|
Effectively, you can only earn one per day as it is capped out at 14 every two weeks.
If you have a lot of potential activity built up though, you could turn all of that into actual activity in a single day. I wouldn't recommend it though. It's usually a tell for farmed accounts.
|
|
|
|
Short of it wreaking absolute electrical havoc by thrashing mining farms and shorting out nodes, I honestly don't believe it can impact Bitcoin price. It looks like it was sensationalized anyway, at least according to this article. People are more likely to talk about the Northern Lights it could bring to the US rather than the minor electrical fluctuations anyway. That being said, I see how it could be used for FUD to drive newbies to sell. Propagandists could say that it could knock out the Bitcoin network, for example. It's a long shot though, in my opinion. I wouldn't have even associated the two if I hadn't read this thread lol. |
|
|
|
|
Well, volatility is definitely a barrier in Bitcoin's road to a serious mainstream currency. It's not at all surprising that merchants would prefer to accept a stable currency after all. These stablecoins aim to address these problems and at the same time provide a crypto shelter to traders in cases of bear markets. They're probably better suited for everyday use than Bitcoin, at least in principle.
There is a downside though, of course, and that is the fact that their stability is artificial, and this almost certainly goes hand-in-hand with centralization. This means they're much more vulnerable to regulations, and in the end, you might as well be using digital fiat. There's also the issue of actually backing them, which basically means that at some point, their supply will be terribly constrained with their value being unable to scale.
All in all, they are useful in certain situations, but I'd rather trust the process and ride this out with Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Recently, I have noticed much hate against shitcoins. I totally get that, so many ICOs stealing money and giving nothing in return. Just pure greed by so many people, making over 1,000 cryptocurrencies right now according to CoinMarketCap. At least 95% of them will not seal in history or even survive but does it mean we don't need? I mean if Bitcoin was the only the currency in the market how could we know if it's good or bad. If Usain Bolt was the only runner on the field, how could we know if he's fast or not? We must see the bad to know what it's good. Someone once told me "Only in the jungle lions grow" meaning that we need the crypto market to be a jungle to see some lions such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and etc.
Your example only holds true because running is a competition. Bitcoin was not made to compete with anything; it was meant to solve real world problems, and it will continue to do just that with or without competition. People knew it was good even before altcoins showed up, so it definitely doesn't need them. I don't really have a problem with alts as some of them are legit projects trying to make the world a better place, but most shitcoins just exist as a way to make money. They just give crypto in general a bad name in the end, so it may even be argued that they're harmful. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know about the community as a whole, but I think it's great for beginners and the less tech-savvy.
How many times have you seen people get scammed by fake phishing wallets and/or exchanges thanks to Google ads? That's mostly a thing of the past now. These are still going to continue to exist for sure, but they will be much less visible to potential victims; the only way to propagate them now is through direct phishing attempts after all.
Either way, this isn't a very big deal in the grand scheme of things, and definitely shouldn't have caused a dip. If this is the reason for the sub-8000 levels, it's more likely due to anticipation of a drop rather than the content and effect of the news item itself.
|
|
|
|
2fa security is a app? @Smpdytz1 ..thank you
No. 2FA means two-factor authentication, which basically means that you need your password plus some other thing to access your account. There are different ways to achieve this; some services send codes to your mobile number and some require the use of apps such as Google Authenticator. I would definitely recommend everyone use this feature if available, especially for crypto-related stuff. Also, in general, a desktop wallet even without 2FA is safer than an online wallet with 2FA. Just something to keep in mind. |
|
|
|
|
This could be a good thing in my opinion. Most of the ads I've been seeing are either:
a) scammy ICO investments or
b) phishing wallets/exchanges pretending to be the real thing
In the case of b specifically, I often see lots of examples of users being duped around Bitcointalk. Most of these ads just give crypto a bad name. This ban removes at least one way scammers dupe people. I'm not against it.
|
|
|
|
|
Who says "overpopulation" is a bad thing? The goal is to have everyone use Bitcoin, so such a concept shouldn't even exist. More users is better, and there's no upper limit.
That being said, it could be a problem now because of scalability issues. Even then, overpopulation isn't the problem -- scalability is. Rather than limiting how many people should be using Bitcoin, we should be increasing Bitcoin's capacity to cater to more people.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a weirdly specific value. Did you see an analysis that says Bitcoin will bottom down at $7000? $8500 is perfectly fine for investing and even day trading in my opinion.
Seems to me like this recent dip from $11k was caused by news of the Binance bot hack and the Mt. Gox trustee, so Bitcoin should bounce back once those issues blow over. I don't see $7000 happening unless we get some sudden weird development again.
|
|
|
|
|
The most simple way I can explain it is that generally:
Tokens are specialized as they are released by companies and are redeemable for future services they might offer. They typically use other coins' blockchain, like how Ethereum (which is a coin) handles a lot of tokens.
