|
There's a lot of coins that could pump.
Xtrabytes is looking prone for a pump. POSW is also very undervalued right now considering the total amount of coins to ever be created, and that ETH will soon go POS and it will become a service that gets used a lot by newbies that cannot get full wallets working to stake.
Blocknet may pump, but its too pumped right now, and im scared of Dan Metcafe's past scammy accusations being a burden for the project.
EOS might pump, tons of hype, but inflation is a problem, same for IOTA...
So many coins can pump.
|
|
|
|
I see a lot of people confused about how to access their coins, and unfortunately, most people don't run full nodes and resort to easier (but less safe) routes like Electrum. Here is how you get your coins without screwing it up in the process (this is directly from the official Electrum website) : Recommendation on how to redeem Bitcoin Cash ============================================ July 31st, 2017. Electrum is a Bitcoin wallet created by Thomas Voegtlin in 2011. Electrum is distributed by Electrum Technologies GmbH, a company registered in Germany, using the website https://electrum.orgElectrum users who are not interested in Bitcoin Cash do not need to worry nor to take any particular action. The following note is only for users who want to access their Bitcoin Cash (BCC). "Electron Cash" is a fork of Electrum for Bitcoin Cash. Electron Cash is not endorsed by Electrum. It is open source, and binaries (executables files) are available for Windows, OSX and Android. However, when you run binaries instead of source code, you have no guarantee that they match the source code. This is why wallet binaries are usually signed by developers. A digital signature engages the responsability of the person who signs. The person who distributes the Electron Cash binaries has decided to remain anonymous, and uses the fake name "Jonald Fyookball" in order to sign Electron Cash binaries. Thus, if these binaries contain code that is designed to steal your bitcoins, the author of the theft will be anonymous and walk away safely with your funds. This danger is exacerbated by the fact that the default behaviour of Electron Cash is to silently copy all your Electrum wallets into its own directory. Thus, if you run Electron Cash on a machine where you previously used Electrum, all your pre-existing wallets will be available in Electron Cash, and you will only need to enter your password in order to expose your bitcoins to potential theft. Therefore, users who want to run the Electron Cash binaries should do it on a separate same machine, that does not have their Bitcoin wallet. We recommend to proceed as follows: 1. Install Electron Cash on a machine that does not have your Electrum wallets. 2. Wait until the BCC hard fork has taken place, and a few BCC blocks have been mined. 3. Move all your Electrum funds to a new Electrum wallet. This will move only your BTC, and not your BCC, because the BCC blockchain has replay protection. Wait until the transaction is confirmed. 4. Enter the seed of your (now empty) old wallet or private keys in Electron Cash. Since the BTC have been moved to a new wallet, entering your old seed in Electron Cash will not put your BTC funds at risk. Following these 4 easy steps you will be able to access your BCC without compromising your BTC. |
|
|
|
|
I was wondering what happens if you generate a key, and then send coins to yourself on that key, all within the same wallet.
Let's say you are using Bitcoin Core, you generate a key, then you use coin control to send some coins you want to de-attach from an address into a newly generated address, is that a good privacy practice? It's like a cheaper mixer with only "1 pass" protection.
I don't want to use mixers, because im scared to get "tainted coins". All of my coins are legal and im not doing anything that worries me, other than personal privacy. I don't want to mix my coins with other coins that i have no idea where they come from.
And I just wonder how does this work. The transaction happens just like a regular transaction if you send it to yourself I guess? or is it faster somehow?
|
|
|
|
- snip -
when the reward is negligible (so that's in like 10 years) we will see problems,
- snip -
It's difficult to predict when the reward will be negligible. In 10 years the subsidy will be 3.125 BTC per block. At the current exchange rate, if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's nearly $8600 per block. Is that "negligible"? In 11 years the subsidy will drop to 1.5625 BTC per block. At the current exchange rate, if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's nearly $4300 per block. Is that "negligible"? Of course, there is a real possibility that the exchange rate could go up over the next decade or so. In 15 years the subsidy will drop below 1 BTC to 0.78125 BTC per block. If the exchange rate is $300,000 per bitcoin, then even if the miner collects no transaction fees at all, that's still $234,375 per block. Is that ""negligible"? Well, from what i've heard, looking at the algorithm curve, it "looks" negligible in paper. The line becomes too steep, almost straight. You mention $300,000 per coin. Well then yes, that would be awesome for us holders, and we wouldn't probably have a problem, but we need to get there. The thing is, nobody knows, what we know for a fact is what we have now: how the curve looks like. The price is an unknown variable. Satoshi predicted that BTC will either be a lot or nothing, so I guess if everything goes ok, we should be at 6 figures per BTC in the next decade, when the line becomes almost straight, otherwise we may face serious problems. Let's just hope it's a self fulfilling prophecy and we hit these dreamy 6 figure per coin prices. Back in 2012 $1000 felt dreamy, who is to say we can't hit $100,000+. |
|
|
|
Satoshi set the 1MB cap as a temporary measure, but he predicted that users would get "tyrannical" against raising it because of not being able to run nodes and so on.
