|
The lesson is you should never speak about financial advises to anyone as long as you are accountant, CA, broker or some other form of expert investor. If it is going to be common or regular investor status then be it, just have your personal investments. Don't talk about it to anyone don't let others know about it. This is even better since you can preserver your anonymity status in the world of bitcoin and have more confidence on your own investment. If you are going to just brag about it everywhere then devil eyes gonna come look for you and worst things can happen when it comes to Bitcoin holdings.
As far the investment and pressurizing it to your mother was really bad move mate. I can never imagine myself forcing my mum into something she doesn't understand at all? Even before that always remember above points about privacy of investment and then only ask someone else to get into it. Or rather avoid it and let them be themselves.
|
|
|
|
That is interesting partnership but with future ties. Anything can happen in between until January 2024. I am more or less happy that these countries are coming together as alliances of East! I am not sure how far BRICS will go but it looks like they have started to free up their main engines just now. This will help them prosper in many ways as various trade route open ups for them leaving behind all the grudges. The trade routes, manufacturing support, labors, and raw material supply chain will be readily available in that circle and thus boosting the economies for them. The world needs that just right now since everything is moving very fast and silk roads are not the next gen stuff due to lack of new thinking. Just having smartphone 1-100 version or AI's replacing the human jobs ain't gonna help it. BRICS and upcoming nations are looking at it very differently and it can definitely help them progress unidirectionally. These countries are Egypt, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Argentina. So, what are they going to call it now? BI CAUSERIES? BRICS EU I SEA? BECAUSE SIRI? There are so many possibilities with those extra letters  That could be BRICS-ALLINCES or may be BRICSAL. |
|
|
|
Welcome to the forum. You have already passed the test of design, UI with immersive gameplay and obviously number of brands of games that are involved is up to the mark. As gambler it is always important to understand the terms of conditions and what is being stated in the announcements. I see that we always end up having arguments on KYC requirement and you can already see that there bunch of highly reputed casinos in this section that are getting bugged up with the KYC allegations. I’m not being very harsh here but it seems you have mentioned we have relaxed KYC but it should be mentioned clearly down to micro details. As per your ToS with only 2000 USDT one needs to start the KYC that doesn’t seem to be relaxed terms. There are many casinos those with higher limits of withdrawal before one could trigger the KYC requirement. 5.4. Empire.io reserves the right to carry out additional KYC verification procedures for any withdrawal exceeding 2,000 USDT or the same value in cryptocurrencies, as regulated by our gaming license, and further reserves the right to carry out such verification procedures in case of smaller withdrawals, as demanded by our gaming license. Account Holders who wish to recover funds held in a closed, locked or excluded account, are advised to contact Customer Support. Source is Empire.io ToS |
|
|
|
... I don't think Theymos has the intention of implementing 2FA authentication in this forum anytime soon.
He is, and theymos already give a thumbs up on what PowerGlove is creating [1], it will be up anytime soon actually. But let's see until theymos implement it successfully coz it's something a pain in the as merging to the current forum. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5457330.0PowerGlove seems to be making this into a reality soon. I think adding 2FA definitely has got many advantages. It id one of it's kind that can secure your identity for sure. I know that signing a message can be done effectively on this forum and it is already been done with staked bitcoin addresses however there is no harm at all in having additional security like this. If one address can be staked then hundreds of them can be stakes from different accounts too. I think there are loop holes to it for sure. It's frequent phenomenon that people lose their 2fa keys and if it's decentralized app there is no recovery option available and they get locked out. If 2FA gets implemented, we all should be aware of the possibility of this to happen here on bitcointalk as well.
My idea is to leverage the combination of 2FA + Staked BTC address to enhance the security of user account, this is by giving user an option to recover 2FA keys with staked Bitcoin address in case user loses the 2FA key. While enabling 2FA, staking Bitcoin address should be must.
Also, 2FA implementation shouldn't be based on mobile number, mobile numbers are weak link in many crypto attacks. Stick with authenticator app, thank you!
