capacitiy increases (segwit) and layer 2 (LN) is the way to go.
the main problem with this is that we needed capacity increases yesterday and segwit won't be approved tomorrow...meanwhile bitcoin is losing market share to other cryptos. So instead of waiting and being patient you would rather have every miner hurry up and do the hardfork to an insecure code base like Bitcoin Unlimited? Is that what you really want? |
|
|
|
Wont this make difficulty rise and fall like a wave?
Each algorithm would have its own difficulty I would imagine. Thats what I think. My next question for that would be, wont it make the network open to attacks if the difficulty suddenly drops low? The idea might be good on paper but its really only complicating matters. Best to come with a new POW algorithm that uses less energy. |
|
|
|
there's absolutely no way I would ever trust a site that show "The DAO" on their welcome page as one of the coins. LOL
DAO was discontinued since its fail last year. Thanks for the tip. We will remove its logo as soon as possible. I think Vericoin is also another cryptocurrency that was involved with its own problems. I think a hacker got access to a majority of VRC by hacking an exchange and the team behind it did a controversial hard fork which the community didnt agree with. From then on everyone kept away from it. It might be good to update the list of coins to make the wallet a more attractive option for users. Are you open to suggestions? Sure, we are always open for a wide discussion. Feel free to share your thoughts. If I were in your shoes I would remove Novacoin, Clams, Vertcoin, Vericoin, Peercoin, Namecoin, Dogecoin and of course the DAO. Who uses these coins anyway and it would be good to streamline your wallet offerings. The leaner it is the better and it will also look cleaner when listed on the site. A good coin to add might be ETC, XRP and Zcash. Honestly I see no problem having these coins, that you suggested to be removed in their site. If you already created an account in their site, it is not the same with other exchanges where wallet are already available, you have to set them up one by one. So if you do not have those coins, then I think you do not need to set them up thus making your account still look cleaner the way you wanted it to be. Its not about how it looks. Its about having the coins with the most volume and coins that have a future in the world of cryptocurrencies. Will you still want to have a DAO coin to keep which is now useless? Exchanges delist coins from time to time because it would be useless having them available. The same steps should be made by Bit.ac. Updated coins might also help get more users in. |
|
|
|
Have you guys looked at Cuckoo cycle?
FWIW we evaluated Cuckoo as well for Zcash, and it was a strong second-place contender. There wasn't really anything wrong with it — it just didn't seem to have quite as much of a rigorous scientific analysis as Equihash. However, that is a very subjective thing for me to say. You could argue (and Cuckoo's author, John Tromp, does argue persuasively) that Cuckoo's history of analysis and refinement is better than Equihash's. What about cycling through 10 unique PoWs every 10 blocks? I'm not the best at discrete analysis and understand this multiplies attack surface 10-fold, but could we splinter miners into small, specialized, and de-fanged factions using 10 different well-chosen hash algorithms, then scatter them among CPUs/GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs? Block 1 JH Block 2 Skein Block 3 Groestl Block 4 Cuckoo Block 5 Keccak Block 6 Equihash Block 7 BLAKE2 Block 8 SCrypt Block 9 CryptoNight Block 10 Ethash Wont this make difficulty rise and fall like a wave? If the answer is yes, then wont this open the network to attacks if there is a fall in difficulty. Maybe it wont be the case after a year but in the beginning it could be. If youre going that road, why not have 2 POW algorithm at first with the option of expanding it instead of starting with 10 outright. |
|
|
|
You want to hear about something worse than what's happening recently ? What if ... Satoshi's lurking from far, notices something and starts to dump his 1M BTC ? That'd start some insane chaos. (yayh cheap coins !) Bitcoin will go through. What doesn't kill it makes it stronger. Ultimately, the majority will chose. We're going through exciting times guys  Anyway, when time for Bitcoin comes, I expect Satoshi to come out of his cave. Why would he? What he'll most probably do is hope for 2 blockchains at the end of this so he could have 2M BTC in the process. Theres nothing in it for him if he dumps all his BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Thats a very interesting theory I will look more into it. That could prove useful in knowing what the current climate of the market will be especially these days of uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
I know its their roadmap but isnt it safer and more secure than what the Bitcoin Unlimited people doing? There are talks of the centralization of mining under Bitcoin Unlimited, doesnt that concern you?
