck with it, Bitcoin Core could do a counter hard fork which both implements a Proof of Work change and implements a lot of features on the Bitcoin hard fork wish list which Segwit2x has thus far refused to do. Well as far as i know only 2MB will be stored on the blockchain. And the x4 increase thanks to segwit will only impact the nodes, but not the blockchain size. Anyways i believe this will be very bad for Bitcoin if the sides do not come together and we actually end up with 2 Bitcoins. Could cause confusion, problems, and huge drop in price. Could set us years back. |
|
|
|
|
ok well thanks for the clarification.
Anyways do you have any prediction over what is going to happen? Since those exchanges will list segwit2x as the Bitcoin, this will be the "legitimate" bitcoin /most used, most traded, priced the highest.
Why doesn't core just say okay and agree on the 2MB fork? Because i would say this could get ugly otherwise ruining both of the Bitcoins.. :/
Also if the majority of the hash power goes to segwit2x, the old chain will be stuck and useless. So doesn'+t seem like there is much choice?
|
|
|
|
|
edit:moved the thread, but ic ouldn't delete this thread
|
|
|
|
source: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@satoshibakery/bitcoin-core-developers-along-with-blockstream-are-destroying-bitcoinBitcoin Core developers are evil
Right now the miners are using software they fork from github/bitcoin, which is in control of Bitcoin Core developers and Blockstream.
If Segwit2x happens, the miners will use different Github Repository to get the software, effectively "firing" the Core members, making Blockstream lose control and influence over Bitcoin.
And what is Blockstream? It's a company that employs and pays Bitcoin Core developers for their contribution.
Let's not forget to mention that they were funded with 76M$ of capital by the VC firms. With traditional funding, there are also traditional obligations. These were not donations, the investors ofcorse expect to get returns from their invested dollars.
With the 2x part of the fork, the Blockstream loses influence over Bitcoin development and they can
can no longer lead Bitcoin in the path that could provide them with revenue to repay the investors - somehow.
So Blockstream is defending their interests by paying Core developers to continue the propaganda that Segwit2x is an attack on Bitcoin .
And is it really important for Core developers that Bitcoin gets adapted as widely as possible meaning the Bitcoin would raise in value?
One would certainly think so, but i have found out otherwise.
Some days after hurricane Irma there was a fundraiser for one of the Core developers, whose house had been damaged by hurricane. The goal of the fundraiser was to raise 5 Bitcoins for the Luke Dash jr(Bitcoin Core developer) in order to fix his house and property.
Luke Dash has developed first Bitcoin mining pool in 2011. At that time Bitcoin was worth around 0.3$.
Someone who knew about Bitcoin in 2011 and devoted it's time to work on the project, did not invest anything?!?! That tells us, that Luke Dash is not a speculator, he does not know anything about economics, all he is - is a programmer and that's all he knows to do.
It's also important to mention that out of all the developers, he is the one who backs 1MB blocksize limit most of them all! Even worse, he proposed to decrease the blocksize limit to 0.3MB. One would think this is some kind of a joke?
So Luke Dash obviously doesn't own (m)any Bitcoins considering he needed to raise funds for the repairs of his house and property, so he can only make money by getting paid from Blockstream for the development. And i would guess most other core members are like this. They are programmers. They enjoy coding and improving Bitcoin as they did from the start. They did not buy Bitcoins hoping they would get rich, but they probably looked at it from a programming perspective.
Their salary now depends on Blockstream and they have to follow the rules.
Core members have said it in the past that increase of the block size would be okay, even up to 8MB!! So what is wrong with the segwit2x now that it is considered an attack?
The answer is simple. Segwit2x means firing Core developers and Blockstream losing impact, so they will ofcorse do all they can in order to prevent this.
So the conclusion is: segwit2x would only do good for Bitcoin, but Bitcoin Core members are trying to prevent it - only reason being they would lose the influence. If one team of developers gets to decide what happens - is that not centralisation?
