As a major subject in college? I don't think so, since all of the information they need to learn about cryptocurrencies are readily available all over the internet. It is worth only as a mention maybe, but not as a major subject.
all the information i need for a bachelors in pretty much everything is readily available on wikipedia, and with a bit of digging in the right places, probably masters degrees as well, so by your logic, universities shouldnt even exist. actually use your brain and try to come up with a statement that's only half true. What jobs would this degree be used for?
ideally blockchain development if bitcoin were to take off, development on forks to improve the scalability of bitcoin. however, i dont think this would ever work out; bitcoin benefits from decentralization, and with employers seeking these jobs to develop the blockchain, most likely the benefit themselves, i dont think this would ever work out for the benefit of bitcoin. Cryptocurrency or blockchain can be, maybe already are. Bitcoin less likely, since its too specific I think. But then check these: https://goo.gl/k7XAEY, so why not. if anything, bitcoin is a broader subject that the blockchain as the blockchain is an inherently included topic on the subject of bitcoin. however, i dont think either of these subjects holds enough subject matter to develop a field of study on. |
|
|
|
It may definitely become a course in the near future, but I'm not sure if you could make a major out of it. And I'm speaking not about bitcoin here, also not about cryptocurrencies actually, but about the blockchain. A lot of institutions are trying to adapt the blockchain mentality, so maybe blockchains can become a major in the future.
im thinking along the same lines; if anything, blockchain technology could be developed into a major, but i think it's way too niche of a subject to be developed into an entire field of study. i could definitely see courses in blockchain technology being integrated into other majors, such as software engineering, but you cant build a field of study on the blockchain alone. could be a pretty good topic for a thesis though. Not specifically BTC but cryptocurrencies in general. You think it will become a course of study / college degree at some point?
I don't think crypto currency will ever be a major in colleges, all of the informations about it is accessible online so you don't need a teacher to teach it. Rather the crypto currency, why not the blockchain. It has a lot of ways to be developed and be used in a lot of other things that will be very useful in the near future. there's enough information out on the internet for me to get a bachelor's in just about every STEM degree out there too, but i dont exactly have 50 degrees now do i? hell i could teach myself enough information to get a couple degrees in a few years time. your argument is invalid. Not specifically BTC but cryptocurrencies in general. You think it will become a course of study / college degree at some point?
I dont think this will be possible. Cryptocurrencies are digital currencies, and so they just currencies like our fiat money right now. If we didnt even have courses and explicit studies for the currencies in the world, I dont think thered be any for cryptocurrencies as well. of course you dont have studies on money itself, its not like we have a dollar and euro major at your local college or anything. however, there's plenty of economics degrees going around, where'd you get the idea that those didnt exist? |
|
|
|
If it had been possible,china government would have done it much before to block bitcoin completely in its country.But it has tried to do it step by step by first banning ICOs,then implying very strict regulations against bitcoin exchanges and now trying to issue a new coin wechat.Same is the case with russia.But in china,people still trade bitcoins in countersales with people directly.
SO,bitcoin could not be completely blocked by governments.
the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. i've outlined how it could be accomplished in my previous post right before yours. i dont think china wants to ban cryptocurrencies outright, if anything, i think the chinese regime would want to find a means to control the cryptocurrency market above an outright ban. with bitcoin and cryptos in general on the rise, it only makes sense that any degree of control over the system puts a group at a pretty serious position of power, maybe even one that could give them enough influence to benefit greatly if cryptocurrencies take off even further. besides, if they wanted to ban bitcoin, it's a simple matter for the government to write legislation outright banning the use and possession of crpyocurrencies; they wouldn't have to be so roundabout by banning ico's and imposing regulations. |
|
|
|
It can't. There are many nodes that Bitcoin has, more than what sites like coin.dance say and it's impossible to find them, let alone block all of them.
They could attempt to ruin Bitcoin's quality of service by blocking exchanges, forums and web wallets, but people would still be able to use it and they'd find a way to do all of these things.