1) bitcoin mining IS ALREADY centralized. 5 pools have more than 51%. 10 pools have more than 75%. 2) LN centralizes even faster than PoW. Only big bank hubs can run the LN profitably. Ok so BTC mining is already semi-centralized. But wont Bitcoin Unlimited centralized it further? Another concern is security. How secure is the hard fork to BU? Splitting the blockchain should he avoided for all our sakes. |
|
|
|
|
Is this a new cloud mining service? The current state of difficulty of Bitcoin mining makes it an impediment for new miners to be profitable. Almost all of them will not be as efficient as the Chinese miners with their data center mining farms.
|
|
|
|
|
The current state of the volatility in Bitcoin would be a big disappointment for local businesses right now. Will that mean they will keep adjusting their prices? What about the present BTC they are holding, that means they are losing value by holding them. Bitcoin was worth 1200 3 weeks ago now it is worth below 1000.
|
|
|
|
Since it was your point, not mine, after all. It was your assumption that dumps might happen due to many new folks becoming new whales because of the prices skyrocketing. I agree with such a possibility (since this is what I'm essentially saying myself, i.e. that higher prices contribute to even higher volatility) but as I suspect, the burden of proof is still lying on you. And after you provide evidence for that assumption, we can discuss this issue further (if you feel inclined to, of course)
I dont think I said this and if I said something you might have misunderstood me or maybe you may even have made a mistake in thinking that was me. But please quote the post you are talking about then we can discuss it more. There must be a little misunderstanding. Its hard when youre not talking to someone face to face I thought it was your post after all: If that happens more then maybe BTC could be considered making and supporting an unhealthy market? If there are more and more whales born in the system that could move the price up and down, the more people should avoid this type of market I guess this is what you said exactly ("more and more whales born in the system"). Again, I don't deny that it might be the case since, in fact, this is what I think myself. More specifically, that with the price surging the market is necessarily thinning and thus folks with the same amount of coins can move the price stronger, or (which is the same) the less amount of coins is needed to move the price by the same value. But my agreement with this point of view doesn't magically make me obliged to prove it. As I said, the burden of proof is still on you, i.e. if there are really more whales born in the system or not, since it was your assumption in the first place, not mine But if it was not you posting from your account but someone else, then I feel sorry Its a misunderstanding. I read that you said more whales are born as they are destroyed. I quoted your post and followed it up with a question and asking for proof or an explanation why you think so I think I explained it pretty well If you didn't quite understand it, here's another explanation. Volatility by definition means that the price moves in both directions. If the price does move in only one direction (for example, rising without rest), such price change can hardly be considered as volatility. Volatility is like a coin, it always has two sides and I have yet to see a genuine Möbius coin (and I obviously don't mean a shit coin which has taken this name). Given that, we necessarily should conclude that if the price rise gives birth to new whales, then the price decline should destroy them (conceptually) I think I get it now. When you mean whales, do you mean whales in fiat value and not whales in the amount of BTC they have? If thats what you meant then I agree with what you said and theres no more explanations needed. I thought you meant more whales with the amount of BTC they are holding in their wallets. That would also mean that if there will be more whales, then would therefore mean the present whales will become mega whales. |
|
|
|
Theres an unsubscribe link in each confirmation email. Im always tempted to click it but Im scared that I might enter my account anymore. I will contact blockchain.info's support and the will report back here as soon as possible.
That unsubscribe link would be the possible answer to get rid of those confirmation emails and you are right they are quiet annoying when anytime you do logged in on your account and also theres nothing to do about the link to your wallet and if you press that link maybe it would solve the problem at all. This makes me more tempted to click that link. But what if it stops sending confirmation emails and then still require a link to be clicked in order to log in? Im still waiting for blockchain.info's reply. Its been two days now. |
|
|
|
not 100% clear on your plan but the core team has refused to increase block size for years.
