Thanks for the links. The second have great explanation and it is easy to understand. There is another link, that is suggested in the text, that is necessary too https://www.dailyfx.com/forex/education/trading_tips/daily_trading_lesson/2013/10/10/3_Simple_Steps_for_Using_Fibonacci_to_Time_the_Forex_Market.html

The volume in the main exchanges seems very low for some time. When this occurs we can expect large short-term swings. I imagine that the market may have a sharp fall, and then a big rise.

I'll start using this site and recommend it. Thanks for the sugestion.

I always imagined that bitcoinfees.earn.com was accurate and had never read anything that made me doubt. I hope more people will disclose better alternatives as this type of information is essential to lower fees.

Airdrop is not just for Dev making money. Airdrop is essential for currency to have diverse users. It's a case of entropy. You need different users from various countries and cultures to create an ecosystem around your project.

So sad that I didn't have the money to invest more on this day. But as the graphic shows, anything between 9k and 12k should be great for buying if you invest thinking in only use after October.

Is there any reason to name as Wallet the process of putting your private key on paper? I think this confuses a lot of people who are new and always have to explain better that paper wallet works more like a pig bank than an ordinary wallet. Some people face some difficulty in understanding that in the paper wallet it is recommended to use one only time and that you need to go through a few steps before using your BTC. Maybe calling Cold Storage on paper would be better.

Anyway, thank you for the tutorial. The explanation is very simple and I will always recommend it.

This was already possible in other wallets, was not it? I think this change is very important since for some moments you need more agility and it is not so easy to calculate what would be the best Fee for this.

Yes.

They provide a cryptographic means for two people to exchange values. This is the essence of a Cryptocurrency. Of course, decentralization is a very important thing for a currency to be successful. But it is not essential when considering whether or not something is encrypted.

  Cardano grew very fast. Before they had more tools to justify the price. It's still well above the price 4 months ago. The difference is that unlike Scams such as TRon, Nano etc, they do not have a marketing group specializing in spreading any kind of news to raise the price. They do not pay publishers of socias medias, do not pay for magazine articles etc. They are focused only on the product and its development. It's quite different from these pump and dump schemes. If you think of 6 months or more to get a return, this is one of the best hours to buy. just look at the road map. Several projects will be presented in the coming months.

Clickbait. If he holds Zero, people should not talking about. He probably holds Zero dollars too as he invests most of his money in his dream projects. He likes to have money to build things that he believes.

@ achow101 have told the same about Batching months ago when I asked about the bad things that could be happing using this. But I think you could still use some other tools to have more privacy if you really need. Bitcoin Blockchain t is a public ledger, if you need make transactions in totally secret, is better use Monero.

Vender? Quem compraria essa empresa que só deu dor de cabeça, é pouco conhecida e era totalmente dependende de uma unica pessoa?

Isso daí começou errado, se manteve errada e está terminando de maneira repentina. Essa de que "retire seus fundos ou serão perdidos pelo sistema" é bizarro.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/26/circle-cryptocurrency-trade-bitcoin/

This Fortune article has more information. I found this news incredible. Poloniex is a great exchange, but it has many problems to escalate. Support is one of the worst that exists and any problem you take takes weeks or months to resolve. Besides, nobody knows very well who are the owners there is little transparency on basic issues. And with that confusion about USDT, no one knew the exchange's position and if they actually have liquidity. Exciting news.

It has always been assumed that a large number of ICOs will fail, be it at the fundraising stage or when it comes to delivering the actual project. It’s hard to settle on a precise figure, however, as most dubious ICOs don’t exit scam: they slowly tiptoe away, like a sneak thief rather than a smash-and-grab robber. Having completed an extensive study into last year’s crowdsales, news.Bitcoin.com can report that 46% of them are effectively dead already – despite raising over $104 million.

Also read: FBI Arrests Exchange Operator for Lying About 6000 Bitcoin Hack

ICOs Are Even Riskier Than You Think
Given enough time, everything withers and dies, from the most robust institutions to the most popular crowdsales. No one expected all of 2017’s ICOs to last the course. The pace at which they’ve withered and died may come as a surprise though. Tokendata, one of the more comprehensive ICO trackers, lists 902 crowdsales which took place last year. Of these, 142 failed at the funding stage and a further 276 have since failed, either due to taking the money and running, or slowly fading into obscurity. This means that 46% of last year’s ICOs have already failed.

The number of ICOs that are still a going concern is actually even lower. An additional 113 ICOs can be classified as “semi-failed”, either because their team has stopped communicating on social media, or because their community is so small as to mean the project has no chance of success. This means that 59% of last year’s crowdsales are either confirmed failures or failures-in-the-making.

46% of Last Year’s ICOs Have Failed Already
Some of the many failed ICOs listed by Tokendata.
A Digital Graveyard of Broken Promises
Trawling through 900 ICOs in one sitting is a deeply depressing experience, news.Bitcoin.com can report. Abandoned Twitter accounts, empty Telegram groups, websites no longer hosted, and communities no longer tended are par for the course. A digital graveyard, complete with metaphorical tumbleweed, characterizes the crop of 2017 that decided to take the money and run. Many raised zero; some raised a couple of thousand dollars; and a handful raised over $10 million. In each case, the end result was the same though: no MVP, no alpha release, and no contribution to the decentralized web for the betterment of humanity.

