Maybe some day reliable brokers will accept deposits in bitcoins, so you could in some sense invest in for example the stock market using bitcoins.
https://1broker.com/Wanted to post the same. And yes 1broker is a great site. I can recommend it. They don't have all stocks but alot already and the fees are better than elsewhere in the real market. |
|
|
|
that is very true, there are risks of losing cash or Btc through scammers but that does not mean that we cannot invest. negative people have been there since history began, they are the reason that the security systems are put in place. or we need to do is be careful while dealing with people. the only rule that can always keep you safe is that " never trust anyone but yourself". there are good people out there
You clearly aren't here since some years. Practically every bitcoiner was the way you are now. Until he learned better. When 95% of all investments, and that is no joke, turn out to be a scam, being hacked or run by inept businessmans then you need to be sceptic. Even the most promising and legit and official projects turned scam. NeoBee for example. Cyprus bitcoin bank. Very legit... until the owner scammed everyone. Believe me, there is practically no early adopter who did not lose the majority, all or at least a huge part of his coins to scams. And they surely weren't dreamers. Spreading risk did not help either. Bitcoin area is simply very very dangerous. If you take this lightly then you will have to learn it the hard way. And that is a costly way. |
|
|
|
I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.
I don't see why you want to do that at all? Lower supply means higher demands for bitcoin so the price will increase which pumps the price of it The falsity of this assumption has been explained many times already (me included). Quoting myself again: I think he refers to inflation and deflation. Stopping block reward completely would mean there would be less bitcoins in existance than the targetted 21million. Which would be deflation and would raise the value of each bitcoin. Though when you produce more bitcoins than 21 million then it would mean inflation. It's the same when the central bank of a country starts to produce more and more fiat money in order to pay their bills. The total worth of each currency unit would effectively diminished the more they print. The would-be miner says about switching to a halving-free version of Bitcoin, which is quite the opposite of the total block reward cancellation you mention. The idea of 21 million coin limit may have served to boost the Bitcoin usage initially, but it will ultimately and inevitably turn it into a Ponzi. Gold is limited too, but its inherent qualities for which it is loved and valued gain from its scarcity (and only to a certain extent)... On the other hand, Bitcoin as a payment system (its inherent quality) suffers from this limit badly I think you miss that switching to a non block halving version of bitcoin will effectively break the 21 million coin limit. Since the block halving is calculated so that at the end 21 Million coins came into existence. If no block halving would happen then bitcoins would be created indefinitely. That's the definition of stopping the coin limit. Except you will stop anyway though then we would have 25 Bitcoin block rewards for some years from now and then suddenly only fees anymore. No time to adapt. Which most probably would break bitcoin. |
|
|
|
if it was done (the halving) every year, right now miners would be fucked basically
So how does it change the things now, before the next halving? If the halving weren't as rare as it is, would the miners have already been fucked by now? If they would (which seems to be your point), I see no reason why they won't be ruined by this halving... What goes around comes about it change the thing because they had time to improve the efficiency, now they have a better efficiency and can sustain the halving even with a <<<$100 price, if the halving was every years they would still be with the efficiency of 2011.... A better efficiency is fully accommodated over time by the rising difficulty, so we are effectively time-invariant in the long run (efficiency vs difficulty), i.e. the halving interval is irrelevant if we still hit the efficiency wall before the halving. In other words, your assumption would hold true only if (and for as long as) the efficiency outpaces the difficulty. Previously, this condition had been satisfied by the new more efficient equipment hitting the market on a pretty regular basis... But now we seem to be well past that point What are you talking about? New chips hit the market just this summer. Give them some time if you already want new chips. However current chips are pretty effective at around 0.25 J/GH If we were to cancel the halving, can we remove the 21mil hard cap as well? How would we cancel the halving exactly? I thought that was something built in the system itself and couldn't be stopped, pretty much in all coins. Last one that got halved was litecoin and the price wasn't really affected at all by it. I Hardly doubt there is a way to remove the 21mil cap. miners consensus above a certain % with the help of other people can potentially hard fork bitcoin and cancel the halving it's all about consensus + hard fork, after all many alt coin are hard fork of bitcoin... Though miners would have to convince bitcoiners that the fork is the new real bitcoin. I'm sure, when the cap is broken then the majority of bitcoiners would stay with the unbroken chain. And i'm pretty sure the forked coin will crash since it would be clear that the value is not as stable anymore. Like a country printing more and more money, devalueing all money in existence in the process. |
|
|
|
I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.