They only want to scale according to their own roadmap, no matter how good your plan is.
They are decidedly against on chain scaling by design. That's why BU became necessary.
But doesnt segwit also increase the transaction throughput? If it doubles the size of the transaction count, why not use that as a solution for now and then increase the block size later? Safety and security is more important than a good upgrade. Yes, segwit does do that -- but its a fairly modest increase that is coming pretty late...so we may still get congestion... and on core's terms instead of letting the market decide... And it may not even activate. ...And it greatly increases the complexity of the code. ...And it only helps to the degree to which wallets use it, which is only partial for now. Like I said - THEIR roadmap. They are giving a tiny bit of on chain scaling, maybe, eventually... while they work on LN. I know its their roadmap but isnt it safer and more secure than what the Bitcoin Unlimited people doing? There are talks of the centralization of mining under Bitcoin Unlimited, doesnt that concern you? |
|
|
|
not 100% clear on your plan but the core team has refused to increase block size for years.
They only want to scale according to their own roadmap, no matter how good your plan is.
They are decidedly against on chain scaling by design. That's why BU became necessary.
But doesnt segwit also increase the transaction throughput? If it doubles the size of the transaction count, why not use that as a solution for now and then increase the block size later? Safety and security is more important than a good upgrade. |
|
|
|
I got a wallet on blockchain.info about a month ago.
They sent me an e-mail the first few times BTC arrived in my wallet, but then the e-mails stopped and the last times I got none. I checked my spam folder.
I have that option checked but still they don't send me an e-mail when I get a payment, which annoys me.
Your experience?
Hi, I never got such email from them  Just confirmation emails when I am logging in... Yeah same here and I find them so annoying. I have been asking this question in the forum before and I have never received a straightforward answer. Is there a way to disable this? There is no need for me to get a confirmation email I already have 2FA and the second password enabled. I don't know, but it is very annoying for me also  If you will find how to disable that fucking confirmation, please PM me. Theres an unsubscribe link in each confirmation email. Im always tempted to click it but Im scared that I might enter my account anymore. I will contact blockchain.info's support and the will report back here as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
Since it was your point, not mine, after all. It was your assumption that dumps might happen due to many new folks becoming new whales because of the prices skyrocketing. I agree with such a possibility (since this is what I'm essentially saying myself, i.e. that higher prices contribute to even higher volatility) but as I suspect, the burden of proof is still lying on you. And after you provide evidence for that assumption, we can discuss this issue further (if you feel inclined to, of course)
I dont think I said this and if I said something you might have misunderstood me or maybe you may even have made a mistake in thinking that was me. But please quote the post you are talking about then we can discuss it more. There must be a little misunderstanding. Its hard when youre not talking to someone face to face I thought it was your post after all: If that happens more then maybe BTC could be considered making and supporting an unhealthy market? If there are more and more whales born in the system that could move the price up and down, the more people should avoid this type of market I guess this is what you said exactly ("more and more whales born in the system"). Again, I don't deny that it might be the case since, in fact, this is what I think myself. More specifically, that with the price surging the market is necessarily thinning and thus folks with the same amount of coins can move the price stronger, or (which is the same) the less amount of coins is needed to move the price by the same value. But my agreement with this point of view doesn't magically make me obliged to prove it. As I said, the burden of proof is still on you, i.e. if there are really more whales born in the system or not, since it was your assumption in the first place, not mine But if it was not you posting from your account but someone else, then I feel sorry Its a misunderstanding. I read that you said more whales are born as they are destroyed. I quoted your post and followed it up with a question and asking for proof or an explanation why you think so. And dont you ever accuse me of letting other people use my account. |
|
|
|
How can more whales be created as fast as they are destroyed? If you could show proof that its happening and also make us see how its happening, that would be appreciated by a lot of us whos willing to learn. And how could that happen in a system where whales mostly buy and hold BTC?
