I wish blockchain.info told you the size of your transaction prior to sending. It is currently not possible to tell how large your transaction is (as far as I know) for the purpose of estimating or calculating the fee you should attach. The suggested amount it uses doesn't provide the basis for the calculation either.
your post made me check the whole 'suggested fee' thing. I am using (windows client) v0.12.1 and it suggests 0.00446029 BTC/kb per transaction for 'estimated to begin within 25 blocks'. This was about a minute after block 456032, dunno how fluid that is and how often it changes. The 0.00446029 being a bit bizarre since it's quite a bit above the 0.0020604~ that was paid for the cheapest transaction in 456032. Cheapest in 456033 is 0.0015821. Oh, it did just change. Now it's 0.0045942. Anyway, I sent transaction @ 0.0016001 and it did take 3 blocks to confirm, probably should have looked a bit longer, re; I based the price on block 456030 which was block #4 in a 10m period or so. Transaction size -- the windows clients reports the total fee calculation and then you're given the option of sending or not, or at least it does with the custom setting per kilobyte. Unsure if suggested setting does, as I've never used that. I've noticed that the fee/b suggested by blockchain.info's is far above what you would think to pay based on information available from thsi site: http://bitcoinfees.21.co/ You can only figure out the fee/b though after you send a transaction because then you can see what the transaction size was, and divide it by the fee to see the rate. It doesn't often seem to be close to the site listed above. I think they overestimate though so transactions go super fast, which is good for speed but bad for cost efficiency. |
|
|
|
we will have digital currencies in before 15 years, in good "modern" countries... BEFORE. Im sure
You don't have to look too far. The major fiat currencies of today already serve as digital currencies. The dollar, Euro, and Yen, not to mention many smaller currencies in major modern economies, already serve many more digital transactions than cash transactions. The only difference between fiat digital transactions and cryptocurrency transactions is the level of anonymity. This is perhaps the only place that bitcoin has an advantage over digital fiat, because fiat is superior in every other category, including the most important one: price stability. |
|
|
|
I think that this bitcoin replacing dollar will not be in 15 years maybe later maybe in 20-30 years because dollar is too important for America economy so i dont see reason now for replacing it for crpytocurrency and it will replace also other values if world war 3 dont start or other type of apocalypse.
There's currently nothing that bitcoin does better than the USD. Speed of transactions, transaction fees, ubiquity, store of value, and heck even digital state... USD does them all better, so how exactly is bitcoin ever going to become the preferred unit of exchange? Most people point to it's digital status without realizing that the USD is also mostly digital at this point. Of all these things that bitcoin doesn't do better than the dollar, the thing that hurts it the most is unstable store of value (volatility is good for traders but terrible for transactions or saving), and the transaction fees that have become prohibitive due to network congestion. |
|
|
|
|
Zero hedge is slightly more reputable than infowars as far as integrity of information goes. That is to say, it's slightly less of a raging dumpster fire than the trash that falls out of Alex Jones' gaping maw. The website has dozens of writers who all post under the same anonymous pseudonym (so much for journalistic integrity and accountability) and Bloomberg traced ownership to some disgraced former eastern European hedge fund analyst who was barred from the financial industry for insider trading. That should tell you all you need to know about how far you can trust anything that appears on that website. Post those sources at your own risk.
|
|
|
|
|
The new interest feature is a pleasant surprise since it was completely unexpected. I am curious though, what made you fix the APY at 4.08%? I realize the APY is a result of the daily rate which is compounded daily, so I guess a more accurate question is how did you decide what the daily interest rate would be?