This is also excellent thought. Having 2FA based on your cryptographic identification. May be something related to your signed message only. This signed message can be synched up with the back end algorithm that will verify it on continuous basis and then verify the real identity of the account. This way bot the things can get verified, address holder, the account holder, and will have amazing security too. |
|
|
|
I asked him if he will want cash, bank transfer or Bitcoin, to my surprise he answered Bitcoin, I don't take this very seriously because, you know, most people don't care about Bitcoin here, but he brought out his smartphone and told me to scan the QR CODE.
I asked if he really his serious and he said yes, I had to pay him in Bitcoin and he said something that caught my attention.
He said people don't ask that's why he believed no one is using Bitcoin as payment.
The plumbers sense of judgment is really nice. This is actually coming from the practical example that means he must have had experiences with other customers too. Who knows he might also have asked himself to other customers that whether they are willing to pay him in the form of Bitcoin or not? It could have been possible that only 1 out of 10 said yes to him because that is what the current population knows about Bitcoin. Surprisingly he mate you and you came to know the grim reality of using bitcoin as real world application. It is nothing new in many developed countries that new generations are already playing with bitcoin. There are even many stores who has the sticker for Bitcoin Accepted Here. It is not the merchant, or handful people but it is the major walking crowd that is not interested in paying with bitcoin. It will only change eventually but there is certainty for the same. You had good experience by the way. I might try this as well just to check how it goes here.  |
|
|
|
You're asking different things. In the title, you're asking if it's okay to install the same wallet on different devices. I'd say that's fine (as long as the wallet itself can be trusted). Then, you're asking this: Now I want to ask whether there are Wallets that are secure, synchable in between the desktop app and mobile app together? I don't think this exists. The transactions (in a HD wallet) will of course be synced through the blockchain, but the wallet itself (including the address labels) won't get synchronized. For example if I am going to set up the wallet on desktop then I will have to enter the Private key there. In similar ways when I will set the wallet on my phone then also I will have to set the private key there. That will work. Is it going to be issue to insert my private keys on two different devices? Well, "it depends": you asked for "wallets that are secure", but you should also make sure the OS is secure. If you use the same wallet on different devices, you need to make sure they're all secure. Will there be an issue? Only if your phone gets compromised. Or your desktop. And that's the issue: you don't know that until it's too late, but by doing so, you're doubling the risk. And that's why I wouldn't do it.
I think you need to take a step back: what are you trying to accomplish? If you own a small amount in Bitcoin that you can afford to lose, you can just do what you're suggesting. It will be very convenient and you know (and accept) the risk. But, and I assume that applies to most people: if you want to get an increasingly larger amount of Bitcoin, it's better to create different wallets for different purposes (and that's what I do). Sometimes I use the same wallet brand, sometimes I use the same seed, sometimes it's watch-only, and some are different wallets. That doesn't mean they're all loaded, but that's not really the point. And then there's privacy. If you have $5 trillion in your mobile wallet, your local barista may be tempted to hit you on the head. And if you buy a jet, you may not want the seller to know you bought 2 jets from his competitor the other day. Separate wallets for different purposes are great for privacy! Jee makes lot of sense now. I think I know what I was going to do and it was entirely wrong concept that I had back of the mind. I think it is best to follow what you said in the summary, have different wallets for different purposes. Since there is no limit on how many addresses I can generate I think it is perfectly fine that I just keep the devices concept away for now. I mean exposing the same private key over and over on different device could bring me in a situation of mumble jumble! Of course, if I am holding trillions then I am definitely going to keep it low profile about my wallet.  I think you need to take a step back: Yes, I already did after reading few of the replies initially. I am more or less going to trust paper wallet and hardware wallet. I wouldn't mind creating different one's as you mentioned. Thanks for the heads up and also replying the long answer :-) |
|
|
|
Reading through the coin desk's newsletter today I came across news about Robin Hood and it's holding analysis. Apparently the HOOD company has reached Top #3 in the list of who holds the most Bitcoin in the world. Current stats:
Binance : ~ $6.3 billion
Bitfinex : ~ $4.3 billion
Hood : ~ $ 3.0 billionThat's a lot of money under one roof of each entity mentioned above. It should make us think whether this is good or bad to Bitcoin economy? Since these much Bitcoin are under their custody they have full control of it and we have already seen what happens when such entities get hacked for their data leak. The case of FTX is the biggest lesson for us. However, having that much significant amount can also be good for bitcoin economy since it is in holding for long terms. It is like having that much less Bitcoin in the circulation. It may or may not have an effect on the demand and supply but I wanna ask, does it have any? Robinhood Revealed to be Third-Largest Bitcoin Holder With $3B in BTC
Robinhood transferred some 118,300 bitcoin to the wallet from several other smaller wallets over a three-month period.
