|
While it is not surprising to me that cryptocurrencies and ICOs were legalized in a country officially by its government, what does surprise me is that they will not be collecting taxes on Bitcoin income and gains or losses from trading it. This does not really make sense from my perspective, as in the U.S., Bitcoin has always been completely taxable as an asset and has been subject to capital gains tax (depending on how you report it). I do not know anything about the tax law in Belarus, but it should still be comprehensive enough so as to not throw out all the profit derived from Bitcoin-related operations, since a significant amount of transactions and trades could be made, furthering the prowess of Bitcoin in the country and devaluing the local currency.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't quite understand what you are offering here. I see a lot of guides here that seem to be meant to teach the basics of hardware and networking, but your main advertisement indicates that the main product is a way to start your own ISP, which requires much more than having the knowledge of these. In fact, starting an ISP is not even mentioned in the description of any of your guides; rather, it seems like it only teaches you how to create and set up your own wireless access points, which while it is information all ISP technicians should know, is not even close to what you would need to run an ISP. An ISP also requires an infrastructure for the target area (or a lease for it) as well as significant capital for the different departments required to run a successful business.
|
|
|
|
What do you mean? Arbitrage trading? If you have the right amount of BTC and the skill to do it then I dont see why its not lucrative.
Having said that, it would require you to have BTC in more than one exchange for faster trades. Thats very risky.
It would also be risky in that if you try to actually move the coins between exchanges as the OP is suggesting he wants to do, one would be vulnerable to the change in price during the confirmation time, which lasts from 30 to 60 minutes. Furthermore, the trade has to be good enough to offset the transaction fees incurred by the movement of the coins. Of course, having a larger pool of bitcoin would certainly help in this regard, but it may put other smaller players out of the play. The Gemini-GDAX gap is an example of something off which you might profit. The gap gets up to $300 wide at some points and you can always try to keep the Bitcoins in them in order to not incur any fees, but it takes quite a bit of money to be able to do this profitably. Even then, you are going to need a script to do this repeatedly for you and you are definitely going to want to make sure that it is completely bug-free, as your entire portfolio would be vulnerable to any failures. |
|
|
|
|
I am not going to say you are wrong because there does exist the possibility that the extreme speculation by everyone caused Bitcoin to be overvalued significantly and this sort of "correction" could have brought it back to its "real" value. However, I do believe this is most likely because of the force of professional trading agencies at work. Trading Bitcoin can turn very profitable very fast if you have a high stake in it to the point at which you can manipulate the market. Alternatively, it is also possible that the crazy fees have made people lose faith in Bitcoin and so they then cash out. I would admit the possibility of other altcoins being stronger, but since they all seemed to drop proportionately to Bitcoin, I doubt that this is actually the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you posted on a self-moderated thread, chances are that you did, in fact, break the rules. Given by the number of posts around that I have seen that take no effort to post, I believe it is safe to assume that there is a good amount of leeway when posting something that might not be considered immediately constructive to a thread. I don't know of any rules specifically about replying to your own self, but if you did it in short succession, you probably could have just edited the original post in the first place. If your post got removed, it means it most definitely was subpar quality for the forums. If you lost activity over that, that's too bad, but activity shouldn't be the reason you are posting in the forums in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
This is not any kind of significant news. The blockchain technology, while relatively new in the business world, existed and was in use since before Bitcoin itself. The only reason it is even being put in the news is because article writers see the word "blockchain" in a press release by a company and they immediately go into clickbait mode knowing that people get entranced by the word. Logistics and shipping companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL have been using the blockchain technology for a while now. Supply chain for most big corporations as well use the blockchain technology in every step of the supply chain as products and supplies change hands to verify receipt of the requested items. Just because it says blockchain does not mean it is related to Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
I checked out your website but was only able to find a single plan going at $0.97 a month. It also does not state anything about the server configuration or what services are included in the offer such as PHP versions or such. I only see the information about how much bandwidth is provided and how much storage is available for the plan. Neither of the plans that you mention in this thread show up in there. What control panel do you use for the shared hosting? I don't see that mentioned anywhere on either source. What is the back end of this service? Are you a reseller of a bigger host, do you have your own servers in the cloud, etc.? There isn't enough information to infer reliability from your offers. With the way you present this, you won't be getting much attention.
|
|
|
|
Finally! Everyone who supports Bitcoin in the ongoing war against BCC have been waiting for. Lightening Network will solve all the problems that caused the rise of fraud-coin BCC and decline of The Bitcoin in last few days. This will prove that BCC has nothing new or revolutionizing to offer and BCC will become just another altcoin again.