Also, this is just out of curiosity as well, but is the time the interest is credited truly random (generated by computer perhaps) or just variable (initiated manually but at no set time)?
|
|
|
|
According to the USGS, the earthquake risk to Oklahoma and southern Kansas equals that of California. Unlike California, which sits on major fault lines, Oklahoma's problem is considered to be a direct cause of fracking. The largest earthquake ever recorded in Oklahoma occurred just last year (5.  . Between 1980 and 2000, there were only about 2 earthquakes above 2.7 per year, but there were 2,500 in 2014 and over 4.000 in 2015. For every barrel of oil produced by fracking, about 50 barrels of waste water and chemicals are injected into the ground. Absent the earthquakes, I wonder about the environmental impact of fracking. I guess the earthquakes are just the icing on the cake. Source: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oklahome-earthquake-20170301-story.html |
|
|
|
I didnt think it was as high as 80 to balance their budget, hardly struggling exactly but Saudi Arabia is also issuing their own bonds. I do think to do such things they might be better to demand payment in their own currency and if Trump continues his alteration of long term policies who knows. I know Iran has big problems with higher costs, lack of investment for many decades. BP is moving into Iran despite losing half their company there in the seventies, must be extreme.
Actually I was wrong. Saudi Arabia needs a crude oil price of $104 per barrel to balance its budget (perhaps they can adjust slightly by increasing the production). There is not a single oil producing country, which can survive at $55 per barrel in the long term. Check this:  But this is a two-dimensional view of a multi-dimensional issue. This looks solely at oil as the changing factor in a balanced budget without regard to all of the other variables which determine whether or not a budget is balanced. For example, it ignores all other sources of revenue and budget cuts and focuses solely on a static budget that doesn't change, and all other sources of revenue are assumed not to change as well. It's far less important if the country can "balance the budget with the current price of oil" than if the country can produce oil at a profit at a particular price. Then, by definition, all oil production decreases the budget deficit. Concluding that a country cannot sell oil at a particular price because it doesn't allow them to balance the budget is not a sound conclusion. It's only an issue if they can't make a profit at the price. The bolded bit is very true. The issue with Saudi is that it doesn't have a balanced economy, it is entirely oil driven. Whereas Iran's economy is much more diverse - they export Caviar for example, plus Persian carpets, they have good agricultural land, so they can export food as well. I'm pretty sure Iran will win it's battle for domination against the Saudis because their economy is more diversified. The figures you have for the level of oil price needed to balance Iran's economy are from before the sanctions were lifted. Now sanctions are lifted, they can export lots of other stuff too, which helps them cope. Granted, the Saudi reliance on oil is significant compared to other nations. But Saudi Arabia is already on a quest to diversify the economy. The sovereign wealth fund is aimed at transporting the economy to be less oil-dependent, and the sale of part of Saudi Aramco in an IPO has been publicly acknowledged to be for the purpose of shoring up the sovereign wealth fund for this exact purpose. Other oil-rich nations have so far had more success diversifying away from oil, especially UAE, which has been working to establish a robust tourism industry with its oil wealth before the oil runs dry. |
|
|
|
I didnt think it was as high as 80 to balance their budget, hardly struggling exactly but Saudi Arabia is also issuing their own bonds. I do think to do such things they might be better to demand payment in their own currency and if Trump continues his alteration of long term policies who knows. I know Iran has big problems with higher costs, lack of investment for many decades. BP is moving into Iran despite losing half their company there in the seventies, must be extreme.
Actually I was wrong. Saudi Arabia needs a crude oil price of $104 per barrel to balance its budget (perhaps they can adjust slightly by increasing the production). There is not a single oil producing country, which can survive at $55 per barrel in the long term. Check this: But this is a two-dimensional view of a multi-dimensional issue. This looks solely at oil as the changing factor in a balanced budget without regard to all of the other variables which determine whether or not a budget is balanced. For example, it ignores all other sources of revenue and budget cuts and focuses solely on a static budget that doesn't change, and all other sources of revenue are assumed not to change as well. It's far less important if the country can "balance the budget with the current price of oil" than if the country can produce oil at a profit at a particular price. Then, by definition, all oil production decreases the budget deficit. Concluding that a country cannot sell oil at a particular price because it doesn't allow them to balance the budget is not a sound conclusion. It's only an issue if they can't make a profit at the price. |
|
|
|
I will go for investing my bitcoins in altcoins as that is the best place to make profits instead of investing in online in any investment program as there is no guarantee of getting profits but if I manage to invest in good altcoins then it can give me good profits and at a moment there are many good altcoins which has an ability to give extraordinary profits in future.