Also, Satoshi did NOT have the current understandings of what different blocksizes would mean, he did not predict mining pools, he did not predict a lot of things.
ALL the experts point to a hardfork in 3 months being stupid, we should evaluate segwit for a longer time then take a more informed decision.
I totally agree here. My post was not about advocating for a 2MB hardfork in November. I also would like a longer evaluation period before any hardfork. But there is - in the Bitcoin community - a difference between the 21 million rule and the blocksize. In the "blocksize war" there are notable different opinions, with a relatively large group of Bitcoiners agreeing to each position: The "extreme big blockers" that don't want any limit and would even be OK with gigabyte-large blocks, "moderate big blockers" (2-8MB) and "small blockers" (at most, 1 MB with segwit). In contrast, the 21 million supply cap is nearly unanimously agreed on - so it's much more difficult to change it with a hard fork. That's what the post was about. One thing that is not emphasized strongly enough on this topic is that it is very difficult to envision a scenario in which there would be a positive reason to increase the coin supply beyond the current plan.
A reason that could reach a bit of support would be the deflationary nature of Bitcoin, once we reach a supply between 20 and 21 million and the block rewards are worth less than the coins lost in addresses whose private keys aren't known anymore. There are disagreeing views about deflation, according to the economic schools, but there could be a group with some support on that reasoning. Only that I don't think it will ever reach consensus (what would be necessary to raise the cap in an undisputed hard fork). It's pretty much guaranteed that a change in the total supply would diverge into 2 different coins, but what worries me is if it's viable or not, to not have any inflation. I need to see some reputable coders to speak on this. I have not seen any Core devs arguing about this so that is a good indicator there's nothing wrong with it (Unless you buy into the Core dev conspiracy theories). I've heard some critique about it, claiming that if there is no inflation, when the reward is negligible (so that's in like 10 years) we will see problems, so we'll find out, we don't need to wait 140 years for the last BTC to be mined. |
|
|
|
I've seen no such statement of Satoshi's. Please provide a link.
Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring. It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.
If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade. The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both. The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.
Of course we can't know exactly what satoshi had in mind, but that is irrelevant. What we know today is: We don't need to risk a hardfork in 3 months, there's enough space with 1MB (and now with segwit) to roll with it for at least a safe year while additional research is made on that possible hardfork to 2MB. Doing it in 3 months is just stupid. Why would you risk the current uptrend with another massive crash again due hardfork drama when we don't need to? Let's do things right for once. |
|
|
|
|
The clock is ticking out. Roger Ver will soon need to show to the world how much he supports his ambitions to hardfork and compete against BTC. We will see if he really sells all of his BTC in exchange of BCC. This is a great opportunity to see if he puts the money where his mouth is or if he is just bullshitting as usual.
Remember that never before this situation has taken place in Bitcoin. We will see a war of whales and we will see where everyone stands, and to my knowledge Roger Ver is the only Bitcoin Cash whale.
|
|
|
|
Although I support some of Quantus' arguments, Segwit is actually a bad example - because it's a soft fork and there will be no chain claiming it's the "original" one.
A change to a more flexible supply model would always mean that a hard fork is involved - and that would mean that in the moment when the fork occurs, a chain would persist that continues with the 21 million limit. The people supporting this chain will always claim that they are running the original Bitcoin.
But actually the question "who's the original" is a social convention - because with every hard fork the same can occur. So in this aspect, Quantus is right.
Let's take the planned 2MB hard fork in November: I think if there is no agreement between Core and the Segwit2x folks, a minority chain will try to survive with the 1MB cap enabled and will claim that they are the original chain.
But the difference between the 1MB cap change and the 21 million bitcoins cap change is that the 21 million cap was "set in stone" at the beginning of Bitcoin's evolution, like cellard correctly points out, and is considered a fundamental principle. The 1MB cap, in contrast, has even described by Satoshi as a temporary measure (something Big blockers point out every day).
So the support for "21 million forever" is expected to be nearly unanimous (I think >95%) while the 1MB support may be a small majority or not even that. That's why a 2MB hard fork has much more chances to succeed in becoming "the Bitcoin" than a "+21 million" fork.
