My original custom title was Gold Member. Mprep then one-upped me with Diamond Member, so I had to go one further and become a Lambo member.
If I had a chance then I would have a Private Jet Member title, in that case would you think of going more further?  Gold Member... Diamond Member... Lambo Member... Private Jet Member... wouldn't this ultimately lead to Bitcoin Member anyway? ;P |
|
|
|
After all the effort of building a blockchain research team, they're just gonna buy a shitty exchange? meh that's quite dumb, probably just a rumor. We'll see...
Keep in mind though that with acquisitions such as these it's rarely only about buying a platform or product, but also about buying knowledge and experience. Say what you will about Coinbase, but being one of the first exchanges they likely have some of the most experienced devs in the field. |
|
|
|
|
1. Be wary of greed and how it clouds your decision making.
2. Be more selective when investing and more conservative when evaluating the risk / reward factors. The risk is usually much higher and the rewards are usually much lower.
3. Diversification accounts for nothing when the whole market turns to shit (ie. alts are a bad bad hedge against Bitcoin crashes despite the tendency to outperform Bitcoin during bull runs).
|
|
|
|
|
I seriously hope they won't. While Facebook has an incredibly wide reach it's one of the last companies that I'd like to see getting involved in crypto.
|
|
|
|
But you could never be 100% sure someone, somewhere down the line hasn't tampered with the device/product in question.
The most common supply line attack vector is a third party reseller making a copy of the original seed of your hardware wallet. This is easily thwarted by reinitializing your freshly received hardware wallet with a mnemonic of your own choosing, using the BIP-0039 wordlist. Hardware wallet firmware is cryptographically signed and can not be overridden with malicious firmware without the hardware wallet alerting its owner -- at least that's the case with the Trezor, I assume it's the same with Ledger but I'm unfamiliar with their hardware. Of course there's no such thing as 100% security, but I'd still argue that most hardware wallets are reasonably tamper-proof. (note: The hard- and software part, that is. As mentioned above, the original seed phrase cards are fairly easy to tamper with, I assume) |
|
|
|
|
I personally don't see blockchains solving the supply chain tracking problem.
If people are unwilling or unable to keep track of data in traditional databases they will also be unwilling or unable to keep track of data using blockchains. If people are unwilling or unable to agree on which central database to use, they will also be unwilling or unable to agree on which blockchain to use. If at the end of the day you come to the agreement that a permissioned blockchain would do the job, you are very likely better of just using a traditional database.
|
|
|
|
Now, I'm all in on Bitcoin Gold, I bought it at $110 which is down to around $26.
Aw geez. Why would you do that? Sorry for your loss, mate. Best case you could be holding out for a Bitcoin Gold pump, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Long term I doubt that Bitcoin Gold has much of a future since it's neither technically compelling nor does it seem to have much of a community behind it. In the end it's up to you though. From a fiat perspective more unlikely cryptos have come back from the dead during the recent bull market. Whether Bitcoin Gold will be remembered when the next bull run occurs is a different question. |
|
|
|
|
Every form of digitally stored data can get corrupted and / or lost. Digital mediums arguably have a shorter lifetime than most analog forms -- eg. the average lifetime of hard drives is shorter than the average lifetime of books. However the upside of digital data is that perfect copies can be created easily and cheaply. That's why you back up and replicate the shit out of it.
|
|
|
|
Newbie chanvanchin2584 copy / pasted one of my posts. Didn't even bother to change parts of it. Copy: If by value you mean exchange rate -- the exchange rate between two coins that share a transaction history until a hard fork occurs is determined by the free market.
To exemplify: When Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked off Bitcoin (BTC), people had coins on both side of the fork because there was a shared transaction history until the time of the split. Some people favour BCH over BTC, so naturally they try to gain BCH by selling BTC. Some people favour BTC over BCH, so naturally they try to gain BTC by selling BCH. More people willing to buy BTC than BCH, leads to BTC being more worth than BCH.
The relation towards their fiat value, eg. USD exchange rate, is a bit more complicated. Before the hard fork happened, many people assumed that the accumulated USD value of both sides of the fork would be slightly less than of BTC alone. That is, BTC would lose value in terms of USD by the amount with which BCH enters the market place (eg.: pre-fork BTC is worth USD 4000,- BCH forks off and is evaluated at USD 1000,-, BTC tumbles down towards USD 3000,- making for a total of USD 4000,-). This devaluation of BTC never happened though, with BCH gaining market value without taking a bite off of BTC. Subsequent hard forks even seemed to push the BTC price upwards, as people wanted to hold coins on both sides of the fork. It wasn't a pattern that held up though, as hard forks got less and less interesting, making less and less of a market impact.