I don't see why you want to do that at all? Lower supply means higher demands for bitcoin so the price will increase which pumps the price of it The falsity of this assumption has been explained many times already (me included). Quoting myself again: I think he refers to inflation and deflation. Stopping block reward completely would mean there would be less bitcoins in existance than the targetted 21million. Which would be deflation and would raise the value of each bitcoin. Though when you produce more bitcoins than 21 million then it would mean inflation. It's the same when the central bank of a country starts to produce more and more fiat money in order to pay their bills. The total worth of each currency unit would effectively diminished the more they print. |
|
|
|
It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.
The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?
That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether? Fly me to the moon because satoshi wanted that the reward was spread in a long time to permit adoption to take off, and to permit the efficiency to catch the reward itself Okay, Bitcoin took off (at least, that's what they all say), so its time to cancel the halving? Or did it? If it didn't make it, what is the metric we should look at? The fee. Bitcoin took off but only slightly. The current status surely is not the target already. When adoption is so high that the fees are high enough to reward miners and at least make the network secure a couple of times then we would not need block rewards beside fee anymore. But we have a long way to go till that. |
|
|
|
I'm against the halving too. I think all major pools should fork bitcoin to not-halving version which will be supported in the future to maintain miners profits.
Let me guess... you are a miner, right?  That would be a stupid idea because even though you would get more bitcoins as a number, you would crash bitcoin because it would mean that bitcoins would be created indefinitely. Which means every bitcoin in existence will lose worth constantly. It's named inflation and happens when you print more and more money. Thankfully satoshi knew the risks of inflation and made a hard cap. It will never be removed. If it will then bitcoin price would crash anyway. That's why the pools never would be stupid enough to enforce it with forking. |
|
|
|
It is a mandatory step in the development of the network and prosperity of bitcoin. So yes it won't be cancelled.
The title is misleading and since it suggest a eventual cancellation which is not true. A better title would be. Should the halving be cancelled?
That's what I think should happen and assume will happen ("unless miners want to kill bitcoin"). My logic is flawless, lol. If the halving is so beneficial for the "prosperity of bitcoin", why not cancel the miners reward altogether? Fly me to the moon Because halving was implemented to give an initial reward for miners to provide their service. This reward brings bitcoins into existence too. Though it is only temporary until bitcoin adoption is so high that the fees are high enough to compensate miners. Well, if the ones that want to keep 1 megabyte blocks win then this won't work out. The fees could not rise anymore because we have more and more adoption, adoption would be stopped because only a certain amount of transactions could be confirmed. Instead they would try to make bitcoin transactions more expensive by everyone competing to get his transaction confirmed. That obviously will make bitcoin very unattractive. |
|
|
|
You are right... the asic tech is not much further to develop i think. So it might be that alot miners will be switched off. Though when at past times more and more miners were switched on, leading to shorter conf time for some days, then it would be ok when the same happens in the other direction. What i doubt is that everyone will switch off instantly. That never happened and will not most probably
That would take just a few mining pools to "cooperate". Didn't exactly this we see last summer going on when thousands of unconfirmed transactions got stuck in queue? What happened back then tells us two important things. First, that they can easily work in sync (i.e. efficiently coordinate their actions whatever their ends might be), and, second, that they do actually control Bitcoin... And none of this bodes well in the long term, by any means There definitely are risks and yes miners control the network. I was surprised to read that satoshi foresaw that situation and wasn't concerned about it. At the end the miners can't be too brutal. Otherwise user would fork and that's it. The real power is with the users. |
|
|
|
Has anyone tried investing their bitcoins in a lending venture like BTC Jam or is it a risky way to lose your bitcoins due to the borrower not paying back?
Yes, and when you are very cautious you will have around 19% annual return. Though you still have the risk that the trustworthy loaner only built up his reputation in order to make a big scam. It's better to provide liquidity on bitfinex. Profit around 25% annual. Though you need to trust the exchange. |
|
|
|
If you are just starting with bitcoins and would like to get an amount to get started then faucets are the way to go, Trading is very much of a gamble (with a little skill involved), Not sure what are signature campaigns but if it's just people getting paid for having a signature then it would be a great way and an easy way too, Investment sites are very much of a scam so I don't thin they count at all.