Satoshi set the 1MB cap as a temporary measure, but he predicted that users would get "tyrannical" against raising it because of not being able to run nodes and so on. Also, Satoshi did NOT have the current understandings of what different blocksizes would mean, he did not predict mining pools, he did not predict a lot of things. ALL the experts point to a hardfork in 3 months being stupid, we should evaluate segwit for a longer time then take a more informed decision. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is NOT mathematically limited to twenty one million bitcoins.
I do not support raising the cap at this time but if we had overwhelming support like we did for Segwit we could raise the limit to any number we could dream up.
I would have no issue changing the code to allow a 1 bitcoin reward for every block forever... to ensure a strong distributed mining community.
I understand this must sound like blasphemy to the majority of the community but it irks me to see such a false statement about bitcoin repeated over and over again in every Bitcoin youtube video out there; there has to be a better way to phase it.
The game theory involving the total supply of bitcoin is a self supporting one where the people with the most skin in the game are the strongest against it, because the more money you get on BTC, the less you like the idea of your savings depreciating by the total supply being increased, this is why I can sleep tight, because I know that the people with the most say in the game (the big holders) are all against that idea. Also most people get attracted to owning BTC because of the limited supply. I really can't picture a realistic scenario where the change would happen. While possible, in practice we can say it's set in stone. |
|
|
|
Its a "fundamental principle" of the Bitcoin community yes, its strongly held as one of our core tenets. But it could still be changed. So stop saying its limited without pointing out what its limited by.
Well I would like to also point out that if the 21 million cap limit was increased then what we have is no longer Bitcoin. Even if 99.97% of the users still call it "Bitcoin" it won't be Bitcoin to me. It would be a PoS coin. Not proof-of-stake, but piece-of-shit. Same for me. The rules were set in stone, anything that raises the total amount of coins is a scam and not Bitcoin. Show me proof of Bitcoin having problems to survive long term without inflation because there's no sound proof to be found out there. The inflation will be so small by 2040 that you can consider all coins mined already, most of the revenue will be fees. Hell in just 10 years the curve starts becoming incredibly steep which is another reason why I think by 2027 the price will be 6 figures to a million dollars (assuming big block retards don't ruin it with wanting to hardfork everyday):  Notice how there is a big change in angle in 10 years. In 2040 you can consider bitcoin 99% mined. |
|
|
|
He gonna get REKT if gambling on ICOs, lose all those millions he make fighting.  You better dedicate yourself to what you know doing best, otherwise you gonna have a bad time. He is promoting Stox, an Ethereum token, I have not looked into it yet but I doubt it has anything of real substance, that is my default stance of any Ethereum token and any altcoin whatsoever. Seems to be Bancor related.. He at least tagged #Bitcoin so this helps us. Mayweather has millions of followers. Who knows, maybe the Stox ICO is a massive success only because of this marketing move, he has that much power. |
|
|
|
|
Your client seems to be insanely old. According to what you said, you are using Bitcoin-QT. I remember that this was back in 2013 and before, you should get your wallet.dat backed up in a folder, then install the latest Bitcoin Core wallet and get the wallet.bat back into the folder.
Spend whatever it takes to get the blockchain downloaded fully. You'll get your coins on both chains so don't worry about that. Just update your client.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is NOT mathematically limited to twenty one million bitcoins.
I do not support raising the cap at this time but if we had overwhelming support like we did for Segwit we could raise the limit to any number we could dream up.
I would have no issue changing the code to allow a 1 bitcoin reward for every block forever... to ensure a strong distributed mining community.
I understand this must sound like blasphemy to the majority of the community but it irks me to see such a false statement about bitcoin repeated over and over again in every Bitcoin youtube video out there; there has to be a better way to phase it.
The whole point of Bitcoin is that it has a limited supply. Some bad actors want to increase the total supply in the process (Bitcoin Unlimited would need that) but some people like Tone Vays which are known for their anti hardfork policy, have questioned if Bitcoin is viable forever with 0% inflation. Im yet to see clear evidence of BTC not being viable with a limited supply forever. The fees derived from the transactions should be enough to incentivize miners to process the transactions, or at least that was Satoshi's original plan. |
|
|
|
|
Any free spots?
Bitcointalk Name: cellard
Rank: Hero Member
Current Post Count (including this post): 1643
BTC wallet: 19NE7rDsEHDJFXu32xDgVjZXHUNfQzcsEp
|
|
|
|
|
Im not sure if it's full or not, it says 51/50 people accepted in the spreadsheet. Can we reserve a spot for next week? I expect the people that spam 20 posts per hour and the people that have bad grammar will probably be removed so I would like to be able to reserve a spot. Anyway i'll leave here my details just in case...