There are so few altcoins that have maintained value for an extended period of time that you couldn't interest me in altcoins to any large degree. Altcoins are a fad among cryptos, which itself could turn out to be a fad when zooming out your perspective on what has only had value for an incredibly short amount of time, and in quite a volatile fashion at that. Most altcoins will probably continue to approach zero over time due to the fact that they do not add much value to what bitcoin does. |
|
|
|
And what does it change in practice?
Some folks may freak out even if the stock goes down just a few percentages (why they are buying stocks in the first place is another question, though). I guess the very fact of buying trash stocks has already plenty of irrationality in it built in. If you were rational, you would most likely stay away from such stocks altogether (unless you have insider information, of course). People are eager to hope for something out of nothing (just look at ICOs), and when the stocks they have bought in mostly futile hopes of future hefty profits invariably crash, they panic sell them
High risk stocks carry the opportunity for high reward. That's not irrational; it's a question of your appetite for risk. If you're looking to take on a lot of risk in hopes of high gains, that's rational. But I am saying that my definition of panic selling necessitates an element of irrationality of thought. The things you listed, (selling out of a company that was found to be fraudulent, for example) would not be an irrational selling, so it would not be panic selling. For me, fast selling and panic selling are not synonymous. The differentiatior is whether or not there is a degree of rationality. Selling out of ICOs (or IPOs, or any stock holding for that matter) because the price is dropping (and solely without consideration of anything else) would fit my definition of panic selling. But selling out of an ICO (or anything else) because the price is dropping and you have no expectation that the coin or company serves any market function and the economic prospects are therefore impaired, would not be, because it's based on a rational investment thesis This seems to be a moot point But my point is that you can't easily tell the first from the second, while trash stocks (as well as most ICOs, for that matter) generally have more irrationality in them. It is so simply because expecting higher returns for higher risks is not rational itself (unless you are an insider). It is more like gambling, though unlike the latter when you (start to) lose you have a chance of constraining your losses by quickly selling out failing stocks in your portfolio Whether you can tell easily or not whether something is panic selling has no effect on whether it's actually panic sellingHigher reward for higher risk is the cornerstone of capitalism. It's not only rational, it's beyond question. Why do risky borrowers have to pay higher interest rates? Because the higher risk demands a higher potential return on the investment by the lender. Expecting higher returns for higher risk is exactly why people invest in riskier assets. It's the epitome of rationalism. You can sell out of a risky investment to pare losses, and it can be either a panic sell or it could not be a panic sell. The determinant is whether you're doing so emotionally (irrationally) or with a clear head (rationally). Just because something is irrational doesn't make it ultimately wrong. You could save yourself money by acting irrationally and still have the action be irrational because of the motivation that drove it. I suppose that's how my definition of panic selling differs from yours. The sole qualifier is the motivation for the sell, not the degree or risk of the investment. You are contradicting your own claims At first, you say that it is entirely determined by your attitude in respect to how you are selling, i.e. whether you are selling in panic or not, and then you basically proceed to claim that this is irrelevant since this cannot be used as yardstick (or determinant, in your speak). But what can then be? Maybe, I'm missing something in your logic. Regarding higher rewards for higher risk being the cornerstone of capitalism, that has nothing to do with capitalism as such. If you are gambling and getting just that (i.e. higher rewards for higher risks) does it mean that it is capitalism too? Apart from that, irrational simply cannot be judged in terms of wrong and right. It is just irrational. In fact, I just say that higher rewards coupled with higher risk have more irrationality built in. I don't say that anyone can't actually get these rewards in the end The point on reward:risk was only that expecting higher return on a riskier investment is by definition not irrational, as that is 1) logical and 2) the underpinning of capitalism. Expecting a lower return on a riskier investment would be irrational. The degree of risk solely does not determine rationality; rationality can only be determined as a function of risk and reward (in this specific context). Any contradiction in regards to my other point on panic selling is a function of evolving my own definition on the matter as you've given me new points to consider. |
|
|
|
Have added satoshi dice again , after lot of problems there and they added 2fa for security. Bankroll is low so probably a good time to start get back in there.