Currently investing in any site is worst idea as they are mostly doing scams and running away with investors money alt coins trading is some risky but still much better idea just need some skills just few faucets giving regularly and good amount now many running away very quickly without paying any penny at least one thing is true here: most of people here are pessimists and paranoiack Most people here that warn were not pessimists before. They fell for all kind of scams, hacks and whatever. They aren't pessimists now in general but regarding the bitcoin area you need to be a pessimist if you want to survive. Otherwise you will be food in the sharkpool. |
|
|
|
Ich fürchte allerdings dass erst einiger Schaden an Bitcoin entstehen wird durch "Fee Market" usw. Das wäre synonym mit einer nicht vertrauenswürdigen Währung da standardmäßig ein Teil der korrekten Transactionen keine Confirmation bekommen würde. Und wer würde schon freiwillig eine Währung benutzen bei der eine Transaktion ankommt... oder vielleicht auch nicht?
Das ist allerdings bei Bitcoin schon immer so. Solange einer der 10 Miner bestimmt welche Transaktion er in einen Block aufnimmt, kann er sich auch gegen die Aufnahme entscheiden. Eine Lösung wäre DAG. Damit trägt jeder Sender einer Transaktion seinen Teil zum POW bei. Das liegt allerdings noch in weiter Ferne. Ich denke es ist sogar schlimmer. Hearn und Gavin haben doch wohl schon länger versucht die anderen Devs von einer Änderung zu überzeugen. Die wollen aber nicht. Wie soll ein Konsens entstehen? Es gibt für mich keinen Grund anzunehmen dass sie plötzlich anders denken werden.
Fragt sich, warum sie dann die Blockgrösse mit anderen Änderungen vermischt haben und nicht mit einer gemässigten Grösse begonnen haben. Eine Grösse von 2MB hat garantiert mehr Chancen als ein Ausbau auf 8GB Blocks im Paket mit Blacklisting und anderen umstrittenen Änderungen. Sie wollten anfangs ja sogar 20MB. Vielleicht erstmal hoch pokern um dann einen Kompromiss schließen zu können?  Aber ja, ich weiß nicht ob Gavin das Blacklisting unterstützt hat oder sogar gecoded aber das war selten dämlich und hat nur gezeigt das XT unter Hearn gefährlich ist und nicht unterstützensfähig. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen was Gavin da für eine Rolle spielt. Entweder Dummheit, Ahnunglosigkeit der Auswirkung oder wir schätzen ihn falsch ein und er ist doch eher wie Hearn. Ich schätze aber er wurde einfach überrascht. Oder hat er sich danach überhaupt mal dazu geäußert? 2MB würde vermutlich auch nicht so lange halten. Selbst wenn wir momentan bei durchschnittlich halbvollen Blocks sind wenn der Bitcoinprice sehr volatil ist dann sind die Blöcke voll. Und das würde auch relativ schnell bei 2MB blöcken passieren. Und gerade wenn der Preis volatil ist ist es fatal wenn die Blöcke voll sind. Genau dann will man verkaufen oder kaufen. Und dann funktioniert das Netzwerk nicht? Richtiger Abturner. Was verstehst du unter Konsens? Wer muss einverstanden sein? Die Bitcoiner allgemein, abstimmend durch Nutzung der jeweiligen Walletsoftware?
Ja, Wallet-Software, Dienstleister, Verkäufer. Noch eine Frage die ich mir stelle ist ob es, wenn zwei blockchains existieren, die andere Blockchain anzugreifen indem man die eigenen Coins auf dieser chain auf den Exchanges verkauft. Der preis würde crashen und man könnte sagen "Seht ihr, das war nicht der echte bitcoin, die leute glauben nicht daran." Das geht natürlich in beide Richtungen. Wäre halt wirklich eine Glaubenssache denn wenn doch die andere chain gewinnt dann hat man nichts mehr bzw seine coins verschleudert.
Keine ahnung was für ein großes Problem das sein würde.
Ich denke, das Problem löst sich lange vorher auf, da kein Nutzer ernsthaft Interesse daran haben kann. Das war die logische Argumentation. Praktisch folgen vielleicht auch genug Leute ihrem Führer in den Untergang, sodass der tatsächliche Ausgang völlig offen ist. Richtig. Nur erstmal ist es wieder nur eine altcoin die halt bitcoin nutzt. Und all diese Coins die angetreten sind um bitcoin vom Thron zu stoßen sind damit ja noch nicht wirklich weit gekommen. NXT, ethereum usw. Ich denke einfach da wird nicht so großartig viel bei rauskommen mit LN.