TLDR; The market decides on the exchange rate between coins and their hard forks as well as the exchange rate between the resulting coins and the rest of the market (eg. fiat currencies such as the USD).
Original: If by value you mean exchange rate -- the exchange rate between two coins that share a transaction history until a hard fork occurs is determined by the free market.
To exemplify: When Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked off Bitcoin (BTC), people had coins on both side of the fork because there was a shared transaction history until the time of the split. Some people favour BCH over BTC, so naturally they try to gain BCH by selling BTC. Some people favour BTC over BCH, so naturally they try to gain BTC by selling BCH. More people willing to buy BTC than BCH, leads to BTC being more worth than BCH.
The relation towards their fiat value, eg. USD exchange rate, is a bit more complicated. Before the hard fork happened, many people assumed that the accumulated USD value of both sides of the fork would be slightly less than of BTC alone. That is, BTC would lose value in terms of USD by the amount with which BCH enters the market place (eg.: pre-fork BTC is worth USD 4000,- BCH forks off and is evaluated at USD 1000,-, BTC tumbles down towards USD 3000,- making for a total of USD 4000,-). This devaluation of BTC never happened though, with BCH gaining market value without taking a bite off of BTC. Subsequent hard forks even seemed to push the BTC price upwards, as people wanted to hold coins on both sides of the fork. It wasn't a pattern that held up though, as hard forks got less and less interesting, making less and less of a market impact.
TLDR; The market decides on the exchange rate between coins and their hard forks as well as the exchange rate between the resulting coins and the rest of the market (eg. fiat currencies such as the USD).
|
|
|
|
I think op doesn't care about centralization, because you can't have free and instant transactions in a decentralized blockchain
Hard to say. I mean why bother building a DApp if one doesn't care about decentralization? That's literally what the "D" in DApp stands for... |
|
|
|
Which should i use blockchain flatform for dApps e- commerce to get 2 criteria : zero fee transaction, instant transfer. Thanks!
You need IOTA, not ethereum. Ethereum is cheaper and faster than btc in most cases but that's not free neither instant. IOTA is free and instant, as these are necessary conditions to be used in IoT stuff. Even assuming that OP doesn't care about using a centralized cryptocurrency, IOTA doesn't support smart contracts yet. So until smart contracts are introduced OP won't be able to use IOTA as platform for their DApp. |
|
|
|
I still can't quite wrap my head around why the splilt to begin with, why not just a new coin.
Because the people initiating a hard fork usually already have skin in the game but don't like the direction that the currency and its dev team are currently going. BCH forked off because they wanted bigger blocks. BTG forked off because they wanted to get away from ASIC mining. ETH forked off ETC because they wanted to reverse the transactions that occurred during the DAO debacle, with ETC proponents holding onto the principle of "code is law" -- this being an example for a hard fork becoming the predominant currency and keeping the original name. Whether the intention behind these forks are legit or whether they are just cash grabs to take advantage of an existing userbase and brand name is a different debate and arguably differs from hard fork to hard fork. Does the mining difficulty continue? or reset?
Depends on the hard fork. Per default a hard fork continues with the previous mining difficulty. However assuming a minority hard fork this is often problematic because the block intervals then heavily increase upon the split. This is why eg. BCH implemented the EDA, an algorithm to adjust difficulty down within shorter timeframes than usual. However these difficulty adjustment strategies often come with challenges of their own. |
|
|
|
So if I understand you correctly the procedure would be as follows: 1) The Bitcoin sender sends his coins to a 2-of-2 multisig address (requiring the signature of the Bitcoin sender and BitConfirm). 2) The Bitcoin sender provides his signature for a LockTimeN transaction spending from the 2-of-2 multisig address. 3) The bank transfer sender sends the agreed upon amount to the bank account of the Bitcoin sender. 4) BitConfirm audits the bank transfer senders account, confirming that the agreed upon amount has been sent. 5) Upon confirming that the bank transaction has been made, BitConfirm provide their part of the signature for the LockTimeN transaction. 6) The bank transfer sender receives a LockTimeN transaction to an agreed upon Bitcoin address. Yes / No? 2) We would have to entrust third party our login credentials and it's crazy - just do good search on google how many companies do data scraping of bank websites. Basically, if I want to get a loan from private company, I have to give my login credentials to bank account and then they send it to third party company, which does the actual logging in and extracts data. Since this solution works for many years with no controversies, I don't understand why here it would be different.