Username : cellard
Post Count : 1642
Bitcoin Address : 19NE7rDsEHDJFXu32xDgVjZXHUNfQzcsEp
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't doubt if he bought some bitcoin, but serious why $210,000 worth. You know he is worth a trillion dollars could he not just buy an exchange or something.
The Rothschilds' wealth is a common misconception. People think they're worth Trillions. They are not. In 2015 Forbes ranked the wealthiest of the Rothschild clan at #1150 or so, estimating his wealth to be $1.4b. Here's more information about the myth that is the Rothschilds wealth: http://www.snopes.com/rothschild-family-wealth/even the wealthiest family in the world, the rothschilds are joining in bitcoin, it only means that bitcoin will be stable, known for a banking family, the rothschilds must have seen something of value with bitcoins, and i just hope this is not something that they wanted to take over since money is just paper to them.
They are definitely not the worlds most wealth family. The Walton's (of Wal-Mart) have greater wealth. And then what about the Buffet or Gates families? The wealth of the Rothchilds is supposedly not fully reported, the full wealth of unreported things is rumored to be over a trillion. If I was part of the Rothchild clan, I wouldn't like to be on top everyone else by a mile in the Forbes magazine, it just makes you a target. Most Rothchilds are lowkey people, most people on Forbes are pretty known. The Rothchilds are too many, we aren't talking about a single individual but an entire family. |
|
|
|
BCC is currently shown at a valuation of 0.2 BTC on viabtc's futures market. Is this an artificial valuation or indicative of the actual value of the hard-forked coin?
It's just a futures market. Look at the bitfinex (I think it was bitfinex) exchange where they listed Bitcoin Core against Bitcoin Unlimited futures. By the way and something funny: Bitcoin Cash is now trying to use 2 already used tokens: BitConnect uses BCC BitcoinCore futures in bitfinex also use BCC The confusion wil be big now that most tags are taken by other coins. Nobody can take BTC away from the original chain. |
|
|
|
I think it wasn't the Rothchilds directly, it's just something else called Rothchild,
I bet this is the case, because for Rotchilds that amount ($210000) its like $2 for everyone else. Waste of time, they could buy 1 milion BTC if they were serious about investing in crypto. Well, if I was "the Rothchilds", or one of them at least, I wouldn't buy 1 billion BTC at once. You need to put yourself in the feet of one of them. These guys live on their own elitist bubble, they probably still think Bitcoin is a joke, they may be researching it. If this is the legit Rothchilds, maybe they bought some to play with. Remember that for them, $210000 is like us buying $10 bucks worth of BTC to learn and transact some, understand the mechanics etc. |
|
|
|
I am not sure if this news is confirmed or not but I think people's opinion of looking towards Bitcoin is changing in a positive way and as soon as some governments are recognising Bitcoin, more and more people are coming forward to invest in Bitcoin. I am sure some millionaires must have invested in Bitcoins because they have practically nothing to lose. * Rothschild Just Bought $210,000 Worth Of Bitcoin. What do you think about this news and overall people's perception about Bitcoin? I think it wasn't the Rothchilds directly, it's just something else called Rothchild, im not sure but that's what i've heard. I think someone went into detail, if you search for the Reddit link to these news in the comment section someone explained it. I just don't get how it would be allowed for someone that isn't the Rothchilds to register themselves as Rothchild. Wouldn't that be like a registered trademark or something? |
|
|
|
After reading about BIP 91 on coindesk, this obviously isn't a permanent solution for the possible fork in BTC. Does anyone know what will come after in the coming months?
There won't be any problems for August but the next step is going to be a hardfork to 2 MB blocks I think in November. This is where the real problems could start. For now, we could just speculate about what will happen on August but miners seems enforcing BIP91 which likely lead to segwit activation. The maximum block size after hard fork is not 2Mb but it could be 8Mb, doesn't mean it will be good for us and I tend to not support it. After BIP91 has been locked-in, to activate segwit2x requires 80% hash rate and the deadline on July 29. And fyi segwit2x is = segwit + hard fork to a larger block size. Segwit will be activated but hard fork won't be, I guess. The water is clear until around mid October. When October comes, it's time to start being wary again and keep your coins off exchanges pretty much until 2018... do not risk it, exit scams are all time highs when the big blockers FUD with a hardfork, so get your Bitcoin Core ready because it's the best way to keep in control of your coins. It's sad to see but I think big blockers will ruin the uptrend once again when the segwit2x bullshit comes. Bitcoin Cash will be a non event, no one cares. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