It's also important to note that any ISP blockages can be circumvented by using a VPN, thus it wouldn't even be remotely effective.
The only way to stop Bitcoin is by not using the Internet at all, like North Korea does.
technically, if the government had full authority over the internet, they could in act block traffic to and from the bitcoin network. we all depend on a isp to provide us internet access, and these companies are able to control what traffic we can and can't access. and in a relevant statement to the current events (in the states at least), if net neutrality were to be repealed, these companies could block bitcoin network traffic from its users if it wanted to, or give users the option of paying a premium to access this 'feature.' and while your statement on the subject of vpn's holds true, it is possible for the isp to block all traffic tunneled through the vpn, rendering that option useless. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin currently has a marketcap of 135 bn$. But the whole collection of cryptocurrencies has a marketcap of 300 bn$. ( https://cryptocoincharts.info/coins/info ) If no-one had been able to create any other coins, Bitcoin would therefore have had a value of 300bn$, but is only at 135bn$. This is a 55% drop in value This is because it is easy to create more cryptocurrencies. Value is not created out of thin air - everytime a new crypto is launched it drains away value from the other cryptos including from Bitcoin. The loss until now is 55% and with a rapid increase in the amount of cryptos generated, both on their own and from forking Bitcoin, the inflation and degradation of value will continue OP,you should learn more about the market economy and finance instead of posting such threads. And no,it`s not easy at all to create new cryptocurrencies.If it was so easy,every crypto enthusiast would build his own altcoin and his own blockchain.Don`t compare btc to all the other altcoins at once.Compare bitcoin with every separate altcoin.BTC remains the undisputed number 1. you dont need to be an expert in economics to understand that op's statements are completely retarded. its like saying that dogs are now worthless because cats exist, and if there were no cats dogs wouldnt be worthless. the value of bitcoin itself is very much rising, and altcoins will always be created. does a stock of a company become devalued because there's a competitor? not necessarily, the company's stock could be tripling for all i care. this is a pretty piss poor attempt at spreading FUD at best, if this is even an attempt. This argument makes no sense. This is in no way a drop of value, and you cant reliably call bitcoin's price in the hypothetical scenario with no other coins ever existing. Alts aren't 'draining away' money from Bitcoin, if anything they're helping cryptocurrencies become more mainstream and adopted worldwide.
exactly. if anything, the surge of popular alts such as ethereum only serve to spread awareness of cryptocurrencies overall, meaning more exposure for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Lets say as some people predict on a future date a Bitcoin hits USD $1,000,000.
Then the smallest unit of bitcoin (1 satoshi) would be worth $0.01. It is possible to hard-fork Bitcoin to allow further subdivisions; this would be far less controversial than increasing the maximum coin supply. personally, id support this solution far more than raising the coin cap; it might get to be a headache counting the decimal places and such, but the 21 million cap was made so curb inflation and keep a stable amount in circulation. now, in macroeconomics, currency must be injected and taken out of circulation on a regular basis to accommodate for economic trends, but i think this would lead to a bitcoin bubble. now, i would accept an increase in the coin cap, if the coin reward was adjusted proportionately to match, effectively capping the market at a similar point in time, but this would also lead to the devaluation of the current coins in circulation; not much for that idea. |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin followers keep saying the Bitcoin is a new currency.
If that is the case then by definition it is fiat.