Was ich aber finde ist dass es paradox ist. Wir haben eine Währung. Die ursprüngliche und echte. Bitcoin. Und jetzt plötzlich soll bitcoin nicht mehr gut genug sein, es wäre kaputt und wir müssten jetzt eine andere Altcoin benutzen. Ziemlich paradox wenn man bedenkt dass das einzige was es kaputt macht eben ein künstliches Korsett ist.
LN bzw. ein Payment Channel ist kein Altcoin, sondern eine Methode beliebig viele Bitcoin Transaktionen in eine Klammer aus einer Eröffnungstransaktion und einer Glattstellungstransaktion unterzubringen. Ich dachte das wäre eine Altcoin die die internen Transaktionen regelt aber die großen zusammengefassten Pakete dann über Bitcoin verschiebt. Wenn jemand mit Dir öfters Geschäfte macht, könnt ihr beide damit z.B. einen Payment Channel mit einem maximalen Geld-Volumen definieren. Dieses Geld wird in der Blockchain durch eine Multisig Transaktion gesperrt - ähnlich wie beim Multisig-Escrow. Danach könnt ihr im Rahmen der vereinbarten Summe und im vereinbarten Zeitfenster beliebig viele Transaktionen durchführen. Der aktuellen Geschäftsstand lässt sich jederzeit in der Blockchain glattstellen. Durch das gesperrte Geld-Volumen ist dabei sichergestellt, dass keiner von euch beiden den anderen betrügt, bzw. der Betrüger verliert dann maximal sein Geld.
Damit können viele Transaktionen auf genau zwei Transaktion zurückgeführt werden, wobei alle Transaktionen weiterhin über das Bitcoin Netzwerk abgesichert sind. Daneben ist das System dezentral. Beliebige Parteien können beliebig viele Payment Channels eröffnen und auch wieder glattstellen. Das ganze ist natürlich nur sinnvoll, wenn man mit einem Geschäftspartner mehr als eine Transaktion durchführt. Mit LN kann man dann die Transaktion dann auch noch über Dritte laufen lassen, ohne dass diese Dritte das Geld unterschlagen können.
Danke für die Erklärung. Dezentral bedeutet dann aber dass nicht alle alles verwalten sondern viele viele kleine Teile verwalten oder? Damit wäre es doch nicht mehr dezentral sondern ein Netzwerk aus vielen zentralen Punkten die alle ihre Werte verwalten. Oder wird jeder Paymentchannel auch von anderen mitverwaltet? Wenn bei den Zwischentransaktionen nicht glatt gestellt wird, besteht dann nicht die Gefahr dass die Zwischentransaktionen verloren gehen? Damit hat man weiterhin Bitcoin, kann aber daneben dezentral beliebig viele abgesicherte Transaktionen mit bekannten Geschäftspartnern durchführen, die sofort und ohne Confirmation gültig sind. Von diesen Transaktionen tauchen in der Blockchain nur die Clearing TX auf.
Hm, ok, dann hab ich LN bisher falsch gesehen. Na mal sehen wie sicher sich das dann in der Praxis gestaltet. Bitcoin hat ja seinen Sicherheitsfaktor durch die Blockchain. LN klingt für mich momentan eher wie ein Wallet auf einer Webseite bei der Transaktionen erstmal nur innerhalb des Webseitensystems passieren und noch nicht in der Blockchain. |
|
|
|
Sollte es einen Workshop geben, der den Flüchtlingsstrom stoppt, spende ich ein paar BTC.
