did you factor that in too Franky?
added a bit extra to my last message to explain the deeper parts to the reality of mining |
|
|
|
|
currently a 13t/hash only nets you 0.45btc over the last 6 months. expect 0.25 over the next 6 months
expect 0.13btc for 6months after that.
the mining calculators i have seen are flawed because they just take anticipated earnings this week and then multiply it by X weeks/months
it does not do the realistic depreciation due to difficulty and expectant competition of others.
EG if a calculator says you get 0.000A a day you WILL NOT get:
A*365 a year
A*28 a month
realistically
instead expect a cumulative depreciation every fortnight or less of between 1-10%
the only people profiting are the manufacturers.
because while you spend $1500 (2BTC) on a asic, never breaking even. it only costs them a couple hundred $ to make.
you are literally buying THEM many rigs for free just for you to get one
|
|
|
|
ok i see what your getting at now. i thought u were asking a noob technical question. sorry. seems your asking a psychological/social question here is the thing. knowing why/who wants to fund a certain address or adds a certain address as one of the multisig qualifiers is like asking why/who wants to buy banana's from walmart. no one will give a definite answer. but your asking the wrong questions for instance when it utilises / spams https://blockchain.info/address/1BgGZ9tcN4rm9KBzDn7KprQz87SZ26SAMHthe KNOWN address where the privkey is literally not a long garbled seed of words/hex characters but simply "1" that particular address had a tag on blockchain.info advertising a scam/virus. in short it was trying to advertise a "bitcoin manual mining helper" scam so someone used their multisig added the scam advert address.. spent some funds where the known address appears in the tx as either an input or output. then put the rest of its funds back into another multisig. many people have done this, where they either tag their own address with something (scam/business/service) and then send small amounts to another address. or send amounts to another address thats been tagged though this is not the definite answer it does explain things.
another explanation is that the person with the multisig is simply testing things. so doesnt actually require a third address involved in a multisig. and just threw in the known address just for the sake of it. its not a security risk to that person because the other addresses secure the multisig. a hacker still needs atleast one of the other private keys to break the multisig. so cant break it just looking at blockchain data. |
|
|
|
(comments are based on the reddit post of OP) blockstream paid devs gmaxwell and Wuille and luke JR are making a persistant growth altcoin based on bip103 (the intentional split) OR a one time 2mbbip103:The new chain created by those changed nodes will be rejected by old nodes, so this would effectively be a request to the ecosystem to migrate to a new and incompatible network. Doing this while controversy exists is dangerous to the network and the ecosystem.
bip103 is not a consensus upgrade of bitcoin mainnet where orphans take care of the minority. bip103 is an intentional split by having a ban IP/useragent so that the bip103 implementations do not interact with the mainnet implementations. DO NOT BE FOOLED if blockstream paid devs are implementing 103, blockstream are still: dividing the community!! avoiding consensus, not releasing code that will work with the bitcoin mainnet, SILLY CORPORATE A-holes by suggesting its an incompatible network leads to the belief they want to keep the old rule alive too.. rather than just having one chain bip 105:is dynamic blocksize and uses consensus and the orphaning mechanism without devs needing to be the kings/deciding factor, where there will be ONE chain. but requires miners to push the difficulty up and it only activates if the majority vote for it by working on a highr diffculty. while those opposing it can happily undercut the votes by solving blocks at the lower difficulty.. (facepalm) 4th option:as for the 4th option a one time 2mb adjustment. again that is just a one time spoonfed amount keeping the devs in control, requiring the community to get on their knees and plead for devs to make another adjustment later. summary:if only they learn to use consensus and let orphans take care of the minority(its a bitcoin feature built in) rather than intentional splits(not built in) i do love how they try to shout that if allowed(majority nodes compatible) its deemed an incompatible new network these new nodes are pushed aside to.... strangely though, if the majority are there to even activate it.. then logic dictates its compatible and is the bitcoin network continuing on but with more buffer space to expand. lets hope they do the right thing and not offer up an intentional (ip/useragent ban) split, like what ethereum was. and instead intend to use consensus and orphans the way it should be done to keep to one chain. and not have mechanisms that allow pools to be economically incentivised to veto it by not wanting to push the difficulty up just to incorporate more buffer |
|
|
|
|
no need to ever think about banks again or other party control
use more so for the unbanked
globally accepted
no barrier of entry
easy to use for anyone
by this i dont mean it needs to be used by 7billion people for 10 transactions a day each.