What I want to ask is how is LN going to be implemented and when. Do we need another fork or LN can be added on top of Bitcoin blockchain so we don't need to change the rules?
I don't see why this should be considered a "war" with Bitcoin Cash. Even though it originated from the original Bitcoin blockchain, it should still be considered an alt coin. The only ones who want to call this a war are the Bitcoin Cash supporters who see Bitcoin Cash as rightful to the title of just "Bitcoin", which it is not, since it helps promote this conflict that gets them free promotion and a better chance at popularizing the name. As for the Lightning Network, just be patient. It needs to be as bug-free as possible when it comes out. Oh boy, this is exactly what we need. Bitcoin's rapid growth has more than ever put a heavy load of pressure on Bitcoin's network, which is something that for new users may be a bit too much to swallow.
If you want to send like $50 worth of Bitcoin, only $40 will wnd up reaching its destination due to the fees being like $10 on average. It might scare off people, which would be a damn shame.
I however don't hope that lightning network gets rushed due to this. I prefer to wait a longer while and have it be solid and thoroughly tested through, than seeing it come online with potentially severe bugs and whatnot.
I completely agree in everything you said. The developers have stated that they will not rush out the Lightning Network and will perform extensive testing before putting it on the main net, so there should not be much to worry about. It is all about being patient. |
|
|
|
|
Given how OP did not answer my question about the lifetime warranty, I would advise against dealing with this individual at all. It seems to me that at the best of cases, OP is selling no more than just an email without any warranty. No information is given on how the warranty is executed or how the longevity is held up. I am also quite sure it is impossible for one of these emails to last forever, as they certainly break the Google ToS and Google has been cracking down of them for a while now. The institution's administrators could very easily purge the accounts they do not have any records for in their student databases as well, which would result in anyone buying this product getting ripped off.
|
|
|
|
|
That would certainly explain why there was the sudden $2.5K drop over a single day, albeit it could also be attributed to the previous rise in price being simply a pump and dump by wealthier investors looking for a quick buck. It does serve as a reminder to everyone holding bitcoins that diversification is very much a need, not only among cryptocurrencies, but also among other non-virtual assets such as retirement funds, bonds, and stocks. I personally would not be too worried about Bitcoin dominance dropping; rather, I find it exciting that other coins might have their corresponding role in the cryptocurrency environment. Ethereum, for example, has a clear goal and I would not consider it to compete directly with Bitcoin. They are two currencies trying to do very different things.
|
|
|
|
|
You are going to need to provide more information that just that. What are your credentials, first of all? I doubt that you would be able to handle taxes in every jurisdiction, as the tax law is completely different depending not only in the country where your client would reside, but also the state or province they are in. Furthermore, there needs to be a tax guarantee where you would be legally responsibly should any flaw be found in your tax/accounting work. Even small businesses and self-employed individuals have very involved tax rules, especially concerning itemization and deductions. For the $70 that you are offering to work for, I find it very suspicious that you actually have the credentials for this. I have not seen full-on tax service ever go so cheap.
|
|
|
|
- My question is silly but guess I have 10 bitcoin & no one knows which one is my bitcoin address. why mix the coin? as we can use different address. You're going at it the wrong way: you don't have to mix your 10 Bitcoins if you see no reason to do so. If, however, you'd like to hide something from someone, you can use a mixer.You got those 10 Bitcoin from somewhere, that means someone knows you have them. He also knows how long you've had them, and he also knows it's currently worth $188,000. If you use a mixer, he loses any connection to what he knows about your current wealth. - Secondly will you consider making the betting win chance to 49%? when we play dice house edge is just 1%. Dice sites earn from people wagering a lot. If someone wagers the same 1 Bitcoin 10 times, the total house edge went up to 10% already. ChipMixer earns from donations, and people wagering some amount only once, or at most a few times. Therefore ChipMixer has a higher house edge, but it's the only mixer that gives you a change to withdraw more than you deposited. There are more reasons than just this for wanting to mix your coins. It is in general good practice to mix your coins every once in a while, as doing so helps protect your own privacy from people you may not even know. Bitcoin, while being an anonymous network, is not a private one. Even details that you might think may not matter such as previously used or related addresses and times of transaction broadcasting for transactions from your addresses could reveal patterns that could transform into an attack vector to your person. For example, just by analyzing spending patterns and amount you can tell a lot about what a person may buy and who they may transact with as well as a rough idea of their location and, depending on the analysis, the origin of the transaction. New addresses unrelated to the old ones completely negate these possibilities. |
|
|
|
|
So far, so good! I just paid my dues to renew the VPN I bought a couple of weeks ago. I suggest possibly reducing the number of confirmations required for the transaction to be considered as paid, as 6 confirmations take an average of one hour to process. Cutting it down to something like 2 to 3, at least for small-value transactions such as your VPNs would make it much more convenient and faster with minimal (if any, really) effect to security. Other than that, I am looking forward to check out the new features, especially the automatic remote port forwarding so that it becomes more flexible in terms of not needing to contact support anymore to be able to obtain an assigned port. I will post back with any updates!