Coins have much more general use as they're often used as full-blown currencies. Coins have their own blockchain unlike tokens.
|
|
|
|
Would "Donald Trump is proposing greater term limitations" have been a better way to phrase it? There are no term limitations for congress or senate. Would introducing term limits be characterized as greater limits or fewer limits? The way things are now, many of them are in office forever. Not unlike what Xi Jinping could eventually become.
I'm wondering if this greater centralization of political power by Xi Jinping could decrease competition which could hurt china over the long term. Could Maduro and Kim Jong's centralization of power in venezuela and north korea be characterized by failure? If the answer to that question is: yes. Then could china face a similar precedent in the future by centralizing power under circumstances where there probably won't be enough competition to streamline operations or incentivize efficiency by those in power, given they're guaranteed their monopoly and likely have little or no motivation to improve circumstances?
Did Trump actually propose it though? As far as I know he was simply amused by the move, saying that maybe they could look into that option in the future, or something to that effect. I also don't think centralization of political power will be much of a problem as far as efficiency goes. The lifting of term limits simply means Xi Jinping can run for a 3rd time or more, and if a better rival shows up, the rival could be elected over him. Their congress elects their president and can remove them too, assuming it's not under Jinping's control already. |
|
|
|
who said they can't? the same way a thief can put a knife to your throat and take your bitcoin, they can put a knife to your throat and take your money. they can make you withdraw cash and give it to them. haven't you ever watched a kidnap/ransom movie?  What I was talking about is there are limits in place as far as traditional banking goes. They can make you withdraw ATM funds, for example, but they'd have to keep you around a few days to get a substantial amount thanks to the daily limit. There's a limit to how much you can keep in your physical wallet, too. There is no such limit in Bitcoin, regardless of user responsibility. It's easier to be stupid when you have banks to cover your ass, and there are a lot of stupid people. |
|
|
|
It can reverse the by the network if the confirmation didn't made. If the confirmation starts as 1 or more than that. You will not be able to stop the transaction for sure.
Mempool seems already empty and if you have 5sat per byte in the transaction.
It will be confirmed with in with in 30 mins. Some may add 1sat/byte that is not enough to complete the network faster.
It's inappropriate to say that the network reverses it. Bitcoin transactions were designed to be irreversible, and they are; these transactions simply sit in the mempool (each node has its own mempool) until they're trashed after a period. But yeah, it's almost impossible for such a thing to happen under the current network load, unless you don't pay a fee at all, maybe. |
|
|
|
|
That's true, but there has been well-documented incidents where people with bad intentions didn't have to -- they can use guns and knives to pry them out of you after all. In this sense, it could be said that banks are still safer, because a robber can't put a knife to your throat and make you wire money.
All in all, I don't think security is the key reason on why we should leave banks behind, if ever. It could be argued that banks are safer or that Bitcoin is safer, but the bottom line is that Bitcoin is simply more convenient in most cases, and hands you absolute control over your own finances.
|
|
|
|
it has nothing to do with centralization, and i think OP used the wrong word here. it is about being Open Source and while Linux is open source, windows isn't. and that makes a big difference, and when you hear about how new version of windows has lots of backdoors and even privacy invaders installed on it already your trust in Microsoft vanishes.
Yeah, that's why I called it out lol. I personally don't even care about the open source vs. closed source software argument. Open source doesn't always mean safer, and closed source doesn't always mean there are backdoors. It's a fact that Windows dominates the OS market share, it's a fact that it's far more economical for cybercriminals to target Windows users, so it just follows that it's less likely for hackers to target you if you're not using Windows. Quality of OS security aside, that alone should be enough reason for you to switch if you're handling sensitive matters such as crypto. |
|
|
|
|
There is really only one golden rule, and I assume most people would agree with me that it's:
"Never put in more money than you can afford to lose."
Apart from the usual common sense stuff about security and privacy, etc., everything else is secondary.
|
|
|
|
In addition to,
even bounty managers put various data from participants in the campaign spreadsheet as joint monitoring. You'll find hundreds or even thousands of wallet addresses, not just that. Social media accounts are also included there.
is that safe? i mean put our account over there. sorry, but i really new   As I've previously mentioned, it's completely safe. Other people will be able to see your balance and transactions, and that's it. There's no way anyone can ever steal your funds by simply knowing your address. As for social media accounts, people usually use accounts that are solely meant for bounties, so their identities are not compromised or anything. |
|
|
|
|
In case of loans, banks require collateral so they'll be fine in that case.
In case of credit card debt, well that depends. There is no collateral, sure, but there is a limit in place, and it's pretty small for most people. It would be crippling if everyone in the world maxed out theirs and not pay for it for sure though.
As for the second case, banks seem to be onto you because a few have already started banning cryptocurrency purchases through credit cards lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