Investing and trading platform Robinhood (HOOD) holds over $3 billion in bitcoin (BTC) in a single wallet that attracted the holdings over several months, wallet data from Arkham Intelligence shows. This makes it the third-largest bitcoin holder behind crypto exchanges Binance and Bitfinex, which hold $6.4 billion and $4.3 billion worth of tokens on single wallets respectively.
The wallet previously gained notoriety among market watchers in the past few months as the identity of its owners sparked conversations and concerns about who the mysterious owner of such a large amount of bitcoin could be.
As of Monday, Robinhood has not publically commented on these holdings.
The transfers sparked speculations ranging from the bitcoin holdings belonging to financial behemoth BlackRock, which filed for a Bitcoin ETF earlier this year, to crypto exchange Gemini shifting its users’ holdings to a wallet.
Robinhood transferred some 118,300 bitcoin to the wallet from several other smaller wallets over a three-month period, data shows. These tokens are custodied by crypto trading firm Jump Trading, Arkham representatives confirmed to CoinDesk in a Telegram message.
All of these holdings are held on the Bitcoin blockchain. The first transactions were made on March 8, after which huge amounts of bitcoin were transferred until July 14, data from BitInfoCharts show.
Meanwhile, the holdings shed light on the extent of Robinhood’s bitcoin exposure despite low crypto trading volumes on its platform. Source: Robinhood Revealed to be Third-Largest Bitcoin Holder With $3B in BTC |
|
|
|
Oh yes, nice quick slap on the US dollar. Many of them are so overconfident about the dollar, that they can't just accept that a Tier 3 country is rising out of nowhere and becoming the largest economy in the world. In fact it's a shame to call them Tier 3 anymore.  I don't know, the same overconfidence will kill the US economy one day. The debts are crazy high, they are being stupid about their plans and they still think spending more on the military is the power and right thing to do. While they still live and think that no one can touch their asses, the other half of the world is going nuts with their economies. In the future it will take blink of an eye before they get disrupted. This partnership is definitely serious one as PM's agenda is very strict about this. The 15th August was marked as 76th Independence day for the India, and many policies were implemented to drive the nation in whole new direction. I think it's good to see nation like India to grow even faster. They definitely deserve it, they will definitely do it. |
|
|
|
When will the bitcoiners realize bitcoin is just fiat with more steps on a transparent ledger with enforced tax aka network fee. When your nation legalizes it like canada you will pay network fee and tax on top, such wow.