Update: Seems like all 5 ports are already forwarded for you automatically without you having to do anything but use them. Looks great!
|
|
|
|
No, I don't have the transaction hash.
Well, my original suggestion still stands. If this ever happens to you again, make sure to have written down the transaction ID so that we can have a closer look at what is happening. Part of me is starting to think that something must have happened client-side if you do not even have a transaction hash, but it is still possible that it was still completely ignored by the network because of the fee. Did you put in the fee manually or did your wallet do that for you? I can't think of any other possibility, really. |
|
|
|
You just need to Google things, go to YouTube, stay away from Web wallets (their security is crap) don't invest in ponzis like cloud mining and never share your private keys. Also hardware wallets are good but you can also use paper wallets, which of course are basically free and have great security if you make them on an air - gapped system.
That is terrible advice in regard to web wallets. Web wallets are extremely useful as hot wallets because you can access them very quickly and from anywhere. The real, proper advice would be to use web wallets exclusively as hot wallets and then use a more secure wallet type, such as a hardware wallet, paper wallet, or brain wallet, as your cold wallet where you store the majority of your funds. I personally recommend using Blockchain.info as your hot web wallet, since it combines both convenience and security as it is client-based and your raw private keys and random seed never touch their server except for when storing them encrypted. All encryption and decryption happens client-side, so they cannot steal your bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Yesterday I tried to send some BTC to GDAX from my wallet.
At first it seemed fine, my balance was reduced and I waited and waited.
Than after a while my balance was restored and it seemed like nothing ever happened.
What can be causing this ?
P.S.
I use Jaxx wallet.
It was most likely caused by too low of a fee that made the transaction not get confirmed on the network. If the fee was low enough, the behavior of your transaction fits that of a transaction with a fee so low that it got dropped within the day from your own mempool. I am not familiar with how Jaxx manages transactions, as I have never used it myself, but it might not have been able to calculate the fee automatically. Do you have the transaction hash? This would be a sure way to confirm these suspicions. If you look up your transaction on block explorers such as Blockchain.info and do not get a result, the only possibilities are that it got dropped as I mentioned before or that for some reason the transaction was never broadcast in the first place. If my suggestion is correct, then yes, feel free to try again with a higher fee and it should succeed next time. |
|
|
|
Ever since BIP106 was first proposed, I've been a fan of the idea of dynamic scaling. Although shortly after that, I decided that the original concept was far too unrestrictive and had the capability to result in dangerously large size increases if it was abused. So over time, I've been looking at different tweaks and adjustments, partly to curtail any excessive increases, but also to incorporate SegWit, limit the potential for gaming the system and even prevent dramatic swings in fee pressure. So far, that's where I've got to. Still hoping some coders will take an interest and get it to the next level where it might actually be practical to implement. My opinion is that an open cap is too unrestrictive, but a solid cap is too restrictive. That's why I think we need a way for the network to raise the cap on it's own within a set of limitations so that it can't bloat. EDIT: I took a look at your thread, which looks similar to the first part of what I suggested here, but what's to stop the block size from increasing too fast for the network to handle? I think dynamic scaling needs to focus on both the needs of the network as well as the capability of the network with two distinct scaling solutions used together. The first adjusts the network according to the needs of the network, and the second adjust the network according to the capabilities of the network. Together, it allows flexibility, but there would have to be some incentive for the node operators to be willing to expand to handle the increased traffic. And therein lies the rub, there's currently no way to forecast or determine the limits when it comes to the capability of the network, other than asking nodes directly to set their own individual preferred caps. Somehow I doubt many people on these boards would consider implementing ideas borrowed from Bitcoin Unlimited.  Joking aside, combining algorithmic blockweight adjustments with the allowance of each node to set an upper limit to the size they'd be willing to accept would work if it weren't for the fact that it could easily force nodes off the network in a hardfork if they set their own personal limit lower than that of the majority of other participants, so even if people were willing to take ideas from BU, it still has some pretty serious shortcomings. If anyone can come up with a solution to that conundrum, I'm eager to hear it. Until then, it's a sticking point. Which is why all I could really do is make any increases as small as possible and allow the network to undo the increase if and when the demand isn't there anymore. In essence, any attempt to place any hard upper limit inevitably results in hardforks at some point in future, unless you're an absolute genius and manage to find a workaround or hack to implement it as an opt-in soft fork. To add to this, it would also be extremely vulnerable to bad actors, potentially with agendas favoring altcoins such as Bitcoin Cash which seek to become the "main" Bitcoin. For instance, a malicious user could start up thousands of nodes which would all attempt to bloat the block size as much as possible every block for Bitcoin's scaling to become unsustainable. This would mean, effectively, that there would be no limit to the growth of the block size because one malicious party decided to ruin the fun for everyone else. Danny suggested something similar to this, where the system has to take into account that users in the network can (and will, if permitted) take advantage of it and abuse it for their own benefit. We cannot depend on the network users to be benign. |
|
|
|
Quite good. Used shapeshift and others for a while and just started using Zcash.
