https://www.forbes.com/sites/petertchir/2017/10/31/bitcoin-futures-are-finally-here/#6389fec26a0d

You can click on there and read the press release. I think this will pass, it's not the SEC that regulates this, it's a different process from ETF's. I think we are still not ready for an ETF, but Bitcoin futures could be good. Some worry about price manipulation as similarly seen by gold. I argue Bitcoin is a much different asset and you can't manipulate it as much as gold. The supply is clear, the market is global and nonstop. Gold's supply is unclear, nobody knows what's the limit of gold or how much is out there. The markets are not as global and they take breaks.

Good times for Bitcoin holders ahead, once again. I think we'll see the ETF around 2020 with an active lightning network, and the march towards 6 figures a Bitcoin will begin.

The very second a miner starts mining at a loss it means he has a hidden agenda. Isn't it strange to you that Coinbase has put this arbitrary "48 hour limit" to decide and stick to what they will be listing as BTC? It sounds to me that they have the money to mine S2X chain at a loss for at least 48 hours, then they could be able to stop the bribing and keep listing S2X as BTC and then point at how they followed what they said they would do.

Bitcoin has the potential to become worth several trillions. A government would sure find incentives in having people like Jeff Garzik (bloq) as the main dev of the main branch of the software so they can make a call and introduce changes in the protocol that would benefit them. This is a war for power, everyone knows doubling the blocksizes solves nothing, and BCash is already out there for these that want cheaper transactions without caring about running an affordably sovereign node.

Bitmain has already threatened with attacking the chain before, this is not new, so you get ready for such an scenario before it happens.

Hashrate matters because in order to dump the shitcoin (B2X in this case) for the real bitcoin (BTC) you need SOME hashrate in order to do these transactions. I've heard experts claiming that 20% of hashrate is enough to survive and make these transactions viable. Even if it takes 100 blocks to get them confirmed, the market will find it's way to dump the shitcoin and put miners into a position where they have to either keep mining at a loss while the bribe money keeps coming, or stop being an idiot and go mine the real BTC because it will be more valuable.

It depends on how much they trust their bribers in keeping delivering money, how much they got, and how much of an idiot they are in general. When the bribing money is over, they will be facing bankruptcy, the question is again, how much money do bribers have to keep sustaining the attack?

And I have no doubt Brian Armstrong and co are going to get their asses sued after this.

But their goal is to potentially launch an attack on bitcoin, forcing the legacy chain to change the PoW hashing algorithm into something else so the attack isn't effective. This is a disaster in itself, so im not sure what we could call "real Bitcoin" anymore if we reach that point. The question is: how much money can the attackers spend on bribing miners to mine at a loss? Since Coinbase and Gemini talked about 48 hours approximately, it seems they have to spend for 2 days at least in order for Coinbase and Gemini to list B2X as BTC.

As we all know, there is a lot of hashrate with an intention to mine Jeff Garzik's coin, also known as Segwit2x, B2X, S2X, or any of the different flavors.

We know that this 95%, 90%, 80%, or whatever percentage number of intention of miner is total bullshit and will be exposed once the market starts talking. But we also know that there is bribing going on, in order to incentivize miners to keep mining at a loss, probably covering their losses + an extra profit for the effort. Obviously their goal is to kick "Core" and establish themselves as the main branch developers.

The question is, how much money can they waste on bribing miners to cover their losses? If this is an operation funded by US Government, PBOC, or whatever other similar institution, they can print a lot of fiat to keep miners mining at a loss. This could be a problem. Don't forget that none of these NYA signers care about Bitcoin's sovereignty, they just want more fiat.

We'll see. Im not sold on the whole idea of smart ontracts just yet. We all saw what happened with the DAO, so if you want to make a smart contract viable, you still need to solve some fundamental problems that I still haven't seen solved, because the smart contracts themselves can have flaws and it can turn into a nice clusterfuck for hackers to exploit.

What I see as very valid is simplier smart contracts. Locktime verify is a smart contract for example.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-October/015217.html

The abstract:


This looks like an improved Bitcoin Script, which could be delivered in a softfork just like segwit.

I wonder: Do "smart contract" altcoins have any future? Between this and sidechains like Rootstock, it's going to be thought for alts when it comes to justifying their existence. Why are people going to want to deal with more tokens when BTC does everything'

I like the initiative of making Bitcoin Core nodes set up faster, but unfortunately, I don't think it's safe to download the Bitcoin blockchain from anywhere in the world but through the client itself as it validates it.

If you download it from a 3rd party, you risk that the blockchain has been somehow modified. The only way to know they are the exact same files as the ones being delivered by the client itself is through a checksum of sorts, but you would need to trust someone else to do that too.

Maybe im too paranoid, but I would rather go through the annoying process of downloading it myself on the Bitcoin Core client even if it's slower.

The only knowledge you could get back in 2008-2009 was the bitcoin dev mailing list... still to date the best thing to read on how things were built and developed. At the time, only satoshi and Hal Finney were interacting with each other (I think Hal Finney is satoshi but I will not go into that)

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/

There are older emails too between satoshi and Finney, not sure when the bitcoin dev mailing list was started but the archive only goes back to 2011

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/finneynakamotoemails.pdf

I dont know what you mean with manuscript exactly. I guess the only thing you could call that is the whitepaper itself.

Their main argument is that since they have the most hashpower, it's everyone else which should be adding replay protection, not them. I call total bullshit on this claim, it's them that are trying to hardfork, not the rest of the world, therefore they should get shit done before coming up with the fantastic idea of a hardfork consisting on bribed CEO's while the rest of the community doesn't want any of this.

This hardfork will be solved as the rest: It will get dumped, and miners will either go bankrupt trying to mine B2X at a loss, or act ractional and mine the most valuable chain (the legacy chain). I give it a month max until the hardfork is resolved completely. Jeff Garzik will not win.