but enough adaptability that no one is thrown aside and treated as a 'spammer' for just trying to move an hours labour
|
|
|
|
I don't think they will be patenting existing technology cause that will lead to law suits. What I feel is they are planning something new and who knows Ebwn better. Isn't it good if the big companies come in, this will help Bitcoin process even faster and better. This can create a boost that bitcoin needs to be adopted globally.
that silly mindset is how corporations win. they make patents. and just having one. even if dishonorable.. allows them to make a claim. even if they lose they win. here is how. even knowing they will lose legally. doesnt stop them filing a claim for a small cost in some unknown town of texas that is very hott for capitalists. knowing the other party has to then somehow find funds to pay for lawyers and then pay for transport to get to this unknown town. just to even defend why the corporation is wrong and attempt to get the case dismissed. these costs alone make the little prey back off and leave the corporation in control. EG even if the law is on the side of the people. a $XX million dollar corporation can cause headaches and keep the people in a litigation nightmare for years. check out things like FIAT. people think its their money. but as soon as you want to make money for yourself.. paperwork, fee's legal expenses start to mount up. this is why exchanges have a headache to launch because of all the legal costs just to get started even if morally and ethically they are not going to harm their customers using fiat.. we dont need blockstream becoming bitcoin(Fiat-esq) government where they set the terms of use and demand royalties if you want to 'go it alone' outside of the blockstream licence. by moving away from MIT open licence and signing into blockstreams DLP your signing your rights away, under the pretence of protection |
|
|
|
|
no you are reading it wrong
the number is NOT a count of signatories. it is simply a flag to easily see type of address.. not how many are involved
a multisig is where you can select any public keys as the authoriser/signatory. whether its two addresses or twenty addresses.
but they combine to make a multisig address beginning with 3... always 3 no matter how many are involved
that multisig is then not forced to only pay out to only other multisig addresses. they can pay out to individual addresses aswell
in short any multisig with any number of signatories will always be a 3address. individual permissionless addresses begin with a 1.
what you looked at has nothing to do with how many signatories are involved by the number at the start.
1 and 3 are fixed recognisable flags.. not signatory counts
EG
if 3 was an M = multisig and 1 was an S=single then the rule still applies.
|
|
|
|
Sad reading companies attempting to hijack bitcoin.
They can't, any security measure can be programmed in diffirent fashion/method but with same end result. They can't protect by patent security. So be calm, everything will be fine, also patent is often only for one country/region and patenting for whole world is impossible/huge costs. So with so low user base as bitcoin have currently, its not reasonable to patent anything. but they are patenting it, licinging it. blockstream are moving away from the MIT open licence. they are adding terms where everything belongs to a company and saying you have to pay a royalty if you dont name them as the licence holder.(father of the tech) funny thing is blockstream came about in 2014(yep not 2009) and took the bitcoin project out of the satoshi-qt into another brand "bitcoin-core" yep bitcoin-core is not satoshi-qt. to the same measure that they say anything not core is also not the satoshi-qt original vision of bitcoin dont be under blockstreams thumb where your signing up to their ownership under false protection to later make you pay royalties by them having the ability to change their licencing agreement without your consent remain with MIT open licence, |
|
|
|
the blockstream bait: you can join/ use bitcoin if you put your software under blockstreams "open" DLP patent. but choose not to join blockstream, even if you do not intend to file your own patent, try to release bitcoin software without blockstream patent, blockstream will prosecute or make you pay a royalty. while still leaving those patents enforceable against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL’s patent-sharing community. simply put: "join blockstream or suffer, state that all bitcoin software belongs to blockstream and if you admit that blockstream own it they will not punish you" much like blockstream will protect you if you hand over your first born child by writing blockstream as the father of the child on the birth certificate. if you do not quote blockstream as the father of bitcoin on the birth certificate or revoke blockstream off the birth certificate (announcing a 180 day discontinuation to use blockstreams patent) you will b required to pay a FRAND royalty Optional Conversion to FRAND Upon Discontinuation. Notwithstanding any other provision in this License, as of any particular Licensee’s Discontinuation Date, [blockstream] has the right to convert the License of that particular Licensee from one that is royalty-free and no-charge to one that is subject to Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms going forward. No other terms in the license may be altered in any way under this provision. those other [blockstream] have the right at any point to convert your license to a similar license that requires you to pay a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory royalty for each licensed product or service. be warned the DPL is totally different than the MIT open licence. if you do not hand blockstream ownership. you will get slammed. much like the nazi's will not put you in a detention camp if you sign your rights over to the nazi's. (millions of germans done this under the pretence it allowed them freedom to live) again be warned the DPL is totally different than the MIT open licence. if you do not hand blockstream ownership. you will get slammed. |
|
|
|
This is possible but lets face it you don't know that.