I think you are confused as to what ChipMixer is. They are a Bitcoin mixing service, not a cryptocurrency converter nor an altcoin, as you suggest. I am not sure how you can be comparing it to those when they do not relate to ChipMixer in any way. While ShapeShift may "mix" coins by simply returning to you a different currency, that is not what they advertise nor what they specialize in. Zcash is its own cryptocurrency that does not, by the looks of it, need a mixer to begin with. It's apples to oranges. |
|
|
|
|
I see you mention this in your post, so I feel forced to mention this: Do not put any funds into cloud mining. If you ever are going to mine, make sure it is on your own hardware. If you are paying for your own electricity, you also probably won't get too far in mining for Bitcoin, even with a pool. Your best bet if you want to have your share of bitcoins is to either freelance your way to them using these forums or get a job that pays you in your local currency and then convert that to bitcoins. You are not going to find better ways of obtaining them than these.
Edit: Also, don't make a habit of asking for donations.
|
|
|
|
To answer the first bolded text: While you are not wrong about the nature of decreasing the block reward in order to put the focus on the transaction fees as the rewards for miners, the scaling issue of transaction fees does not really relate to that. What matters is where the reward lies, not the amount. The amount will always be related to the supply and demand of the available hardware in the network. If transaction fees decrease, miners get paid less and therefore mine less, which lowers the overall difficulty of mining and makes it more profitable for the remaining miners who are still in it. If they increase, the number of miners will increase with it as will the difficulty to balance everything out.
To answer the second bolded text: There will always be coins to mine. The Lightning Network still depends on miners. All it does is perform the reconciliation of may more separate transactions off-chain into a single final entry that once "closed" gets put into the blockchain. To get put into the blockchain, miners still have to choose the transaction and will still get paid a fee. The difference is that the fee will be much less than it would be with all the separate transactions, which is fine considering the supply (miners) numbers will adjust accordingly.
That scenario would still see to decrease the usability of direct bitcoin transactions. It means that everyone has to pay more fees entirely for the benefit of a small group of centralized companies paying less fees overall. To give an example, suppose that we are in a future where miners only get paid in transaction fees and the lightning network is heavily relied upon to compensate for having never implemented dynamic scaling. Online merchants who want to process millions of transactions a day around the world utilize a system where one on block transaction opens the channel for the day, and another on block transaction closes the channel for the day. All transactions that go through their payment system is taken care of in one go keeping the fees low for everyone sending transactions between the two companies. However, the people who initially send the coin to those centralized wallets are going to pay extremely high amounts which would discourage independent wallet usage (and increase the risk of what happens when centralized companies go out of business). Meanwhile, the people who just want to send money to someone across the world wouldn't benefit from the lightning network at all since they are dealing with just a single transaction, so they have to pay more as well. The reason why everyone is stuck paying more is because anyone with multiple transactions just processes one, which means that the cost has to be spread across fewer payers, and those with less transactions ultimately pay the most. In a vacuum, you are correct. However, it is important to notice how a lot of the network traffic is, indeed, taken up by these small group of centralized companies. For instance, right now as the trading volume of Bitcoin increases, a lot of the transactions being sent and received through the network are related to some exchange disproportionately. Managing all of these transactions off-chain and then finalizing them on-chain would help free up space for the direct transactions you are talking about who would end up paying less fees because of less network congestion. The centralized companies do benefit directly from this change, as you say, but it also indirectly helps users using independent wallets, which I assume would include most of us here. As for what happens if the congestion in the network is actually caused by a big margin by direct transactions, I do concede that I am not sure how the Lightning Network could help in that regard. That being said, I certainly do not know all of the specifics of the Lightning Network, but you do bring up a good point. -- As a side note: If only most discussion threads could be like this one where people can actually discuss without spammers repeating the same thing others have already said, that would be great. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