Yes, another reason hardforks are a pain in the ass is that since you have to move around your cold storage into new addresses, if you have receiving addresses that other people have to send you period payments, you will need to tell them to update to a new address in the wallet you are using. For example, everyone in signature campaigns will need to tell managers to change their addresses after the fork if you want to access the coins on the other chain (because you will need to move all of your BTC to new BTC addresses before doing so)

You will receive whatever BTC you have in a particular address at the time of the fork.

BTCAddress1 has 0.24 BTC

B2XAddress1 has 0.24 BTC

Both are the same address, but BTC means BTC chain, B2X means segwit2x chain.

The point of moving BTCAddress1 into a new BTCAddress2 is to avoid replay attack due matching addresses on both chains. Just do this before anything else and you will be OK.

I don't see how a bonds collapse could be avoided at this point, it's simply too much of a clusterfuck to dodge. A president of the United States, be it Trump or the next one, is going to need to deal with it. They either try to pass laws to try to make the agony longer to attempt to pass the problem upon the next president, or they burst the bubble (but no president is courageous enough to want to go through that).

Meanwhile, the millennials buying Bitcoin that are now being ridiculed by the boomers will be laughing as Bitcoin reaches new heights while boomers wish they bought as they try to dump their bonds.

Im not sure i've understood your message, seems like you are confused. Let's make it simple with a step by step list:

-Make a backup of your Bitcoin Core wallet.dat file
-Close your client and rename the wallet.dat file to something else (wallet1.dat) then open it again so a new wallet.dat is created
-Create receiving addresses for your bitcoins, copy them on a txt file, close your client.
-Rename this wallet.dat to something else (wallet2.dat) and rename wallet1.dat back into wallet.dat to access it
-Proceed to send all of your coins to the addresses that you've saved in a txt file that belong to the now named wallet2.dat
-Once your wallet is empty, you are now safe to move this empty wallet into whatever fork's coins you want to access (let's say, the Bitcoin ABC client for Bitcoin Cash, the btc1 client for B2X...)
-Don't forget to rename wallet2.dat back to wallet.dat so you can access your actual BTC
-Once you have synced the fork's client, your coins will show up, and now you can send them to an exchange because the addresses will not be matching with the legacy chain. I recommend dumping them for more BTC.

Even if a fork claims to have replay protection, always empty your wallet first by moving your coins to avoid matching addresses and wait for a while to confirm everything is working, then you can transact as usual.

I've been monitoring all day. My eyes are dry, red, and sore, but it was worth it. My prediction for the ascending triangle breakout came true, and we crossed $6000. The Bitcoin Gold nonsense is already over. Now we are going to try to break the last all time high, and we are going to do this before November 19th which is where the damn segwit2x nonsense will end into a hardfork, then is anywhere's guess what will follow.

A lot of people will lose their money, except the smart people that are holding their own coins and not doing anything stupid, like sending BTC into an B2X address. What I think it's clear is, long term, B2X is pretty dead, what's important is how the situation will unfold during Nov-Dec. By January 2018 we should have a clear winner which hopefully is BTC going into 5 figures with dead big blockers.

The segwit2x plan consists on a teamed up Coinbase+miners bribed mining at a loss during 48 hours in order for Coinbase to list, and stick to, the BTC tag for the segwit2x chain. In other words, they will list B2X as BTC which will be really confusing for noobs. Their excuse will be that the highest difficulty was on their side for these 48 hours that their arbitrarily choose as a threshold. This is of course because of the ongoing bribes.

We'll see how this resolves, but I can see serious class actions and subpoenas coming for Coinbase.

You just can't trust exchanges, not a single one. Control your keys and interact with them as minimum as possible. Get your money in and out and avoid giving them your personal information, they are crooks.

If Venezuelans can make a good profit mining due cheap electricity, they are only lacking accepting bitcoins in return of goods and services. If they choose not to, maybe it's their fault for being idiots. They could circumvent the entire fiat mess by doing so, but they still choose to carry bags of papers to do groceries.

I guess they can't afford a cheap phone or tablet to install electrum? or they just refuse to accept bitcoin payments? because on than that case then that's their fault.

The future for niche use cases in blockchain should be sidechains/drivechains (not sure what the difference is between these 2) but the point is, blockchains that are backed by the main bitcoin blockchain and benefit from its hashrate and so on (even tho it could also be mined on its own I think), also no need to create a damn new token each time. Brief explanation by Andreas A here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t6ejqkErfU

But how can I sell it if I can't access it? I got my coins in a Bitcoin Core wallet.dat file, im looking at the https://bitcoingold.org/ website and under the "Wallets" section, all I see is:

-Coinomi
-Guarda
-Freewallet

So what the hell im looking at? It's confusing. Why isn't there a "Bitcoin Core Gold" software so I can safely access the coins? I must be missing something here...

Indeed. The latest 2 big names that i've heard after the Jamie Dimon and Robert Shiller FUD are Al-Waleed Bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al Saud (yes, that's his full name, and he has 20 billion networth, a Saudi prince) claiming Bitcoin is a bubble.

Warren Buffet, another billionaire investor, recently claimed BTC is a bubble too (funny that Al-Waleed is called the "arabian Warren Buffet")

I noticed how Jamie Dimon and Peter Schiff are claiming how "it could go to $100,000 before it crashes". This is how "in case im wrong... I will still be right" looks like.

The blockchain is not really intended to fill it with stuff other than bitcoin transactions, but you can add messages to your transactions. Example:

https://eternitywall.it/

So you could post a link there, or just identify yourself as owner of a certain BTC address and sign messages with your address, but I don't see how you can actually put big walls of text there, let alone attach pictures or other things.