After a lot of problems like what? Are you concerned about investing in a casino bankroll when it has problems, and the bankroll is historically low? It seems there's two levels of risk there: that other investors might be leaving because the problems render the operation too risky, thus making the company unstable, or two, if everything is perfectly fine operationally, low bankroll produces more variance risk for those providing it to a large winner. Of course, inherent in that risk is the outsized reward for backing the house with a low bankroll, but that reward doesn't alleviate the risk associated from the first scenario. |
|
|
|
I actually think that gold is better than bitcoin. however, it is very difficult to get the gold, so I decided to look for bitcoin. perhaps, winning gold in the price, and long-term investment is excellent. but, with bitcoin, although we do not know if it's a good investment in the long term or not, you can still make bitcoin that you have become more the other way.
Warren Buffet has a very interesting quote on gold, that I am paraphrasing here: 'We dig it out of the ground, melt it down, then dig another hole in the ground, bury it, and pay someone to stand around guarding it. It has no utility.' Aside from the fact that there are some utility applications, to the larger extent, he's right. There's not a real good reason gold is valued other than random chance. That's not something that makes for a good investment, since it's arbitrary. |
|
|
|
|
Got an e-mail this morning about deposit bonuses for the pay to play section of the site. 100% deposit bonus for a 1 btc deposit. Is the bonus only for a 1 btc deposit, or is it a match up to 1 btc? Also, what are the restrictions on the bonus? For example, how are you protecting yourself from people who deposit to get the bonus, then withdraw the deposit amount to then play with the bonus money only?
|
|
|
|
I play freebitco.in from my android, so I did not go to the part where are RP,
I did not know that they can now be exchanged for different things, If you have less RP of course.
I'm interested in the part where you can claim each get 10 times more RP.
It costs 1,200 RP, and if I do that day 16 claim I'm ahead for 400 RP?
Yes, it is possible to come out ahead using this feature and your math is correct. If you spend 1200 RP to earn a bonus 100 RP per spin, it would take 12 spins to break even, and after that every spin puts you better off than you were before. If you spin 16 times while the bonus is active, you would have 400 more RP than when you started. |
|
|
|
|
I wish blockchain.info told you the size of your transaction prior to sending. It is currently not possible to tell how large your transaction is (as far as I know) for the purpose of estimating or calculating the fee you should attach. The suggested amount it uses doesn't provide the basis for the calculation either.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion the halving is very good .as because of halving the price of bitcoins would go high up as the demand of bitcoin would increase.it is also done to make the price of bitcoin make more stable and i dont think it was any bad intentions.
Nope, Halving is not pure "good" effects on bitcoin because in the other side, Halving can be a risky event for bitcoin because it halves the block reward which will make the miners to earn less than they earn before and also if the prices dump after halving then it will be a hype for the other bitcoin users to sell their bitcoins too. Not all the times, the prices go up because it is always up to the investors,miners and hodlers. No one is setting prices, it's purely a function of where supply meets demand of the traders across all the exchanges. Bitcoin is perhaps one of the most free-market goods available, and the volatility speaks to that with sentiment and rumor sometimes affecting the price more than it would in any other type of good. There's nothing supporting Bitcoin price except mass consensus, because Bitcoin doesn't fundamentally do anything another currency (digital or physical) can't also do much cheaper (fee-wise). |
|
|
|
I think the current raise in bitcoin can be attributed by block halving and other factors of course and I guess we are just seeing the benefits of it.
