Just a small correction to the article, Gavin Andresen is not a XT opponent. Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik, both outspoken opponents of XT https://bitcoin.consider.it/ahh, good catch. Fixed it  Hey, as a side note I met with the developer of consider.it and saw what a cool thing he has created. if your not familiar with this site it is worth checking out. |
|
|
|
|
I'm with you. People seem to think that opinions are more powerful than math in the world of money. That is a recipe for poverty.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen. I just don't understand how people store thousands of dollars on exchanges. It's crazy when you consider that the owners are often unknown and based in a foreign country.
|
|
|
|
I am quite curious as to what kind of risk/expose are there for the exchange to provide such feature? I don't actually know, but I assume not. If I understand correctly that would expose the exchange to intolerable risk.
the conditional close from Kraken has of course no risk. Maybe he also thought, that the OP want to place orders completely without bitcoins and fiat. But this is also possible at some exchanges in the one or another way. 1) bitcoin.de allows you to place sell orders of bitcoins which can stay in your own wallet. Of course this trade offer is marked and I did not see a single one in the market, because it is very time consuming (buyer accepts sell order, seller has to send the bitcoins to bitcoin.de, after that the buyer sends the money ...) 2) bit-x allows to use your balance more often. If you have 1 BTC at bit-x, you can place a limit sell order for 600€ about 1 BTC, another one for 700€ and another for 800€ and so on. That's why the orderbook of bit-x is quite full (for being a very small exchange). To prevent the users to place too many orders, you have to pay a fee for placing an order. As soon as the first of the sell orders is filled, the other orders will be removed from the orderbook. I know, this does not make any sense (because of course the 600€ order is filled first)... but this is how I understood their orderbook. You can read it here (unfunded order): https://bit-x.com/guide/funded-unfunded-and-on-hold-orders.. maybe when you have several unfunded orders, and then deposit more, they will become funded. But I think it is not worth to pay a fee for placing an order. You are right about what I thought (misunderstood). I assumed he was trying to sell coins he does not actually own yet. |
|
|
|
I hate to say but I TOLD YA to dump this shit! You are all fools holding bitcoin! Drop all your bitchcoins before they reach $10!
I saw a profit this week.  |
|
|
|
|
I don't get the logic. Bitcoin is failing, so a half-baked copy of the idea is needed?
|
|
|
|
|
It's worth mentioning that all Mike did is talk. It is speculators who decide the price.
|
|
|
|
Oh bitcoin is dead again?  This time it's true because that one guy said it. I heard the CEO of Bitcoin resigned. Is it true? I heard he committed suicide? |
|
|
|
|
Why is it bad news that the price is adjusting to market forces? Was it good news when eager speculation drove it above support?
A lot of people buy bitcoin in an effort to get more fiat. Thous people are always going to sell at any drop. Which is there right.
|
|
|
|
Oh bitcoin is dead again? This time it's true because that one guy said it. |
|
|
|
|
I appreciate your concerns and agree that the banks would love to exert some control over the protocol and network. Lucky for us that can't happen.
In the past 6 years a lot of people have worried about a bank takeover of bitcoin. What no one has ever shown me is any plausible way to do it. The only leverage a bank has that I do not have would be their billions of dollars. This is no real advantage though. If they say tried dominating the market by buying all the coins it would drive the price to the moon and strengthen the network for us all.
They cant change the rules of the protocol because the only way for that to happen is to fork the network and create their own valueless alt-coin. They can't control the fees, or production. They can't control who uses it or how it is used. All they can do is participate. IMO, that's ok.
As far as the identity requirements, that is not a bank rule. That is U.S. law.
KYC and AML rules require banks to do due diligence in finding people who are engaged in illegal activities. Of course we could lobby to change those laws also if we wanted.
If you know of a way that banks could "take over" or destroy bitcoin do post it. Perhaps there is a way none of us has considered, but it would be a first.
|
|
|
|
yeah the network can regulate itself but the demand must be there, otherwise if you simply increase the fee to, dunno 100k satoshi, or even 0.01-0.1 range, but the value is just 10k
it mean that the reward will be very low for the miner, i don't have data right now about how many fee are generated nowadays, and how much will be generated in the future, with a better adoption
Those are thoughts worth considering Amph. Very low levels of use could lead to truly high fees. I suppose that would be scaling also, but not the kind we want.  |
|
|
|
Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik are developing bitcoin pretty much since the beginning, why would they want to harm bitcoin? Where did you get that idea from?
Gavin CIA, Hearn banks and whatnot? Did you forget when Hearn was advocating for blacklists? I sure have not. Garzik seems okay for now. I could list many more reasons, but I'm not on my machine right now. There are many threads in this very forum, especially about Hearn (use the search function). Dude, seriously? agreed. Lauda, are you saying Gavin is in the CIA? Because that's kinda nutz. |
|
|
|
Odds of 1 in 292 million! I saw a tweet that said the likelihood of bitcoin's collision resistant property being breached is higher than winning the jackpot!
 |
|
|
|
Hopefully the bitcoin market will then stabilize at a very comfortable level and it will be all about the fees for the miners.
this must be true, because if we are still sitting at 1k-10k range of value, then bitcoin is doomed for sure, miners will not be able to receive enough reward to keep the network alive unless a small sum is forwarded to incentivate the running of full node... I see this as self regulating. If the fee is too low to be profitable then it will simply go up. You can include a tiny fee, but it may not get picked up and so the user pays a price that attracts interest. In the future it is likely that fees will rise. However any competitors (like PayPal) charges huge fees for the same service and can not possibly compete with the bitcoin system. Think of each Tx as a contract offer and the winner is the lowest bid. |
|
|
|
Yes Buffet really siad that! Well he had never been good in understanding new technologies. He is an oldschooler.
But when I have absolutely no idea I should better shut my mouth, that's why statements like this from one one of the greatest investors of all time is kind of embarrassing.
He would likely agree that you should invest in what you know. When I need tech advice I generally don't ask a senior citizen. |
|
|
|
So basically they are being paid to burn electricity and keep the system running.
Talk about mentality, you make it sound way horrible ha, lol. I sure appreciate their work. |
|
|
|
At that point, miners will still continue their functions and be reward with the transaction fees.
By functions you mean what? They will continue mining? there will be no more coins lef tomine right so wha woul they do now? Mining is also the process for creating the blocks that mathematically secure the network. The fee they get for doing this creates competition leading to the lowest transaction fee that can be supported profitably. Over time miners will make an increasing percentage of profit from fees rather than block rewards. So basically they are being paid to burn electricity and keep the system running. |
|
|
|
What do we hope to determine by asking each other about something we don't know?
And now we get to the reason I make fun of threads like this.  Ah. Carry on then.  |
|
|
|
Lotery= Tax for Idiots
LOL, that's a good one. I always tell people that I'm hopeful of winning the lottery using my system of trying to find discarded winning tickets. As unlikely as that may seem my odds are only slightly less than if I buy tickets. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
