5 years from now when little franky boy sees that he missed the train  . Wonder if people will look back on this thread at the people that doubted this revolutionary idea sort of like the people that missed bitcoin. please provide: 1. permission to do the project (paperwork appointing you technical secretary via government committee elections) 2. location assigned to you (i hinted this when you used a stock picture of the bahama island..) 3. rational knowledge of infrastructure to build a city from the bottom up. starting with basic necessities(sewerage, electrical, water supply) 4. name of a coder with bitcoin and ether DAO code knowledge, employed/volunteering to program your project |
|
|
|
its not about a bigger market capitalization..
its not about more money.
Nonsense. The people who are primarily pushing for ridiculous block sizes are the ones crying out that we need more users. It's obviously about money. If it wasn't about money, you'd be taking a safe path with scaling as there is zero need to risk anything. As I've previously stated, I'm not anti-HF as in consensual upgrades, not controversial splits. ridiculous blocksizes?? sorry but segwit is 4mb.. i proven that in a different topic and even supplied you a link. so how is 2mb ridiculous?? I think that Bitcoin will split multiple times, within the next six months. Nobody can really stop it, that is a beautiful thing. I suppose somebody could create a "genesis fork" with a six month grace period, it would most likely not be the first chain to split off the Bitcoin network and gain a significant market share.
Just by saying that splitting up the userbase, infrastructure and network as a whole is a "beautiful thing" makes me question the sanity of some people. Nothing good can nor will come out of that. Just confusion that will generally have negative side-effects.i actually agree with lauda's sentiment.. core fans scream doomsdays of controversial hard forks. but dont realise that core is preventing consensual forks by vetoing a release to ensure the community never get to a healthy majority. thus causing the controversy
No, Core isn't prevent anything. You're free to write a HF proposal as a BIP and see whether it gains attraction. submit a bip to.............. ? go on.. say it CORE well there already has been logical bips submitted, and the decision against implementing it was not vetoed out due to code, or logic or real reason. but due to false doomsdays and fake stats.. mainly illogical scare stories which from reading your little awakening in another topic, you are beginning to see |
|
|
|
|
just a warning to those new to investing
you are not actually buying real bitcoin from most of these stock exchanges.
you are just playing around with fiat and using their market order engine to buy 'pretend bitcoin'
so when you log in.. always check to see on the 'withdrawal' options if you can actually withdraw bitcoin, and not just native currency, because most stock exchanges dont.
(their stock exchanges not currency exchanges)
meaning they are not secretly buying bitcoin on your behalf to hand to you later, meaning they are not linked to real bitcoin exchanges to affect bitcoins real market value.
in short
a pump /dump on a stock market doesnt affect real bitcoin exchanges in the majority of cases
if you cannot withdraw bitcoin from a stockmarket. then you are just playing with their pebbles in their sandpit that "meant" to represent bitcoin.
in laymens.. at best you are buying loosely termed shares in a company supposedly holding X bitcoin.