No way, the next halving will occur at 2020, its far away to be from those event, at June we had the halving already and price went from 400 to 600 dollars, if were those you were refering. The halving is good for bitcoin as it make it get more value over time, if we remove the halving we will have a coin of pump and dump and just that. Yeah that's true I remember when the last halving happened the price was really high that time. And I also agree if there's no halving bitcoin would have never been what it has been able to be today for sure. And by the next halving the price will be 5000$+ for sure or maybe more than that. Next halving will happen at Saturday, 27 Jun 2020 which 3 years later. I agree it is good for bitcoin to limit the supply meanwhile the demand keep increase. Miners will generate less bitcoin but the fees should be enough as the price at that time maybe just like you said, reach $5000, my prediction around $3500 per BTC1. I hope the fees to send bitcoin doesn't exceed $0.5 or people will consider it is not cheap anymore even though it is affordable for some users. If Bitcoin reaches prices like that, it will probably be probitively expensive to use it to transfer value any longer. Look at the fees right now, miners are increasingly demanding higher fees to even consider processing transactions. Current rates are around 100 sats/byte to process a lower priority transaction, which puts the average transaction price at 20k says for a simpler (low input/output) transaction. If Bitcoin ever reaches $5000, that would put the transaction fee at $1 per transaction, which is a ridiculous fee to pay for each transaction. Also consider that as rewards are reduced, miners demand more fees to compensate for the loss of income there. This transaction fee issue is only going to get larger in the future and become a major impediment to bitcoin growth. |
|
|
|
Most of us are hoping to see big rises in bitcoin prices in the next few months and years maybe upto 1500$+. It may take some time and maybe associated with dips in prices as well. But then I am also hoping prices to reach such amounts and hoping to sell much of my coins then. It will be a big profit then. Otherwise I will just hold the coins and sell at other prices when targets reach.
It might take a few months to achieve $1500. There will be dips, not worry. I am ready for dips. In fact I hope prices dip upto 300$ so I can buy more again. I am a very patient type of trader enough to hold coins upto a decade. I never panic on the field or get tensed specially since its bitcoin. Selling everything is never my thing again. In that case its difficult to get back into the business. One thing I do often is sell smaller parts of it to book profits and then bank that. Maybe reinvest it later on as well. I think if the price dropped from the $1200 range to $300, many people would be wondering about the future of Bitcoin, not backing up the truck to load up on a coin whose future is suddenly in doubt. A 75% decline would cause panic. I think people talking about how much they would buy if it dropped to $300 take for granted that it will automatically rise again in the future. Nothing works that way. There are no guarantees. If the price dropped so severely, it is probably because the future outlook has been greatly diminished. |
|
|
|
I am sorry to hear about your losses which could have bought you a new Mercedes but it is pretty unusual for a bank to close an account with so much money in it. I am sure something fraudulent happened with your account and hence they have closed it with proper legal advice.
However, banks are the backbone of any country's economy and hence they are way more powerful than any common man or any other institution. So it is really hard for us to fight with them. Try filling a court case against the bank and see what happens. If nothing illegal happened in your account, most likely you will get your money back.
When a bank closes an account, they don't just get to keep the money. That would set up a perverted incentive structure to find as many reasons to close accounts as they can so they can just confiscate any funds in the bank. Allowing such a policy would lead to a lack of confidence in the banks. A bank doesn't have to open an account for you, but they can't steal your money either. |
|
|
|
The American frackers don't have the flexibility which Saudi Arabia and Russia enjoys. Their rigs are located in complicated terrain, and it takes some time to either start, or to shut down the pumping of crude oil. Finding the labor force is another hassle. If they pump crude oil at full speed now, then the oil prices will crash and their revenues will take a hit. Yes and no. The US frackers are preparing for trumps US oil independence. Of course they wont be able to compete with the sauds, russia or iran except in the case trump will enact a tariff for importing oil - which he said he will. Slapping an import tax on foreign oil is going to anger a lot of Americans. It isn't going to make American oil more competitive by magically reducing the cost of it. It's going to drive up the cost of oil domestically because we'll be using more domestic oil which costs more to produce. That cost will go straight to consumers. It's not a practical solution, and if he tries t he's going to find it politically untenable. Yes i agree. But that is the only way to archieve US oil independence. We know that the US has enough oil it is just too expensive to extract. Edit He could also remove enviromental safety laws regarding fracking/oil extraction which could further lower the production cost. If i remember right he wanted to do that too. Oil independence at that cost isn't worth it. What is the benefit of not using foreign oil when domestic gas prices are artificially high because you have a protectionist agenda in place? The country would be oil independent if it put more focus into renewables and you wouldn't have any of the negative consequences to the environment on top of it. Fracking is already incredibly dirty, and that's when companies are following the rules that are in place. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