Really? That's interesting to learn. I suppose that's an US thing (assuming you are an US citizen). As far as I'm aware of auditing in Europe relies merely on bank statements (barring the evaluation of other assets one may own). |
|
|
|
|
@KingScorpio: I'm curious now -- from a cryptoeconomic perspective, which alt coins appear to be the most promising to you and why? I'm not trying to kick off an argument about which crypto is the most promising, I'm just curious which socio-economic aspect are worth discussing about. Obviously it can't just be a decline in Bitcoin price, as that would be an incredibly silly metric to determine the long-term viability of a cryptocurrency, especially given the fact that the alt market is heavily bleeding as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Eh... while I'm a fan of what BAT is trying to achieve, I don't see Facebook and Google being removed from their throne(s) anytime soon.
As long as people keep using Facebook and Google, advertisers will find it worthwhile to advertise on these platforms, as simple as that. Sure, Facebook is likely already past its prime, but privacy concerns unfortunately seem to mean very little in practice to most people. Pretty much the same goes for content producers getting ripped off by YouTube (eg. by sudden channel closures and Adsense suspension) -- there might be some short-lived outrage when popular channels get affected, but convenience is still what pushes most viewers towards this platform.
I definitely hope that BAT becomes a viable alternative but I'm not yet fully convinced.
|
|
|
|
|
So if I understood correctly: In essence using centrally issued tokens as a representation of trust ratings, decoupling previous transactions from subsequent ones by burning the original tokens?
One potential problem I see is with the proposal of users spending all their certs / tokens they have acquired in the past. Couldn't this potentially enable correlation attacks? Not so much with users that only have a low level of trust, but once a certain level of trust is reached correlating advertisements to one another based on the amount of certs spent might become trivial (ie. a lot of people have 10 trust points, only few have exactly eg. 854 trust points). This could likely be easily alleviated by allowing for custom amounts of certs to be spent though.
I'm not familiar with blinded certs though, so I might be completely off-target.
|
|
|
|
bitcoin has now reached another low at 5800 and many of those that are more educated, have a broader economic understanding beyond IT tech,
know that this kind of speculative cryptocurrency cant be the future.
[...]
So far alts have not really fared all too well during bear markets either though. Only few bring something new to the table. Assuming Bitcoin dies, what makes you think that alts will fare better? Apart from Stablecoins, which face challenges of their own, alts too are speculative cryptocurrencies. Arguably even moreso than Bitcoin. While I disagree with your sentiment that Bitcointalk should focus more on alts, I think that more serious discussion of concepts that possibly go beyond Bitcoin is something I'd definitely welcome. For the most part this seems to be covered by the Development & Technical Discussion board, although it seems that some threads end up there for the lack of a more fitting section ie. what I assume would be roughly the sub-board you had in mind. |
|
|
|
How is value forked? If a blockchain is forked, is it's value also forked? Isn't that a doubling of value overall?
: pre-fork BTC is worth USD 4000,- BCH forks off and is evaluated at USD 1000,-, What do you mean it is evaluated? who evaluates it? I mean if anything splits it's value is halved. Are you saying at the instant of spliting, the value is halved and then corrects itself based on what people decide to do with either of the coins? or is the value of the new coin zero and then builds up based on how many people ....... did what? "Evaluated" meaning "priced at". The price being determined by how much people are willing to pay for it. To see how this determines the price of a currency, check the order book of the crypto-exchange of your choice. You'll see bids (ie. people buying) and asks (ie. people selling) -- the price that people are willing to pay is what happens when someone that wants to buy makes a good enough offer for someone that wants to sell. As DannyHamilton already pointed out, a fork is not much different from the creation of a new alt coin. It's just that people already own coins at the time of creation, without having done an initial investment in the alt coin itself and without being part of a premine. |
|
|
|
|
If BitConfirm merely checks whether you hold the amount required in your bank account, they can still not guarantuee that your counterparty will actually make a bank transfer after you sent the bitcoins.
If BitConfirm is able to also send money from the bank account that they are auditing, I don't see many people using BitConfirm. I personally definitely wouldn't.
In both cases you still have the problem of some bank transfers being reversible.
At least that's the issues that I'm seeing. Maybe I'm oversimplifying the process you had in mind.
Either way it just seems like a cumbersome mix of centralized exchanges and escrow services that potentially causes more problems than it would solve. Problem being, if such a company were to take off you (1) can very well expect regulation coming down on it and (2) maliciousness has rarely put companies out of business, especially in finance. The latter being one of the reasons why cryptocurrencies entered the world stage in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