When it is fiat, then we will see inflation and breaking the 21million limit.
not yet, once it becomes the universal currency that is accepted by the government as an official means of payment and value in society, then it will become something that can be called a fiat currency. and the 21 million limit cant be broken; first off, the limit is there so curb inflation by limiting the amount in circulation. it'd take one hell of a hard fork to remove that limitation. You are confusing definitions. Fiat is currency issued by the government and do not have limited emissions. Bitcoin is decentralized and limited to the issue.
no. fiat is just something that the government accepts as an official form of payment. for all i care buttons can be considered fiat as long as it's accepted by the government as a form of payment. it does not by any means have to be created and issued by the government. doesn't take a lot to do a google search before you spew out bs. |
|
|
|
Because it will be instantly useable to more than a billion people for all daily shopping actitivites it will quickly spread beyond China and become the dominant coin.
maybe, maybe not. i doubt every single one of those billions of people will be knowledgeable on how to actually use it completely at the time of launch. as for it becoming the dominant coin, china does hold a fair bit of geopolitical influence, but simply releasing a coin under its name itn't enough for it to suddenly take the cryptocurrency scene by force. crypto is huge on decentralization, and with a government like china's putting their backing on it, a lot of crypto enthusiasts are going to suspect a rather disappointing lack of decentralization. Also, all the miners located in China will switch to the wechat coin, leaving the other coins with huge problems.
only as long it remains the most profitable coin for the miners. and it would be limited to those who have the hardware to mine whatever algorithm the coin runs on (256, x11, scrypt, whatever). it might be a popular choice to mine for a little while, but i would honestly expect it to die out real quickly. |
|
|
|
Another douche like Jamie from JPM shitting on crypto..............the establishment trying to beat down bitcoin and all crypto because of the freedom for financial Independence it offers citizens around the world. They are scared of it. Not to mention they have several million $ worth of bitcoin and buy more on the crashes he causes so one day he can be a whale and affect bitcoin that way one day in the future.
Think about it, a community can now produce its own wealth! But it is necessary that bitcoin remains successful as it is the base (trading crypto pair) of all crypto trading and therefor crypto wealth creation. If Jamie and co can ruin bitcoin's reputation he can bring down all cryptio to a certain extent. He is hoping to cause a self fulfilling prophecy to say something bad about something hoping to cause the thing he is predicting. Fuck him, he's a dick and mark my words as crytpo continues to free more and more citizens there will be more financial advisors putting shit on bitcoin in the future.
The CIA is trying to hack the blockchain to bring it down also, but it cant. Freedom to the people!! We will be slaves no more and they hate that!.
im 99% sure destroying cryptocurrency, or just bitcoin, is the ceo's end goal by any means. the man is more than well off, he could quit working today and have more than enough to live comfortably till the end of his days. if anything, he's using his position of influence as a major banker's head to influence bitcoin's price for some price manipulation. i dont think ive heard of the cia trying to 'hack' the blockchain either, im pretty sure the only way you could feasibly gain any amount of control over bitcoin is to use the 51% attack idea, and that takes way too much infrastructure to even think about. |
|
|
|
rumor is good for bitcoin.many big big person give negative statement abt bitcoin bt also we can see big big leaders are supporting bitcoin too  so rumor doing promotion for bitcoin a terrible generalization at best. years ago, there were plenty of rumors on mainstream media saying that bitcoin was being used primarily by criminals, weather it be for ransom, illegal trades, and online drug markets. of course, they're not wrong, and these deals may have constituted the most traffic on the bitcoin network in terms of value (which i don't know if this is entirely true), but bitcoin was being used for so much more even then. however, even now we can see the effects rumors can have on bitcoin; when it was released that china was going to either ban ico's or the use of bitcoin entirely, we saw the price of bitcoin tank almost 25% in a 48 hour period. a long time ago, when bitcoin was still in the infant stages, any rumor might've helped for the sake of exposure, but it's a whole different story now. bitcoin is a real moving force in today's world, and it can be affected negatively just as the stock market can. |
|
|
|
Of course they are.