You don't know if they will go after everyone.
Coinbase's account history logs aren't a paper notebook and some chicken scratch.
It is meticulous and well put together.
The IRS will not have a hard time sifting through the good practices that Coinbase is currently using.
The IRS handles the entire US population's tax filings.
You really think the Bitcoin community is gonna add that much work for them?
You think they are only going after big fish when I say they are out to make a point.
With the dollar going up and the IRS filing the claim to get Coinbase's records I would say the message is clear.
There is a new sheriff in town and he is not going to put up with any dissent in this country at all.
Regime change is upon us.
lol you do know that even in fiat. many people avoid taxes already. using trusts, offshore etc. also the 'average/majority' user of coinbase is not the $10k plus user. so although it wont take them long to find the $10k+ users. its not going to be a significant amount of coinbase customers. only expect a couple % of users to react to this IRS news as personally impacting them. IRS is not a new sheriff. its the same sheriff it always has been. its just drama in the end. those that do use coinbase over $10k will get a letter through the post. whoop-de-doo. and if smart enough they can explain themselves out of how much tax they owe. in short the IRS is just going to continue on as it has done.. these subpoena's are not some big event. to them its just everyday paperwork. much like writing out a daily memo.. nothing when you look at the big picture has changed |
|
|
|
The IRS has a hard-on for getting their share of whatever it is you make, be it a lot, a little, a painfully small amount, or anything else similar to that. They will always want their share of your wealth, and this extends further into Bitcoin.
If anything I'm surprised that the IRS wasn't getting involved sooner, however this is something I expected since we hit the $1,000 mark, and even closer to just $100 to be honest.
I'm surprised that the value isn't going down, seems like people are confident in their ability to hide their wealth, or someone is buying a lot for some reason.
nah.. most dont care. a majority of people are only buying $10-$1000 bitcoin.. due to the registration requirements of coinbased hardly any are actually spending more than $10k in coinbase. so its not like every customer is going to get an IRS letter.. maybe just 1% of coinbase customers who have not bought bitcoin more professionally when spending more than $10k. the real smart guys loop their funds through off shore accounts/foundations and corporations before doing anything. so the end result wont be a mass exodus of customers. because as i just explained hardly any are actually using coinbase for such amounts IRS cares for |
|
|
|
That's not a bad idea for anyone who doesn't have holdings in some datacenter, but if there is anyone who has some sort of vested interest in something like that then you're going to be hard pressed to egt them to give up that investment and go look at something else.
Banking datacenters are both a huge money-maker (for the right people) and a money drain, so something like that is taking away a fair amount of jobs and also takes away from expenditures of the bank.
While it might not be a bad idea, I don't think a lot of them have weighed the pros and cons.