so dont get excited thinking your helping bitcoin. instead just think of it as a different investment tool to grow your fiat
|
|
|
|
Propaganda?  By definition a hard fork creates a new network. This a matter of fact, not opinion. What I said didn't contemplate whether a hard fork is controversial. What I said was, why don't you fork the code? Why do you need miners to pressure users to switch clients? It seems the answer you buried in your long-winded posts was "nobody would support my fork." Okay then. There's your answer. again your only seeing a hard fork through the eyes of controversial. EG if core released 0.14A(just segwit) 0.14B(segwit+ hardfork) and other implementations also done the same bitcoin knots, airbitz, BU, classix, XT, and all the others XA traditional XB hardfork then there is a fully open choice. even the core fanboys dont have to defect away from their religion(core) if they secretly want more real onchain capacity growth because every version in existance has a agreed consensus change, including core. making EVERYONE on the same level playing field but by core not even trying to make it (lets hope luke releases it before getting thrown out) then there will never be a healthy majority, due to the loyal flock wanting core to dominate(even if the flock dont understand the route core prefers) and make decisions for them (centrally) so yea bitcoin knots, airbitz and others can have perfect code.. but core fanboys will doomsday call anything not core.. purely because core doesnt want a consensual fork(real onchain capacity).. they want to lead and control decisions. not allow an open decentralized free choice. the funny thing is. core can easily release 0.14B(segwit+ hardfork) and then just see if people download A or B. and if 95% have not downloaded version B of their favourite. then it will not activate and nothing is lost. but by core vetoing any chance of a core version B. they are not even allowing users a free choice, even amungst their own flock its like having 12 jurers where it requires unanimous favour of one decision to get a perfect conviction. core are telling just 1 jurers to not vote at all, neither innocent or guilty.. purely to cause controversy and not have a consensual judgement. |
|
|
|
Great reply, you are right, but the article is aimed specifically at cryptocurrency created from the use of Blockchain technology. I've used the Bitcoin as an example in the article to make clear that the article is not widespread and is not trying to promote the scammers.  i understand your premiss. but something like "what is bitcoin, blockchain and cryptocurrency" which i thought the article was purely about due to the title of this forum topic. i was expecting a different answer. specifically talking about this forum topic and also addressing another issue i came to in regards to your flim flam understanding of money vs currency, it can be explained much simpler starting from the top down explaining each level and all main forms of finance currency is the biggest umbrella term there is in finance. literally anything can be a currency. cigarettes in prison, alcohol for favours, money, assets commodities. as long as one person has what another person wants.. its a currency. money this is a type of currency recognised in a larger group, usually nationally/internationally and usually managed by institutions. though there are some exceptions to that rule, money usually has a logical and semi fixed rate of exchange to ensure everyone nationally or internationally can use it healthily. assets these are not nationally or internationally used as a common form of currency, more independent/specialised currencies but they do hold significant value due to what the particular item offers. antiques, jewellery, investment, basically if you own it its an asset. commodity these like assets, are not nationally or internationally used as a common form of currency, but do hold value due to what they are, which in the loosest term are raw materials used to make other produce.(wheat, beef, oil, gold) physical currency, can be physical money(bank notes and coins), physical assets(antiques, prison cigarettes, gold) digital currency, can be computerised money(bank balances), computerised assets(shares portfolios) online value(paypal, western union) and cryptocurrency(bitcoin) cryptocurrency is the new category of digital currency specifically secured by cryptographic keys, within this category you can have smart contracts is a new form of transacting by any number of parties signing in agreement. this can be centralized by storing the contract only on the computers of the individuals involved or this can be decentralized by storing the contract publicly to avoid disagreement or loss of contracts should any one contractor have issues blockchain is a block of data(ledger) chained to a previous block of data(ledger) using encryption this makes it harder to not only break the encryption of a block but the links of the chain each block of data relies on. they can be kept locally(centralized) to ensure no individual employee within a company can edit the data alone or copies are distributed(decentralized) to many people that can easily check against each other as an extra level of security by there being no single copy, thus further reducing the risk of editing, and also data loss due to hardware corruption and or viruses bitcoin uses digital technology to free it from borders, and physical issues cryptographic keypairs to secure the funds encryption to secure the blocks chains to decrease the ability of editing a block because it relies on the previous blocks integrity decentralisation to further reduce the chances of corruption, data loss or security issues bitcoin presently(not institutionally recognised or mainstream accepted) is defined as an digital asset currency |
|
|
|
It would not be surprising if they mismanaged the funds. They are not professional fund managers nor are they working behind an investment bank. Investing in something like that should be avoided because they are subject to SEC regulations. For now the SEC is not doing anything but that does not mean they won't in the future. They will make a good example of someone just like Ross Ulbricht in showing that the US government should not be messed with.
max keiser is UK based not US. the business is registered in the UK and run via a shell company in the caymens so the SEC wont do much secondly they seem to be still running. in the blog of BnkToTheFuture.com(the payment gateway of bitcoincapital) they are still advertising and taking on new contracts. yep even bitfinex last month went to them http://blog.bnktothefuture.com/max and his business partner were advertising the topic of bnktothefuture and bitcoincapital https://youtu.be/AClxy0B1Avkso it seems still active. though i personally have stayed via them very far away from investing with them for many reasons |
|
|
|
and lastly.. if you were actually knee deep in a legit project and ready to get started because you have all the paperwork, you most definitely not be copying and pasting stuff word for word from wiki (especially when some details are outdated.. but shhh im trying to be subtle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_for_Employment_and_Economic_Development_(Honduras)#ObjectivesZEDE has the following objectives for economic development
1.International logistics centres that permit the processing of goods at a grand scale. Like the Colón Free Trade Zone in Panamá.