Abgesehen davon, dass ich den Flüchtlingsstrom für unsere geriatrische Gesellschaft für einen Segen halte, dennoch mein Hinweis: Wenn die Flüchtlinge hierzulande mit Bitcoin in die Lage versetzt werden, ihren Familien zuhause einen größeren Teil ihres Ersparten zuzusenden, weil nicht straßenräuberische Gebühren wie bei WU o.ä. anfallen, haben die Angehörigen in den Herkunftsländern möglicherweise größere Chancen, sich eine eigene Zukunft in der Heimat aufzubauen und somit eine geringere Motivation, ihr Leben beim Versuch aufs Spiel zu setzen, ins gelobte Land des Wirtschaftswunders zu gelangen. Ergo: Bitcoin - Remittance - weniger Flüchtlinge q.e.d. Grundsätzlich hast du Recht aber, für das Land das das alles bezahlt ist genau das der Supergau, da mit dem Geld aus dem jeweiligen Land 0% Wertschöpfung im Land gemacht wird... Nur eine vernünftige Integration würde da helfen (das beinhaltet auch Pflichten, Toleranz über den herrschenden Gebräuchen und Sitten,...), das sich die Leute hier wohl fühlen, Arbeiten und Leben wollen ohne 90% des Geldes heim zu senden... Es gibt für alles Pro und Kontra aber mmn ist es zur Zeit oder schon länger völlig ausser Kontrolle... Ich hab die Politik momentan nicht verfolgt aber die Politiker um sie herum haben ja schon gedacht sie wäre bekloppt geworden als sie meinte wir schaffen das und machen die Grenze auf. Ich frage mich ja wie die IS-Gefahr jetzt auf sie und ihre Karriere wirkt. Da gibt es sicher genug die ihr vorwerfen sie ließe Terroristen unkontrolliert ins Land. Ja, ich hab keine Zeit Nachrichten zu schauen... |
|
|
|
The day following Thanksgiving Day is traditionally the beginning of the Christmas shopping season, and in the past decade it has become tradition that businesses offer special promotions on the day known as Black Friday. The day's name originated in Philadelphia, where it was originally used to describe the heavy and disruptive pedestrian and vehicle traffic that would occur on the day after Thanksgiving. To follow this tradition, we have decided to offer something too! On Friday, November 27th, all of our spreads will be reduced by 75%. Since a regular trading day goes from 5:15pm-5:00pm (New York Time), this promotion will start on Thursday, November 26th at 5:15pm and will end on Friday, November 27th at 5:00pm. We wish everyone a relaxing and calm December. Follow all the latest news and updates: https://1broker.com/?c=blogSounds cool, too bad i don't have time to trade. Though maybe observing this spread leads to a lower spread generally in the future because it works out for you? Well, dreaming is allowed.  |
|
|
|
Why not raise the total supply of Bitcoin? Change it to 8 billion so everyone can have 1 Bitcoin. Pretty solid solutions.
Is that sarcasm or serious? If the latter... it is not needed. Firstly it would devalue all bitcoins currently in existence. Bitcoin would crash instantly. And secondly it is not needed because even when the 8 decimals are not enough, the amount of decimals can be raised like developers want to raise. A bitcoin might be worth a lot of thousand dollars but then we would simply calculate with satoshies, mBTC or so. |
|
|
|
I think it is a bad idea to peg and asset to USD, but it can be helpful too to exchanges and money transmitters.
However it will be hard to maintain the peg.
It is a good idea for bitcoiners but probably risky for those offering it. Though the demand is there definitely so offers are there too. So far i believe that the liquidity providers of nubits still earn from providing liquidity. It's not that they lose money by doing so. And they survived some crashs till now. I think there is a risk but the longer they survive the lower will it get i think. |
|
|
|
i'm searching an alternative to NuBits, that i used till now to hedge against a falling bitcoin price. To protect my value.
There's always Coinapult Locks. An account to lock your bitcoins to USD is actually built right in to the Mycelium wallet now. There are drawbacks to using it, but such is the case for the alternatives here. Coinapult looks like it would be a similar risk like simply exchanging bitcoins to fiat on an exchange and letting it lie around there. If the website goes down then the value is gone. I tend to believe that the possible ways to lose your value are lower when holding a coin on your own wallet. Then the only risk is that the issuer goes down. The thing with Mycelium looks similar or is it possible that you control your coins and even would be able to get your value out in case mycelium as a company goes down? Or would the backed value vanish then? |
|
|
|
I was in contact with support and explained the problems for privacy with that function. Staff saw the problem and told me the following: It is now possible to generate a new address every 24 hours via the API.
More sophisticated restrictions should not be difficult, like a certain
USD value of deposits being necessary before a new address is allowed,
but the UI will need to be adapted to present appropriate error messages. I asked if it is only possible with API: It's possible if you use the API, which might be a bit of a pain to set
up if you've never used it before or don't have command line experience.
Shouldn't take too long to make the UI changes. Well, it seems the trouble came from too small deposits. I suggested a threshold, like $1 to be deposited to an address at least. That such solutions are not difficult let it sound like a solution might come soon. |
|
|
|
...
Good call, though was that chart actual when you posted it? Wasn't the price already higher at the time of your post?
No he didn't cheat, price was relatively flat for about 12h after chessnut's post. That's interesting then. I mean if often enough ask myself, when we have such a waveform where the waves become thinner and thinner, where will the price break out to. I wonder if EW can give hints there... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