Banking experts seem to lack the understanding that a blockchain is essentially just a decentralized database, but I could be wrong with this assumption. based on what I hear from a lot of people though, they think it is some miracle technology that changes everything. It really doesn't.
first of all.. imagine it this way. no more 900 servers in one building.. but 900 servers scattered over 900 locations.. infact due to distribution it will be 95000 systems. so hardware manufacturers wont lose out. intel/IBM are actually loving it. secondly less staff is a good thing for banks. they dont care about people. they would be happy to sack people as for banking experts. they hir developers. and the developers understand it. the term blockchain is very loose, but does offer many things. bitcoin is 10+ layers deep above blockchain. bankers so far are 4 layers. but compared to their old systems they do see benefits not just about the distribution but the programming ability it opens up that DMS didnt offer and RDMS was limited of. just dont b surprised on how much they will screw customers into smart contracts in the future |
|
|
|
No, financial institutions won't make money developing new blockchains. In simplified terms, what they are doing is creating bloated altcoins. Indeed, they don't know what they are doing, because if they were competent they would know that blockchains are not suitable for the use case they imagine. For all centralized use cases, the most efficient solution is a centralized database. The only reason why Bitcoin has a blockchain is to make a decentralized currency possible. If you're removing decentralization as a core feature, using a blockchain makes no sense anymore. But, of course, they are free to waste money on it.  but they are saving money by distributing their ledger. imagine it. each bank branch has its own sidechain. thus less or no need of a skyscraper with servers and hundreds of staff monitoring it for security. due to the decentralised nature securing each bank branch. yes its not 100% public.. plus the smart contract ability due to changing to programmable databases (in laymens) allows them to do smart contracts. that are programmatically determined. rather than a simply photocopy of old contracts that are human determined. though i dont like what banks do. i can understand why they are doing it. and it seems it will surprise you too. so dont down play what banks have in mind as a 'head in sand' attempt to think bitcoin is going to kill fiat. |
|
|
|
|
forget all delusions of banks using bitcoin.
they are going for hyperledger.
as for the utility of hyperledger.
its much like going from Database Management Systems DMS (decades old) to Relational Database Management Systems RDMS (still pre millenium but newer) where they were able to do more with their data.
blockchain is just a new layer ontop of RDBMS... lets call it BRDBMS.
where not only can they play with the data within the database tables that had relationship ties (quasi-blocks) like they did before. but now they can play around with the database itself by not having it locked in a central server needing a master key.
they can distribute it, lay out the tables (blocks) in different order and or location. change how its secured.
bitcoin does have atleast 10 different secure/feature mechanisms ontop of the old RDMS and its thought hyper ledger has just 4 extra ontop of RDMS, so more secure then older systems, but still not as secure/brilliant as bitcoin.
but because the bankers dont need it as a fully public accessible system and they cannot fully own bitcoin outright or 'efficiently' do the extra secure stuff bitcoin does (PoW to name one) they will just make their own. which they have been doing.
as for how/why/what
thats the big bank secret question about (smart)contracts of: money creation, notaries, equities, collateral, asset creation, etc
|
|
|
|
If IRS decides to chase crypto tax evaders, it will be a losing battle because those people would simply move over to monero, zcash and other anonymous coins.
What can IRS do about that?
its not a bitcoin sepecific thing. same rule applies to any crypto/stock/share/asset/ or even foriegn fiat currency... if you convert it to a fiat that the IRS rules over. expect them to stalk you for it. also as someone else said If you start spending lots of bitcoin on goods and services without paying taxes, the IRS would catch you for having a standard of living inconsistent with your income.
It is the same as using cash to evade taxes.
Eventually, IRS will have to move to bitcoin.
yep if they cannot find you via bank records a jealous neighbour will "grass you in" for having a better car then them, but never see you go to work to afford it. the trick is then to have receipts that the car is leased (NOT OWNED in your name to be towed). paid for from contributions of a foundation (corporate trust fund: again not with your name attached 'personally') |
|
|
|
Reason is that bigger the number of inputs, or what I call internal transactions, bigger the size will be, because there's more thing for miners to verify.