2.International business courts that resolve disputes between both national and foreign business entities. Like the Isle of Man, United Kingdom.
3.Special investment districts that permit the creation of centres for the service sector. Like the Cayman Enterprise City, Cayman Islands.
4.Districts for renewable energy that permit investment in renewable energy. Like the solar parks in Arizona, United States.
5.Special economic zones in which the laws that govern the economy will be different from the rest of the country. National laws might be suspended in favor of solutions based on a free market. Compare Shenzhen, China.
6.Zones subject to a special judicial system that function under a judicial tradition different from the usual. Like the courts in the financial districts of Dubai that are subject to Common Law.
7.Special agro-industrial zones that permit incentives for exporting high-quality agricultural products. Like the cultivation of asparagus in Peru.
8.Special tourist zones that permit special conditions for creating centres for tourism in undeveloped parts of the country.
We will utilize this program to create an autonomous state that can be the worldwide hub of blockchain technology and libertarian ideals.
|
|
|
|
issues: 1. its not a nation.. its a small island, not big enough for a city, just maybe a vacation hotel resort 2. they say its starting a new currency.. yet is trying to grab FIAT investments.. (facepalm) 3. they say its going to revolutionise everything. yet they are begging for fiat before even having explained how it works in reality. in short its just another scheme to promise the world and something revolutionary, but the reality is just a tourists hotel oh and by the way. the image on the website is not even an island near honduras in short.. think of cuba.. honduras is south west of cuba.. the bahamas is north east of cuba.. separated by many hundreds of miles and many different territorial controls. the photo is an island in the bahamas.. not the honduras.. http://www.qarmazi.com/5/2015/07/landscapes-nature-sand-jungle-wildlife-1582667-1080x1920-tropical-islands-in-the-sand-940x1671.jpgsorry OP. but you seem to just be after a FIAT money grab. and just using wish washy words like blockchain and DAO to try getting the crypto crowd onboard without actually having to explain anything realistic. but have a nice day So Honduras is a small island not big enough for a city you say? Please actually read before you comment, we are utilizing the ZEDE program with the Honduran government to create this city. This will be one of the city/states that make up BitBastion. I also never said the banner image one the site was the ZEDE it's just a banner image, you seem to enjoy throwing around baseless accusations. BitBastion will be composed of multiple lands each serving various purposes. and now your seeing your own holes. you have not got pictures of where your going to do this.. big hint.. if you want investment for lets say a chocolate factory.. then use a picture of a chocolate factory, not a coffee factory big hint.. if you want investment for lets say main land city.. then use a picture of a mainland location, not a small island oh and by the way. have you been granted permission to be a technical secretary... i underlined and emboldened its significant to provide proof if you desire $40m investment. secondly before even asking for $40m, you must atleast know the costs involved with the development.. and knowing that before you think about sky scrapers, you need to think about the basics.. sewerage, electricity, plumbing, (you know the fundamentals) and how you are going to filter the water, handle sewerage and generate electric. which i found lacking in your descriptions. so it just seemed like you want to promise sky scrapers and luxury living for $40m without explaining where you came to $40m, i could go on but you have not shown the following thus far 1. permission to do the project (government committee elections) 2. location assigned to you (i hinted this when you used a stock picture of the bahama island..) 3. rational knowledge of infrastructure to build a city from the bottom up. starting with basic necessities ill give you a hint.. i ordered them in the importance of displaying proofs of, if you are going to be asking for investors. otherwise its vapour |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency is a decentralized and electronic currency, which can be used as a medium of exchange. However, it does not demand a central bank to be issued. The whole process is carried out by means of the code in which the cryptocurrency was generated, a Blockchain (a chain of blocks).