How come you also said that theres no such economy in BTC. A lot of people will disagree with you In fact, it is not me who should first prove that whales are actually created in the first place Im confused. You said this in another post:
But since there is no such economy in the first place, there is nothing to ruin in the second. In respect to purely financial markets and Bitcoin more specifically, new whales are born as fast as they are destroyed (just like virtual particles in physics) since this process works in reverse as good as it works forward. Price volatility is good for traders and they are effectively working against it, thereby limiting price fluctuations. In other words, trees don't grow to the sky, birds can't fly to the stars and Bitcoin price cannot skyrocket to the moon. There is certainly a limit to the price growth since this growth will necessarily get offset by the spike in volatility over time, i.e. with Bitcoin the volatility is increasing faster than the price
[/quote] So I wanted for you to show us an example of how that happens in the market because it is an interesting concept. Since it was your point, not mine, after all. It was your assumption that dumps might happen due to many new folks becoming new whales because of the prices skyrocketing. I agree with such a possibility (since this is what I'm essentially saying myself, i.e. that higher prices contribute to even higher volatility) but as I suspect, the burden of proof is still lying on you. And after you provide evidence for that assumption, we can discuss this issue further (if you feel inclined to, of course)
I dont think I said this and if I said something you might have misunderstood me or maybe you may even have made a mistake in thinking that was me. But please quote the post you are talking about then we can discuss it more. There must be a little misunderstanding. Its hard when youre not talking to someone face to face. |
|
|
|
I got a wallet on blockchain.info about a month ago.
They sent me an e-mail the first few times BTC arrived in my wallet, but then the e-mails stopped and the last times I got none. I checked my spam folder.
I have that option checked but still they don't send me an e-mail when I get a payment, which annoys me.
Your experience?
Hi, I never got such email from them Just confirmation emails when I am logging in... Yeah same here and I find them so annoying. I have been asking this question in the forum before and I have never received a straightforward answer. Is there a way to disable this? There is no need for me to get a confirmation email I already have 2FA and the second password enabled. |
|
|
|
Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.
but core wont do it. they want to have their tx's free to be useable on another chain but not other chain used on their. thus cor users can double up but non-core users cant.(theoretically). basically core want to dominate and take advantage rather then protect themselves I dont blame them with the other group trying to fork it all away from them. You have to admit that both sides have their own dirty tricks. One group wants to retain control while the other longs for it. It's just a section of power and resources. I'm very sorry that bitcoin suffered this. It seems to me that because of these confusions, simple bitcoin holders may suffer. Its just a natural order of things in BTC I think. Who said decentralization was not going to be ugly? If an ordinary Bitcoin holder wants everything quiet and not chaotic them a centralized cryptocurrency might be for them. |
|
|
|
there's absolutely no way I would ever trust a site that show "The DAO" on their welcome page as one of the coins. LOL
DAO was discontinued since its fail last year. Thanks for the tip. We will remove its logo as soon as possible. I think Vericoin is also another cryptocurrency that was involved with its own problems. I think a hacker got access to a majority of VRC by hacking an exchange and the team behind it did a controversial hard fork which the community didnt agree with. From then on everyone kept away from it. It might be good to update the list of coins to make the wallet a more attractive option for users. Are you open to suggestions? Sure, we are always open for a wide discussion. Feel free to share your thoughts. If I were in your shoes I would remove Novacoin, Clams, Vertcoin, Vericoin, Peercoin, Namecoin, Dogecoin and of course the DAO. Who uses these coins anyway and it would be good to streamline your wallet offerings. The leaner it is the better and it will also look cleaner when listed on the site. A good coin to add might be ETC, XRP and Zcash. |
|
|
|
|
Its probably because of the new user interface or theme they have now. Try logging out and logging back in again. I had this happen to me a few times. Its just a big in their Javascript or something. Contact support to get it fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