I also want to know this. I don't understand codes, so, is there an average number for inputs and outputs? Like for example: Inputs= 100bytes ; Outputs=50bytes then if there was 4 Inputs and 3 Outputs it would be 4x100 + 3x50 = 550(Estimated Transaction Size) give or take a few. Any ideas? roughly 148*in + 34*out(+-10) so more around the 694-704 mark EDIT: just found https://blockchain.info/tx/9ad969d73f4859f05564682f88ba28451d3609efc808ae100876457fd725e539702... it gets more complicated if multisig addresses and scripted addresses are involved, the "148*in +34*out" (+-10) is usually if your only paying from and to normal addresses.. which will soon become less common after segwit/ln is running. |
|
|
|
|
in short, without techno-waffled
TX1.
came from one source going to 2 destinations
TX2.
came from one source, going to 9 destinations
if you were hand-writing cheques or delivery notes or anything in the real world
the more source locations or destination locations you have to write... the more you have to write
|
|
|
|
-next block before its confirm. 0.0015231 btc/kb
-within 2 blocks before it confirms 0.0010154 btc/kb
-within 5 blocks 0.00083274 btc/kb
-within 10 blocks 0.00069784 btc/kb
-within 25 blocks. 0.00069784 btc/kb
so here is your maths works out as U.S dollar next block pay over $1/kb (40cent tx average) within 2 block pay over $0.76/kb (30cent tx average) within 5 block pay over $0.63/kb (25cent tx average) within 10 block pay over $0.53/kb (21cent tx average) within 25 block pay over $0.53/kb (21cent tx average) silly high prices electrum is "average estimating" and guess what...even then its not a guarantee. the only issue is if 5000 people all paid 0.0015231 btc/kb only ~2500 will get into the next block because there is a limit. laving the other half waiting no one knows who/which one of them people paying over $1 a kb will get it. theres usually a 3 groups of people that will always pay the top fee, no matter what 1. i need it now theres someone im trading with looking at his watch, tutting and moaning 2. i just dont want the hassle of keep checking the blockchain or having to rebroadcast and/or calculate fee's 3. if i pay more i naively dont understand bitcoin and think it will confirm in 20 seconds by paying more. now then. there is no way to guarantee any of the 3 groups get in first.. now then, there is no way to guarantee group 1 gets higher priority to go first(real need). even when paying obsurd amounts of 40cents per average tx ($1/kb) summary fee estimates alone do no work. especially in a spoonfed sheep herd crowd there needs to be a PROPER WORKING secondary mechanism BASED ON CODE and flags to highlight real priority of the herd crowd of "just pay more" spoonfed people |
|
|
|
The IRS has a job to do, and we have to accept the fact that there are two things that you would never avoid.. Death & Taxes. If you are a good citizen, you will pay your damn taxes and go on with your life. If you decide to use Bitcoin to avoid taxes, then you deserve to look over your shoulder every day, because they will hunt you down... to take their cut. I would rather pay the damn taxes and not have to worry, when they are going to burst through the door to arrest me for tax evasion.  just having bitcoin is not taxable. same as holding shares/stocks/assets/'personal trusts'. whats important is when you CASH OUT(sell asset/shares/bitcoin). you have to declare the FIAT YOU are then holding. the IRS only care about who WITHDREW FIAT from coinbase (if this topic is about IRS V COINBASE) plus its only about the AMERICAN users (meaning DOLLAR withdrawals) its not about bitcoin holders or bitcoin holders outside the U.S |
|
|
|
|
although exchanges may not claim fee's (personal profit) the exchange rate (spread) may differ.
many exchanges with no fee's have big spreads.
most of the time when you buy bitcoin you pay the highest price meaning you get less btc for your fiat.
and the exchange or seller then buys cheaper behind the scene. so they still profit.
exchanges that allow you to make an order that sits on the buy list gets you a better deal then instantly taking from someone elses sell order.
it takes a while to learn about spreads. and which exchange offers the best spread price with or without fee's.
but its things like spreads and withdrawal fee's that add on costs. even if there are no trade fee's. and that has caused a few issues in the remittance markets where people want to go from on FIAT<->BTC<->FIAT another currency, because they have to calculate in 2 exchange spreads, even if there are no "fees".
and also the time delay if you try to save value being a order "maker" rather than a "taker"
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