This decentralization makes it so that the transactions are free from abusive taxes charged by the financial institutions, as well as free from political and geographical barriers.
this is not quite accurate.. cryptocurrency doesnt need to be decentralized (take some centralized coins already thrown about, in the altcoin section) some of these coins dont even need to be in blockchains (take some scam coins already thrown about, in the altcoin section, take offchain solutions). in short think of cryptocurrency as an umbrella term for currencies that simply use cryptographic keypairs to secure funds. under this umbrella term are then other categories. centralized or decentralized. blockchain or multisig third party or single party control or a combination of all of the above where obviously decentralized coins rely on blockchains to ensure immutability and security of data manipulation. where obviously centralized coins don't necessarily need to rely on blockchains. for instance there are some centralized coins (liquid) where nothing is mined. but signed as a large X of X multisig transaction using cryptographic keypairs that represent transactions internally swapped by the exchanges allowed onto that network to sign. but keeping the previous signed transaction as a 'transaction history' ledger(thus loosely a blockchain). even lightning network is just an offline multisig signing network. it doesnt even have a blockchain, it just updates the balances and deletes the previous transaction held offline by those involved, and when its timee to settle. its transmitted as a tx to bitcoins onchain network. but in both cases they are still part of the 'cryptocurrency' umbrella even if they involve centralized networks or third party agreement |
|
|
|
You completely avoided what I asked. "Why don't you fork the code and promote it? See if users actually support your fork? Why do people insist on leveraging hash rate to provoke users to change networks?"
Instead you troll these forums day in, day out, talking shit about Core. What's the point? If people support the rule changes you propose, they will migrate to your fork. Endlessly insulting Core doesn't give merit to your fork.
to answer your question directly..
anyone can make the most majestic code ever that does exactly as expected. but it would get wrecked in the social drama of going against cores corporate plan of offchain middlemen controls
look at the propaganda to change networks migrate to your fork seems you have not understood the difference of consensual and controversial. and you think that a hard fork is only controversial. trying to scare everyone by saying a fork is not bitcoin by using propaganda buzzwords like "changing networks" or "migrating" please learn consensual vs controversial |
|
|
|
so abusing the consensus mechanism by not allow users to choose, thus not even giving any new rules a chance.
Anyone is free to choose. Why don't you fork the code and promote it? See if users actually support your fork? Why do people insist on leveraging hash rate to provoke users to change networks? Just leave miners out of it. If forkers had support, they would fork, and the community would follow. That they refuse to fork and instead lobby miners to pressure the rest of us to fork is very telling. the code of a 2mb block is not the problem.. even core agree 4mb is fine.. but there is drama and doomsday scenarios that stop a consensual fork.. not related to code. but related to actually making implementations have the same rules so that no one has control and freedom of choice to use different implementations. core want to take bitcoin offchain and away from the original idea, and they will do this without nodes needing to vote. they want full control there have already been 6 attempts to offer an onchain solution. but the debate has not been about code logic. but social illogics. even now.. Luke JR is starting to receive the R3kt campaign experience of social illogics, because luke wants to release a consensual hardfork using cores code.(meaning a safe option) again its not about code. but they want to attack the social illogics because the code allows true capacity growth safely. the activation parameters offers hassle free rule changes.. but because it puts a dent into the plan of moving users offchain and into sidechains, the social debate begins trying to kill off freedom of choice by using false doomsdays and personality attacks. in short core want to be the sole decision makers. and even if one of their own wants freedom of choice, they will throw them under the bus to answer your question directly.. anyone can make the most majestic code ever that does exactly as expected. but it would get wrecked in the social drama of going against cores corporate plan of offchain middlemen controls |
|
|
|
snip
they way you see a fork is an intentional split.(controversial). and keeping both side alive.. to me i would call that a controversial fork where a clear defined single direction cannot be established and so extra code is added so the 2 decisions do not rule each other out(blacklisting opposing user agents/flags), which allows both decisions to survive. a consensual fork is when there is adequate demand and utility that the rules can change without causing a second chain, where the natural consensus mechanism of orphans that would kill off a minority and everyone continues in a single direction of new rules.. in the last year of debate.. the conclusion is that all software implementations should have released a fork code with a consensual activation mechanism. meaning if a high majority desire shows, it activates and then orphans take care of the minority until the minority move over. leading to a single chain. emphasis high majority desire to move in a single direction i do not favour controversial forks that add code to force the minority chain to survive. (clams), but that said i also do not favour a certain dev team to veto even releasing code out of fear that everyone would actually show a high desire for it. so abusing the consensus mechanism by not allow users to choose, thus not even giving any new rules a chance. core fans scream doomsdays of controversial hard forks. but dont realise that core is preventing consensual forks by vetoing a release to ensure the community never get to a healthy majority. thus causing the controversy so here is the thing. if cores only worry is a healthy majority. how about include the hardfork in their softfork code as both require high majority activation parameters. thus when it activates there is no harm because of the consensus mechanism is there to resolve it. |
|
|
|
Anyone have a rough idea of how much profit Poloniex.com is bringing each day?