Is there any good argument against Blocksize increase? And don't mention the blockchain getting too big. In one year the blockchain has grown from 85GB to 135GB, increasing by 50GB. With 2x block size increase, this would be 100GB per year. The cost for storage is rapidly decreasing as technology is progressing, and in 10 years the estimate block size(with segwit2x) would be 1,135TB. At current prices this would cost around 50$, and we all know in 10 years 1TB of storage could cost a few dollars.
And how many people actually run a full node? It seems all nonsense to me.
Anyways there are a lot of things that i do not understand, that i could be wrong on, so please DO correct me and DO comment, because i do not understand and i would like to know , whether is this theory completly wrong, could be right or something completely else? |
|
|
|
source: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@satoshibakery/bitcoin-core-developers-along-with-blockstream-are-destroying-bitcoinBitcoin Core developers are evil
Right now the miners are using software they fork from github/bitcoin, which is in control of Bitcoin Core developers and Blockstream.
If Segwit2x happens, the miners will use different Github Repository to get the software, effectively "firing" the Core members, making Blockstream lose control and influence over Bitcoin.
And what is Blockstream? It's a company that employs and pays Bitcoin Core developers for their contribution.
Let's not forget to mention that they were funded with 76M$ of capital by the VC firms. With traditional funding, there are also traditional obligations. These were not donations, the investors ofcorse expect to get returns from their invested dollars.
With the 2x part of the fork, the Blockstream loses influence over Bitcoin development and they can
can no longer lead Bitcoin in the path that could provide them with revenue to repay the investors - somehow.
So Blockstream is defending their interests by paying Core developers to continue the propaganda that Segwit2x is an attack on Bitcoin .
And is it really important for Core developers that Bitcoin gets adapted as widely as possible meaning the Bitcoin would raise in value?
One would certainly think so, but i have found out otherwise.
Some days after hurricane Irma there was a fundraiser for one of the Core developers, whose house had been damaged by hurricane. The goal of the fundraiser was to raise 5 Bitcoins for the Luke Dash jr(Bitcoin Core developer) in order to fix his house and property.
Luke Dash has developed first Bitcoin mining pool in 2011. At that time Bitcoin was worth around 0.3$.
Someone who knew about Bitcoin in 2011 and devoted it's time to work on the project, did not invest anything?!?! That tells us, that Luke Dash is not a speculator, he does not know anything about economics, all he is - is a programmer and that's all he knows to do.
It's also important to mention that out of all the developers, he is the one who backs 1MB blocksize limit most of them all! Even worse, he proposed to decrease the blocksize limit to 0.3MB. One would think this is some kind of a joke?
So Luke Dash obviously doesn't own (m)any Bitcoins considering he needed to raise funds for the repairs of his house and property, so he can only make money by getting paid from Blockstream for the development. And i would guess most other core members are like this. They are programmers. They enjoy coding and improving Bitcoin as they did from the start. They did not buy Bitcoins hoping they would get rich, but they probably looked at it from a programming perspective.
Their salary now depends on Blockstream and they have to follow the rules.
Core members have said it in the past that increase of the block size would be okay, even up to 8MB!! So what is wrong with the segwit2x now that it is considered an attack?
The answer is simple. Segwit2x means firing Core developers and Blockstream losing impact, so they will ofcorse do all they can in order to prevent this.
So the conclusion is: segwit2x would only do good for Bitcoin, but Bitcoin Core members are trying to prevent it - only reason being they would lose the influence. If one team of developers gets to decide what happens - is that not centralisation?
Is there any good argument against Blocksize increase? And don't mention the blockchain getting too big. In one year the blockchain has grown from 85GB to 135GB, increasing by 50GB. With 2x block size increase, this would be 100GB per year. The cost for storage is rapidly decreasing as technology is progressing, and in 10 years the estimate block size(with segwit2x) would be 1,135TB. At current prices this would cost around 50$, and we all know in 10 years 1TB of storage could cost a few dollars.
And how many people actually run a full node? It seems all nonsense to me.
Anyways there are a lot of things that i do not understand, that i could be wrong on, so please DO correct me and DO comment, because i do not understand and i would like to know , whether is this theory completly wrong, could be right or something completely else? |
|
|
|
|
nxt has the highest return because they only raised like 15k$
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