When you pay the network fee where does it go? It goes to the miners and who are the miners? Well as far as I know they are not the government so I think we can safely say that we are not paying the taxes. Now if you are trading Bitcoin on an exchanger that has done your KYC and they are sharing your financial records with the authority and if you are asked to pay the taxes on that “income” then that’s actual tax on your crypto mate. As long as you are in the peer to peer economy I hardly think that it’s gonna be a tax issue. Simpel nobody know a you have bitcoin if you don’t go through any KYC channel. |
|
|
|
Wow, now this is something I am learning new today from the this thread. Though I know solo mining exists but going further and distributing the hash power to someone and getting those cents in the fees is just amazing idea right now. This can definitely set aside new income source on top of the solo mining right? Just one more question while I was reading this, whether we get the reward for the solo mining when we are also sharing the hash to let us say viabtc.com ? Like in the normal case I would be getting my fees for mining and they would be getting added to the account based on difficulty, hash rate etc. So if I am sharing the hash for getting those 7.0 cents per th, will it also take down my pool reward with it? Eh, that's pretty normal. I've had a lot of block-less days without any blocks when I was mining and I never really had to shift away from the pool. The profits in the long run would be the same anyways
If I were you, I would point enough gears to PPS pool to cover the electricity bill for all miners. For example, 10 miners, need 100$ a month in total, and each miner makes 20$ profit. point 5 of them to a PPS pool to make 100$ to pay the whole bill. point 5 of them to solo to mine for "free". This way, all you risking is the "cost" of the miners, in fact, just the devaluation of the cost since you can still sell them at some point. What I am thinking and what is being written here contradicts the statement that is why I am asking this. In any case it seems sharing the hashing power is best way to go for mining and earn enough money after the bills as compared to mining as an individual. I can't imagine the money they would earn if someone had entire farm of miners and dedicated everything for the 7 cent /th ? In short whether it is one income source or two incomes sources with this strategy when someone is doing solo mining? |
|
|
|
|
That depends on bitcoin to dollar relationship in perspective of economic crash. Like if most of the people or entities think that Bitcoin and a dollar has strong relation then definitely whatever changes are happening in fiat world will affect the Bitcoin straight on the face. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to be that strong relation because Bitcoin is way steady since many months now. Yes it’s price is way lower than it’s ATH but that’s related to Bitcoin volatility. As such Bitcoin is not getting affected a dime with dollar depreciation. In fact it could have opposite effect on it and could lead to more investors getting involved in it to move the price above expectation.
|
|
|
|
An episode will be released tomorrow. :3
Nice to hear this news if true, and I almost forgot this youtube channel exists Does anyone know the reason why there was such a big delay, I think last video was released more than a year ago? I think there are a lot of topics to talk about in 2023, both good and bad, and there was new competitions with rewards. Great at least you know that there exist such channel. I am not even aware about this and neither it seems there are many people know about this channel? Looking at the number of subscribers I am pretty sure we are not doing really great about the Bitcointalk Show. I might sound too harsh but it should be community driven program. I think it would be very nice of fellow members and all upcoming members of the BitcoinTalk forum should go and subscribe to this channel. It would be nice gesture for the Mr. Bereded and his channel. I watched most recent video and it seems the host is really enthusiastic about his project. They should also increase the frequency of creating the videos and publishing them more often. Hope to see this channel grow bigger day by day like the Hosts Tummy. |
|
|
|
|
I never knew there is secret thread like that, or perhaps it's a thread that is only known for the garden surfing. That is why all these years I was thinking from where some users are getting high merits even though there posts are just few liners, meaningless, reposted images, sometimes just meme with no words on it and yet they end up getting merits in like dozens of amount. I am not sure how many of them are now going to debate and dislike my freedom of speech but that's definitely insane amount of merit source - source. Practically speaking the merit rush is only seen amongst the people who are either account farmers or those who want to get ranked up quickly and gain high bonuses from the signatures. I mean come on, you should talk the way you want and it doesn't really matter if someone thinks you are right or wrong.
I am posting mostly to learn from various development threads even though I am new to the field. Now and then I am trying to build knowledge based posts or interesting facts and sometimes news articles but it seems that people just love threads that are long dead, already answered thousand times and yet manage to get merits. Definitely full of talent!
|
|
|
|
|
I believe there is debate between two topics here, whether it’s personal stats or based on the entity stats. I think it doesn’t matter if we look at it based on an address and it’s holdings. Since the data is representing in what slot that particular resides it is fun to watch it and understand the distribution over great range of Bitcoin holdings. In my case it straight away tells me that I’m in the lowest possible category and comes in 7% range (or virtually below that, Lolz). This is ok data for studying various holdings. Hope so there is also another data set where they will segregate the entire entity holdings as well as individual holdings. Though it seem impossible to do and may compromise the integrity of holdings.
|
|
|
|
I believe you must have made some research to have discovered a number of these elites ones the richest but unfortunately enough none of them today is being recognized as rich fellow any longer, well many reasons might have been attributed to this because of how the economy was during their own time, some might have died, while some still leaving couldn't have been able to maintain their riches not to talk of transferring them to their children, there are many demands it requires in making one rich and sustaining the riches over generations, i don't know how many richest men of this present dispensation women will still be mentioned in decades to come.