Please point the approximately amount in BTC or USD
Thank you!
From the poloniex charts we can see that the total amount that was traded the last 24 hours is $14,898,411 or 24,446 BTC then we should calculate the 0.2% in average (because the fees are from 0.15 - 0.25%). that's for taker and maker in 1 transaction, 1buy or 1sell, poloniex take fee twice, from seller and buyer, so poloniex get profit 0.15%+0.25% from transaction in same tier 1, 0.14% + 0.24% from same tier 2 i think the average profit 0.38% I hope to be good at math so 0.4% in average from both the seller and buyer from $15m is equivalent to $60k within a day, x30 days(in a month) is equal to 1.8 million us dollars profit monthly!!! Correct me someone if I made a mistake. That is insane, are they even regulated by any government? As far as I know yes and I found in their website Wilmington, DE, USA but the profit which I calculated is very high and of course that a good part of it goes to maintain the exchange and updating the security holes which is the most important part of an exchange. lol you do know that the address poloniex website lists is(whois search) 5 Middlesex Ave, Somerville, MA 02145, United States which is just a virtual office/mail service http://www.alphalandmark.com/as for the wilmington DE address (1013 Centre Road, Suite 403-B, Wilmington, DE 19801, United States) which is just the address of their incorporating agenthttp://www.inclegal.com/in short, you wont find Mr. Tristan D'Agosta in either location unless you call him up and give him a few days notice for him to get there and pretend he has always been there. atleast mtgox had a fixed address where people can see the owner walking to work with a cup of coffee to be able to protest outside of when things went wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd0jMns_Negsame cant be said about poloniex |
|
|
|
I wonder why everyone wants to go anonymous anyway... It's not like we are all drug dealers drug dealing aside. there are other legit reasons to not want snooping eyes looking at your holdings. 1. your about to get divorced and dont want your ex wife to take 50% of everything, so you gotta hide it somewhere 2. you move country to country every 2 months and dont want to have to pay 6x yearly tax on the same lump sum, but happily pay one tax to the country you favour most. 3. you own a business and dont want your competition knowing your finances to work out how to undercut you by seeing how much you obtain and how much you spend 4. you dont want your neighbours seeing how much you have, or they will get too friendly and be asking for some 'help' financially 5. going to bitcoin meetups and someone sees ur name badge, searches the forum for addresses you publish and see how much you holding.. then does the dark alley pickpocket trick to take ur laptop or hardware wallet. |
|
|
|
Looks like a bit more elaborate scam attempt. The people behind it have zero competence, they haven't even defined what they really want to do on a practical level. It's just throwing some cool terms around. Running everything autonomous requires machines that execute things autonomously in the real world. For example, how will you provide security for the citizen?
Even if it's just on an organizational level, the data used for decisions have to come from somewhere. Who will provide the data needed for governance? When it comes to law, who will judge in a case and how will the judgement be enforced?
To me, it seems these guys have either not really thought about it out of pure stupidity or they are intentionally vague. In either case, my judgement is clear: Better stay away from this project!
ya.ya.yo!
more fundementally.. who is going to manage the sewerage (its a subtle hint to a massive and expensive problem that tropical islands need to deal with) |
|
|
|
Go ahead, bury your head in the sand. That is the normal response from morons who don't want to see anything other than their own stupid ideas on matters.
