Hmm. In fact most people's issues was based on convenience. I can't remember where the survey was I read, but essentially the statistical conclusion found that  the main reason for Napster et all, was simply that at that time people couldn't download (and pay for) music easily. Which was true, I remember it being a nightmare. You couldn't pay for it even when you wanted to. Yet when iTunes kicked in, that all changed.

There will always be piracy, but I think you'd be surprised at how many people are willing to pay as long as it's an easy process. Digital actually gave more avenues for earning. The world versus one country's record stores.... not that those really exist anymore.  

In general I agree with this due to how much money is/has been put into Bitcoin start-ups and the traction its already gained.


This I'm not so sure of. There is some evidence that all halving does is raise the price before halving (I'm thinking of Litecoin, and yes, I know it's kind of apples and oranges), as people speculate the price is sure to go up, and then dumping afterward which brings the price down again.

Then again, the price of Bitcoin (via coindesk) at the last halving was about $12.20+ (in 2012) but didn't show much marked increase from the previous months leading up to the halving. After that though, four months later, the price was the price of today $230, but then went down again. Then there was mtgox.

This is all a round about way of saying I've no idea, but I'm holding.

Yes. When Start went from around $0.07 to around $0.20 it was actually being (paid) promoted on the first page of Bittrex. That's when there was the upswing.

I have two heavy bags that would really like Keiser to use his 'influence' again, and soon. (Bittrex promotions... hint hint)

In truth Startcoin has zero utility that Bitcoin doesn't already have. You can use Start to invest on Banktothefuture and that was virtually their whole thing, but you can use BTC anyway, so there's not much point... especially when the price tanked.

I agree with what the OP said, irresponsible to tell investors to buy it.

You know what, there's a really interesting idea in there. Instead of QR codes we have iris codes, but only for receiving. You could never change your address though, and that's bad.


Really, there are many ways. Apart from the 'finger hack' (literal) there are other fairly simple physical methods:

http://www.wikihow.com/Fake-Fingerprints

And for the more advanced:

'Krissler photographed Germany’s Federal Minister of Defense Ursula von der Leyen during a public presentation in October. Combining high-resolution images he took as she moved her hands during the event, including a close-up of von der Leyen’s thumb, Krissler was able to develop a copy of her fingerprints. The hacker claims that he could then use his own copy to break into any of her accounts protected by her fingerprints, including the biometric scanners found on high-end smartphones like Apple’s iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy S5.'

http://www.ibtimes.com/hacker-demonstrates-how-fake-fingerprint-sensors-using-regular-photographs-1769408


The truth is, no one will probably bother if you just have 1 BTC, but 100? 1000? They will. The GSM technology that cold wallet uses is worrying too. That cold wallet (and I'm loathe to call it a cold wallet) should only have minimal amounts of BTC in it for day to day transactions. If it were cheap, like $20, I'd buy one for daily usage because I quite like the look of it.

Biometrics and Bitcoin is one of those things that seems like a good idea at first but isn't really. Fingerprints can be hacked in a variety of ways, and GSM tech too, which is what that wallet uses.

Looks good though.

That's really simple.

Forget about explaining all that technical stuff (I'm not saying they won't understand it, only that mostly it bores them) and about how it's the future and so on. All you need to ask them is this:

"If using Bitcoin gave you a discount on every online purchase, would you use Bitcoin?"

You won't find many women who'll say no. Try it (I have.) They will ask "How much discount?" though.

Bitcoin merchants should should price cheaper than their fiat prices, because the merchant saves money using Bitcoin and that saving should be passed along to the consumer. I'd also say when a consumer uses Bitcoin it's 'harder' to spend it than a dollar because that BTC will more than likely go up in value in the future, and no one wants to lose potential higher value.

The incentive for wide adoption with consumers and Bitcoin should always be connected to discounts IMHO.

This is the same OP who put forward a proposal for cooperation from the CIA for his alt coin, so I don't think any balanced view of Bitcoin's needs will be likely.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148744.0

Thanks. Will do. I managed to transfer the BTC as you suggested.


Thanks for explaining this, I appreciate it. I feel real dumb for not knowing it.

So you mean it's entirely possible that I have other addresses that I have never generated myself or can see? Because I only can see three I use and there is another that is just there.

Thanks, but I've done that already, the address isn't there.

It looks like it's this address where the funds went to the tune of 1.8685 ?: https://blockchain.info/address/1DEo27QbJL9t2cqoqTFkUtxacxTs3QaM7F 

But that's not one of mine. There are only three addresses in my Trezor, and that's not one of them (previous or otherwise.)

What am I missing here?

Frankly, I know this is impossible... yet I just can't get my head around it as it seems to be the case (as far as I can see.)

Perhaps someone else can work it out, because I sure can't.

I have about 3.1 or so BTC in a Trezor... or at least should.

the majority should be at this address and somewhere in the region of 2.8+ or so: https://blockchain.info/address/15A6kTYaoTBdT4acEqUKWsJDYGAdBocDP7

That address is saying I only have  0.428 BTC. But my total Trezor account is saying different (see image below)... and there are only three addresses on it. The transaction of 2.069 BTC at the above address I never made - I don't even have those addresses in my multi-sig that it was sent to - and it's not recorded on my transaction list either - see pic below.