I am not sure about the others and what happened to them but I know a bit about Mansa Musa and Akbar I. Both of them were best kings of their time and their wealth was unlimited due to the fact that they had access to treasures throughout the region where they ruled their dynasty. The problem started when colonies started to form from the European countries. In case of Akbar I, it took lot of time since there were mixed colonisation from around the world in different kingdoms. However, it is said that in case of Musa, they came in quickly since the region was very small. They were able to destroy it just like they did in the fairly modern world. |
|
|
|
I was watching a documentary associated with historical economies and the richest people. You will be shocked to see how much money these people had during the period when having thousands of USD was worth millions to billions in todays conversion rate! I am going to list them from the lowest to highest. If you love it, then do checkout the Top #1 richest man ever lived and it's definitely mind wobbling how he lived and how much his wealth was. | Rank | Name of the Person | Period | Wealth in $$ | | #10 | Henry Ford | 1863-1947 | $199 billion | | #09 | Muammar Gaddafi | 1942-2011 | 200 billion | | #08 | William The Conqueror | 1027-1087 | $229.5 billion | | #07 | Mir Osman Ali Khan | 1886-1967 | $230 billion | | #06 | Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov | 1868-1918 | $300 billion | | #05 | John D Rockefeller | 1839-1937 | $341 billion | | #04 | Andrew Carnegie | 1835-1919 | $372 billion | | #03 | Akbar I | 1542-1605 | Wealth incalculable | | #02 | Augustus Caesar | 63 BC-AD 14 | $4.6 trillion | | #01 | Mansa Musa | 1280-1337 | Wealth incalculable |
The king Mansa Musa was the one with incalculable wealth while Akbar was the another person in line to be that much rich. Musa seems to be popularly known because he was the only richest person who donated so much Gold that it caused the gold rates drop heavily and caused hyperinflation in the Egypt. It was so high that it took almost 10 years to recover from this inflation. Guess how the inflation was controlled? Well, Musa himself bought back the Gold at higher interest rate and thus helped the Egyptians to control their inflations. Even with the help of higher interest rate and buying back the gold it took ten years so we can imagine how enormous this inflation was. He was so rich that during his commute from the Mali kingdom to Haj, they carried 60,000 people along with them and every time they stopped on Friday they built mosques and stays everywhere. They donated gold to every city they roamed through and finally it was Egypt where they stayed for long and caused the inflation just by donating the Gold bars. This is one of the interesting fact that I learnt in the Economic section and hence wanted to share it as fun story. Crazy!!!!
References: The history rich list: the 10 wealthiest people everNot Jeff Bezos Or Elon Musk, These 11 People Are The Richest People In Human History |
|
|
|
Yes but there's a limit to how effective the concurrency is because of Amdahl's Law. It basically says "The performance speedup in a program is limited by the amount of time that the parallelize-able part uses". So in this case the methods that verify the transactions inside the block can work in parallel, but there is a host of other things inside that process that can't be sped up: - Time spent obtaining the block from a peer (even if multiple peers are queried at the same time, the code running the block retrieval runs at least once) - Writing the block and chainstate to LevelDB - For each UTXO in the block, rewinding the transaction history to check that it's indeed not spent - All of the checks involved in CheckBlock and CheckBlockHeader functions must ultimately be performed in one way or another, so there will always be a minimum resource consumption associated with it. Sharding is not going to make any of this go faster, assuming that theoretically the system had enough threads to verify a single transaction in a block per thread, if all this stuff is already running in parallel. That's not entirely the concept behind sharding when we are talking about blockchain. Yes, you are right if you want Bitcoin to work as is, but retrieving the blocks individually, checking all of them is computationally difficult and doesn't scale linearly. However, sharding works with the nodes having their groups of shards and storing them. You have fraud proofs, ZK-SNARKS and other detections as counters to penalize rogue actors within the system. If you were to use random sampling to sample the correctness of the blocks, you'll probably be able to ascertain that the blocks are available to the network and corresponds to the fraud proof. However, you need to evaluate the efficacy of the measures again. The problem doesn't lie with the parallelization of it, but rather the tradeoff with security. Bitcoin doesn't exactly need to make that decision as of now. You mean Amdahl's Law does NOT apply to the blockchain? If yes, then there is probability to increase the transactions or may be speed up the processing power and reduce the network difficulty so that we can more hashing power thus indirectly giving out more outputs of confirmations. Am I right to think this way or this assumption is just going to the south pole? Since your statement and whatever NotATether has referred to, contradicts a lot. Having latency due to addition of Data Sharding architecture is like calling for the roadblocks intentionally. This is based on the Amdahl's Law as explained by the NotATether. On the other hand there are different assumptions to the Sharding architecture by other members. It seems the concept is either a mismatch or it has not been properly understood. |