False. I'm very open to ideas, this one is just idiotic. It is you who's the ignorant fool trying to push through a catastrophic ideology. Fork is not dangerous. Fork is good.
So breaking the whole network infrastructure is good? Sure, let's all vote today and fork it in 28 days. If you can't update your custom implementations in that time-frame, you shouldn't even be a part of the ecosystem. All praise the amazing fork!  Fork is an opportunity for everyone to vote.
Again, there are several proposals. The problem is that nobody sane wants them. Preventing a fork is Greg Maxwell's way to assure Blockstream will soon be forcing everyone to pay 'sidechain fees'.
This is just pure bullshit. Nobody will be forced to pay "sidechain fees".
Isn't it interesting how people would sacrifice the intrinsic blockchain values inherent to Bitcoin, just in an attempt to gain a wider user-base, i.e. bigger market capitalization, i.e. more money? seems lauda has closed his eyes and put on his blockstream nightcap again.. its not about a bigger market capitalization.. its not about more money. its about increasing the usability. EG reducing the fee war EG increasing ability to spend within ~20 minutes without having to fight for priority EG not treating third world currency weekly wages as 'spam' EG not treating a transaction fee as 'cheap', when it amounts to more than an hours labour in third world countries EG not tweaking bitcoin to be reliant on third party management EG not tweaking bitcoin to not be transparent and independently checkable EG not scaring people into false doomsdays purely to push users offchain EG no 2mb doomsdays, then suddenly say 4mb ok. EG no 4mb is ok but only 1.8x capacity.. because 4x capacity needs to be ignored |
|
|
|
|
ill just write things as if im telling a bad joke
John: hey guys lets make a new useful currency that doesnt need fiat and anyone can be part of it
Jeff: sounds great
John: yes we just need to get lots of fiat because we cant do it without fiat, and theres only room for 100 people to live there, so only the rich can apply
john: hey guys let make a new nation that makes its own rules
Jeff: sounds great
John: yes we just need the government to partner with us, watch over us and allow us to do things
john: hey guys i have no idea how to build something so i grabbed some buzzwords to make it sound like im organized even if i cant do it
Jeff: sounds great
John: yes its not only hiding that i dont know what im saying but also hiding the fact that im trying to snare $40mill for a 100 capacity hotel
john: this new currency is going to create laws..
jeff: sounds great
john: but ofcourse it will rely on the government prison and court system otherwise there would not be any punishment
|
|
|
|
|
well no one knows..
any mathematical estimate is based on pure guess and speculative numbers formulated in a manner that would confuse people into believing it was correct purely because they cannot understand it.
but seeing as bitcoin is at the $600 area and your looking for a price point of $6000 in the future.. lets just use some quazi-maths and just say
10 years, now u can run along skipping and dancing and happy someone told you a number you are ok with..
|
|
|
|
And why not it is not up to anyone to say who can and cannot take part in bitcoin  your right. they are free to do what they like. but lets atleast not say its gonna help decentralization. lets atleast be frank and "call a spade, a spade" |
|
|
|
Was about to venture into the links till I read Franky1 and his response. Either way this pans out it is a interesting venture to attempt to create a nation that subsists on bitcoin alone. Recall watching some guy that created a Country that was just his boathouse at a dock,so the whole needing a Island to attempt this may be overreaching.
We could setup a nation on the cheap and it could mostly exsist in cyber space,but I could see a few issues that creep out of the idea as well.
I as well wish you well on the idea and hope it is more legitimate than first glance.
the boathouse. is just another fiat grab scheme.(36 room vessel is not a nation) the people behind it have no clue and it wouldnt be a nation.. just a tourist trap. these schemes i read on this forum never pan out because they skip the fundamentals and not think of the fine details. which is where it always falls flat when trying to get any actual investment. micronations are a good concept.. but the OP and people like him are just grabbing hold of the buzz words 'micronations' 'bitcoin' purely to grab hold some fiat and run. they have no clue about the finer details (which is what i spotted they lack) and made it blindingly obvious they are just doing a money grab and run scheme sorry but the OP wont be solving any real world problems. they just want the money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