Question being, how much of Bitcoin's growth was caused by the ICO hype? I personally think that Bitcoin is largely decoupled from the ICO market. However as always there may be relations at play that will be only obvious in hindsight.
my thoughts exactly; if anything, ethereum is more tied to the ico scene, and when the bubble pops as a result of either unsustainability in the surge of ico's or a major scam and publicity of a fraudulent ico project, id expect the resulting effects to only scratch bitcoin. Many ICOs are fraud. However, fraud and a bubble are two different things. Fraud is the acquisition of material values by deception or abuse of trust. Bubble, it's an artificial increase, inflating the value of something. The bubble in the ICO can be said in the sense that some projects can be implemented with few tools. and they are trying to collect much more. As for bitkoyna, there is definitely no fraud, but its cost is still inflated. This becomes obvious if we compare its cost and the cost of altcoyins.
fraud can also contribute greatly to the growth of an economic bubble though, as it did in the 2008 housing bubble in the states. fraudulent or not, people dump money into ico projects and contribute to the development of these projects, and the creation of new projects entirely. |
|
|
|
|
bump, want to reiterate again that i wont be trading with members that are below full member unless you've got reason to convince me otherwise. and 'pls gib me chance' is not a reason, show me some trading history either on here or another site, if it's another site, i expect you to be able to provide solid proof that it's yours.
|
|
|
|
Hey man, sent you a PM about 2.5 litecoin. Lemme know!
sorry, but i won't be trading with members that aren't at least a 'full member' for a while. |
|
|
|
bump
Interested in this, will sent you a PM later today, looking to buy ~50$ right now. Also, ~~ Do you mind if the paypal account is unverified? i dont really mind, but im not sure if paypal will allow me to send money to an unverified account, although i'd guess to say they've no reason to disallow that. in the case that happens, ill refund the maximum allowable amount back to you from the address you sent the coin to. |
|
|
|
Hi,
Looking for 150 USD PayPal, although would like to pay in ETH due to high fee on Bitcoin Network.
Let me know if we can deal.
thanks
i dont see a problem with it, shoot me a pm later if you catch me online, as well as the country you're located in. id prefer if we did the trade when we're both available for at least 15 minutes each to knock it out in one go. How can one prevent PayPal charge back?
180 days is the limit iirc, but your post is pretty off topic in the context of the thread. not that im trading with newbies anyways. |
|
|
|
The Pharmacist.
i honestly expected him to have already been added when i came back to the forum a few months ago, surprised its only just now happening. i think it's a pretty good move though. I would recommend also members, who are not too often participants in signature campaigns to avoid conflicts of interest (although there are many honorable members, who are also active in signature campaigns.).
i dont think being a regular participant in sig campaigns would lead to a conflict of interest in the context of leaving reliable ratings; DT members just leave ratings as part of their contribution to the forum, this doesn't at all tie into just making some pocket change off of posting regularly. |
|
|
|
Is it this membership fee is connected to current BTC/USD exchange rate?
It's good thing that newbies who will buy this membership will be able to post images. Because now they had to hire some random accounts to post their announcements or ask somebody to quote it.
But I'm not sure about reducing signature size restrictions. Newbies who don't have knowledge about bitcoin will be able to participate in signature campaigns after spending some btc to buy membership. But maybe it will reduce account farming a bit. People will don't need to buy farmed accounts to participate in signature campaign, it will be enough to buy membership on their freshly made account. But selling of higher ranked farmed accounts will still remain to be serious problem.
going off of this quoted section, i would assume that it is based off some currency's exchanged value. If you paid an "evil IP" registration fee, then whatever you paid (in BTC terms) is subtracted from the upgrade fee. If you paid a registration fee a long time ago, you might even get a free Copper Membership due to the increase in BTC price. Just visit the link at the bottom of this post to check whether you have it already.
|
|
|
|
So we would be able to expect new donator ranks which are indeed the lower-cost donator ranks with these Paid-Memberships being introduced any time soon?
Something between Donator & Copper, which would grant you something like a custom title for donating / supporting to the forum?
im sure many people would be willing to pay a small fee for the option of being able to set a custom title, i know i would. then again, i could see this feature being abused by scammers and such to seem more trusted and stuff, maybe only allowing certain member ranks to have this option available might be a good idea. now, the feature we should really be looking for next is donating to set one's gender to attack helicopter. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