Many of the dead ICOs were doomed from the start. It will come as no surprise to learn that projects such as Clitcoin, Neverdie, and Zero Traffic didn’t make it. (Update: Neverdie has since been in touch to claim that reports of its demise are premature.) Some, which fell flat at the fundraising stage, are doing it all over again this year and hoping that 2017’s failure can be written off as a trial run. Freight trucking platform Doft is one such example. Looking at the countries of origin for failed ICOs shows that developing nations – and an entire continent in the case of Africa – are over-represented. Nevertheless, every major country and continent features in the list of shame.

46% of Last Year’s ICOs Have Failed Already

Lessons Learned
Many of the 531 ICOs that have failed or are failing from last year looked sketchy from the very start. In most cases, investors were able to spot the signs and steer clear. Not everyone escaped unscathed though: these projects still raised $233 million between them. With ICO mania showing no signs of abating, there’s no reason to expect this year’s crowdsales to fare any better. Thanks to diminished returns, increased competition, and a never-ending stream of opportunistic ICOs, crypto investing in 2018 is riskier than ever.


https://news.bitcoin.com/46-last-years-icos-failed-already/

Se abrir pra full eu gostaria e acho que fui um dos primeiros Full a postar no topico. =)

Great study by bitmex reserch team

https://blog.bitmex.com/tether/

Financial data from Puerto Rico

Rumors have been circulating that Tether may have some link to the unincorporated American territory of Puerto Rico. We decided to analyse public financial data to look for signs of unusual activity or strong growth.

We noticed strong growth in the cash balance (and the deposit balance) in the International Financial Entities (IFE) banking category. This sharp increase in cash reserves could be related to Tether. It is also possible for this growth to be related to a non-Tether aspect of the crypto currency ecosystem — for example, plans to make Puerto Rico a crypto utopia.

The chart below compares the value of Tether issued versus the deposit balance for the IFE banking category in Puerto Rico. The match is far from perfect and we cannot draw any strong conclusion from the data. It will be interesting to see what figures the regulators in the region produce going forwards.



This kind of balance-sheet structure is unusual. Normally, banks lend most of their assets and only keep a small balance as cash. The table below shows a simplified typical structure of bank balance sheets.



Full-reserve banking results in a different balance sheet, which should be detectable by financial analysts even when looking at macroeconomic data. As of the end of September 2017, the ratio of cash to total assets for this category of financial institution in Puerto Rico rapidly climbed to over 70%. This may indicate the presence of full-reserve banking in the territory and that the practice is growing.

This is an unbelievable github flaw. And that shows how signature verification systems are essential nowadays. PGP etc. If the answer was not quick, something like this could have a significant impact on the market.

I think the only doubt now is just how dominant Bitcoin will be, I believe in something between 45% and 50% this year. With lower feeds an exclusive BTC pump can occur.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/sidechains-why-these-researchers-think-they-solved-key-piece-puzzle/


what exactly is a sidechain?   

Same Coin, Different Blockchain
A sidechain is a technology that allows you to move your tokens from one blockchain to another, use them on that other blockchain and then move them back at a later point in time, without the need for a third party. 

In the past, the parent blockchain has typically been Bitcoin, but a parent chain could be any blockchain. Also, when a token moves to another blockchain, it should maintain its same value. In other words, a bitcoin on an Ethereum sidechain would remain a bitcoin. 

The biggest advantage of sidechains is that they would allow users to access a host of new services. For instance, you could move bitcoin to another blockchain to take advantage of privacy features, faster transaction speeds and smart contracts. 

Sidechains have other uses, too. A sidechain could offer a more secure way to upgrade a protocol, or it could serve as a type of security firewall, so that in the event of a catastrophic disaster on a sidechain, the main chain would remain unaffected. “It is a kind of limited liability,” said Zindros in a video explaining how the technology works.

Finally, if banks were to create their own private blockchain networks, sidechains could enable communications with those networks, allowing users to issue and track shares, bonds and other assets.

Early Conversations
Early dialogue about sidechains first appeared in Bitcoin chat rooms around 2012, when Bitcoin Core developers were thinking of ways to safely upgrade the Bitcoin protocol.

One idea was for a “one-way peg,” where users could move bitcoin to a separate blockchain to test out a new client; however, once those assets were moved, they could not be moved back to the main chain. 

“I was thinking of this as a software engineering tool that could be used to make widespread changes,” Adam Back, now CEO at blockchain development company Blockstream, said in an interview with Bitcoin Magazine. “You could say, we are going to make a new version [of Bitcoin], and we think it will be ready in a year, but in the meantime, you can opt in early and test it.”

According to Back, sometime in the following year, on the Bitcoin IRC channel, Bitcoin Core developer Greg Maxwell suggested an idea for a “two-way peg,” where value could be transferred to the alternative chain and then back to Bitcoin at a later point.

A two-way peg addressed another growing concern at the time. Alternative coins, like Litecoin and Namecoin, were becoming increasingly popular. The fear was these “altcoins” would dilute the value of bitcoin. It made sense, Bitcoin Core developers thought, to keep bitcoin as a type of reserve currency, and relegate new features to sidechains. That way, “if you wanted to use a different feature, you wouldn’t have to buy a speculative asset,” said Back.

To turn the concept of sidechains into a reality, Back along with Maxwell and a few other Bitcoin Core developers formed Blockstream in 2014. In October that year, the group released “Enabling Blockchain Innovations with Pegged Sidechains,” a paper describing sidechains at a high level. Miller appears as a co-author on that paper as well.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/sidechains-why-these-researchers-think-they-solved-key-piece-puzzle/

TRON is an imitation of other projects that spends a lot of money on marketing. So it is likely that in the short run it can grow. But in the long run it is always one of the worst choices. If you buy, be prepared to sell at any time because at some point it will fall heavy.