Between the other two addresses there is only about 0.27 total (give or take)

On blockchain, it looks to have occurred on the 23/8. Yet look on my transaction list screen shot at the 23rd. Nothing. No record of that at all.



Can some one please explain this to me? A large chunk of my BTC has just gone???

Well, that's a perfectly valid opinion. I don't agree with it though, simply because it may possibly affect a lot of people adversely, and the tone of that rep in the article was along the lines of 'screw everyone else'.

I'm not against larger blocks, I just don't agree with this kind of action particularly. If they know it's going to cause problems - which they've stated they do - then it's not a test then, is it. In which case, what's the point/benefit?

My mothers dead you wanker. Go fuck yourself.

I've not seen this mentioned on the boards but if it has been, feel free to get it merged.

I just came across this article that says CoinWallet will be f***ing around with the network this September. To be quite honest, I at first thought it was satire. I mean, why would you alienate so many potential customers? I certainly won't ever be using them now.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/coinwallet-plans-bitcoin-dust-attack-september-create-30-day-transaction-backlog-1515981

Here are a few (f***ing unbelievable) quotes from a CoinWallet representative:

"Each of these transactions is for a total amount of 0.0002 BTC (including miner fees), meaning that with my 150 btc that is currently in this state, I will be crafting 750000 transactions, or 2321 blocks, or a 16 day backlog."

and for there next trick,

"These 20 servers push approximately 1 transaction per second. The plan is to fill them up to 50-100 Bitcoin in total. In theory, if all things go as planned, we will create a nearly 30-day backlog."

But apparently you shouldn't worry, because...

"Of course, this won't cripple Bitcoin entirely. Those who are smart enough to increase their fees will still manage to push transactions through. However, it will make it prohibitively expensive, and will likely render most standard wallet software, ranging from Multibit, to Mycellium, Blockchain.info and others completely worthless."

They do have some XT reasoning at the bottom of the article, but it looks like an afterthought excuse if you ask me, and even if they did have a good reason, they don't have the right to affect the whole system.

The interesting thing is September 2015 has been speculated to be one of massive economic collapse by many respected economist for quite some time, in part due to the seven year cycle... which is a bit 'woo woo', yet has some solid historical credibility.

I think it would have been natural for Bitcoin to perform well with these kind of stock market/economic collapses, as gold usually spikes up hard too... and the price of gold has had a good jump within the past five day.

I'm not sure I consider this fortunate or unfortunate. From a buying in perspective, I of course like cheap, but from a long term point of view I'd have liked to see the price of BTC go up which would have given many the confidence to invest more in BTC as a hedge against banks/fiat.

What with the uncertainty around Bitcoin at the moment, quite the opposite has happened.

That's definitely the case, those units divisible by ten have a very real psychological impact. Once a price kicks down below a level, there's a lot of panic sell. I see that often with alt trading, although I'm still useless at it.

Actually, that's really good to know. Thanks for mentioning that.

But with the whole fork issue I think it's likely might well go lower. Not that people should actually be dumping because of that because you'll still have your coins either way.

I just wonder if this time people will move their money out of Bitcoin and wait before diving back into it. I think it's a speculation roller coaster ride between now and 2016. In possible retrospect, I think this'll be one of those Bitcoins periods where everyone will ask 'what did you do with your Bitcoin between 2015 & 2016.'

I think there will be some huge gainers during this time and after the dust has settled.


Ya, that's pretty much my strategy too. I think financially and psychologically it works well. I mean, if anyone buys a ton of Bitcoins now, they'll be really hurting if it goes lower and then possibly panic sell.

Moderation is key. I generally go with about 10% of my monthly fiat into BTC whatever the price... yet still, double digits and it would be difficult not to go nuts and raid the savings, like you said.

Just sitting there watching the price on coindesk it went down to $197 quickly, then jumped up again. I know Bitcoin's been there before (and lower of course) but I wonder what other people's strategy now is.

For myself I don't feel too bad, whenever the price lowers I just think it's a good time to buy more. But during this time and up to 2016 what with forking and halving, it's hard for me to know what price to buy more at, I mean, $200 could be great, but $150 is even better... below $100... Bitcoin becomes more shiny for me.

So I guess my question is what's your buy in large price? That price where you'd buy at least ten Bitcoins (I realize 10 Bitcoins @ $100 is probably not large for some people, but you can use your own metric.)

 

Just a quick point from the peanut gallery, Communism and Socialism are not one of the same thing, although it has to be admitted that communists, socialists and capitalists do seem to assume as such.

The UK has what some consider to be one of the base requirements of socialism in place, i.e Free education (minus further education at present ) and healthcare, yet few would call the UK socialist or communist.

There is also a big problem with ideological communism Vs. Communism as it has been put into practice. These two are also, in effect, different.

Ya, I don't especially doubt it. Stating your a non-profit in a place that has virtually no laws to uphold it certainly makes it virtually void, as you've pointed out.

I just wonder if Ripple or Stellar will ever get anywhere. Sometimes it seems as if they are just waiting for some kind of nod from up above and then they'll kick into action in view of a rising demand/price.

Thanks for that article link!