|
|
|
This is not real right? We have already long gone from the days when we used to be lucky enough to mine one bitcoin just like that. I hardly think any miner will stumble upon a Bitcoin on solo mining trip. I don't really believe that. Moreover there is less chance due to another fact and that's ever increasing cost of everything from the mining equipment, the maintainance, electricity is but obvious and moreover high price volatility. You never know how Bitcoin price might surprise you if it falls. For example, the electricity cost in US. If you check the actual price then it is always higher in terms of inflation and needs to be adjusted. For every 4-5 years there is a cent raise in actual while more than 4-5 cent raise in the inflation value. This means in the years to come this is gonna be problem. Since electricity cost is rising but block reward is decreasing.
 |
|
|
|
If Data Sharding is already on the blockchain then how do we know that it is already implemented? Is there any example of such implementation to relieve the Blockchain Burden?
What you call "data sharding" has been already implemented in Bitcoin from the day one. In Bitcoin, transactions within one block often could be processed in parallel by a node. Yes but there's a limit to how effective the concurrency is because of Amdahl's Law. [snip] Sharding is not going to make any of this go faster, assuming that theoretically the system had enough threads to verify a single transaction in a block per thread, if all this stuff is already running in parallel. Do you want to say that if there is segregated chunks of nodes then a computer solving the hash that is about to get confirmed will need to aggregate all the chunks first and then solve it because without that the info would be incomplete? So if we apply the Amdahl's law in that way then it could lead to slower processing or latency in the calculation. Thus if compared with the traditional block solving speed Vs Sharding data set, traditional might just win. Obviously this we are talking on the level of nano seconds to pico seconds level. But on vast level on the blockchain it might have signifcant effect. I liked the explantion of this the law Amdahl's given in the wikipedia. It does make sense in terms of what I am saying and NotATether explained. Assume that a task has two independent parts, A and B. Part B takes roughly 25% of the time of the whole computation. By working very hard, one may be able to make this part 5 times faster, but this reduces the time of the whole computation only slightly. In contrast, one may need to perform less work to make part A perform twice as fast. This will make the computation much faster than by optimizing part B, even though part B's speedup is greater in terms of the ratio, (5 times versus 2 times). |
|
|
|
I know it is a big or uncommon goal to achieve considering my current income. I have a big dream of owning one Bitcoin before a certain period. So when people are bothered that the price of Bitcoin is dropping, I am seeing it as an opportunity to go closer to my dream. I am in no way happy that the price is dropping but one Bitcoin will always be one Bitcoin, no matter the price today. If you are sure of bitcoin, you will not be concerned about the price today because the price in the future will always exceed the current price.I have learned from this forum that there is no need to dump your coin because of FUD, this distraction will come and go. So I am no longer reading those blogs or social media that is promoting this this fear that will make me dump my small holding and abandon my dream. My focus is to own one Bitcoin.
Compounding is the best option for you at this moment. We are already low on the price tag, why not take an opportunity to buy as much amount as you can right now. Just have it, once there is spike you can again go for the selling that amount and buying the whole new amount of satoshi's with interest that you earned plus the principle amount. This is called as compounding and it's great way to increase your "satoshi" and eventually turn your dream into the reality. For me this dream could have been achieved long ago since I am holder of bitcoin but I am selling few chunks now and then to fulfill my needs and my family needs too. I wish I could have been consistent but for someone who has decided to achieve this goal, it would be far easier. If you are already threaten with the FUD then you should read the motivating stories from the past. People who actually became millionaires and some of them reached billion status. I think it can lift up your dream for sure. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
