Everyone know BTC is King, but now maybe everything changed. BTC is still King but it don't worship as before.
Recent time, hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured in Crytocurenncy but only poured in Altcoin, especially XRP. So what do you think about that?
1/ The return of the King and Altcoin will drop very much
2/ BTC will up but Alt don't drop much
3/ BTC can hardly increase again as investors' confidence is losing
4/ I don't know will what happen. I still keep my BTC.
I think it's nothing at all to worry about. It's good that the crypto market is growing, because I believe that most of that money will inevitably go back to Bitcoin anyway. Crypto money usually hangs around the crypto market, and Bitcoin has the best long term prospects as things currently stand. It's a little concerning for sure, with the high fees, and with Ripple's explosive growth, but Bitcoin is still head and shoulders above its competition and that's not going to change for a while. |
|
|
|
|
It's weird how they're regulating mining's power use though, rather than mining itself. If their plan really is to reduce and hurt mining, this is a rather roundabout way of doing it. This seems like it will have more loopholes and such. Is the writer sure China simply doesn't want to regulate its overall power consumption? It's just weird.
I don't have any strong feelings regarding China's position in the Bitcoin market, but I would prefer the hashrate to be distributed among countries better. We need every country if we want Bitcoin to reach mass adoption.
|
|
|
|
lightning network also requires a fast and cheaper on chain transactions otherwise opening and closing the channel is going to cost a lot of money.
I disagree that saying with saying "Bigger Blocks = Centralization". there is always a middle ground that we can follow. it doesn't have to be increase to 8 MB and it doesn't have to be staying at 1 MB.
with that said I am very excited and scared about the future of bitcoin for now. with the speed that SegWit adoption has, you can expect LN to have somewhat similar speed. the same services like Coinbase that are blocking SegWit will also block LN. and it may even take a year to reach an acceptable adoption level.
also as far as bitcoin cash goes, I give it a year tops. there are a couple of scenarios that I imagine can happen to it:
it will grow bigger and may increase in price a lot (because how bitcoin is struggling). it will be adopted more just as bitpay said they will support it in their platform soon. and as that happens the blocks reach a fuller state and eventually BCH will be exactly where bitcoin is right now with a lot of angry disappointed people and services. at that time you can't fork to bigger blocks while the blockchain is >500 GB anymore and if they try to implement SegWit + LN or anything remotely similar they announce their failure.
by then bitcoin has its LN up and running and there is no point in using BCH anymore. in any case there is only death for BCH.
I completely agree that a small increase may be beneficial as a middle ground, especially in cases like now where immediate relief would go a very long way, but the OP was talking about Bitcoin Cash supporters in this context. As far as I know, their idea of addressing the scalability issue is to increase the block size as needed. I've even seen arguments floating around that continuously increasing block size is sustainable. That can't be good for decentralization. |
|
|
|
|
The blockchain is basically the technology cryptocurrencies are built on. They're basically distributed public ledgers that store and record every transaction of the said cryptocurrencies. There is no single "server", so it cannot be hacked nor tampered with (under normal circumstances anyway), and is secured with cryptography. This is an overly simplified explanation so you may want to read more on Google.
Cryptocurrencies are pretty much just one of the many possible applications of blockchains. You can't really have a cryptocurrency without a blockchain, but you can have a blockchain without a cryptocurrency.
|
|
|
|
|
It's legal, so I guess there's no harm done, but I'm sure closed-minded individuals are going to hold this against Bitcoin for being associated with drugs, whether marijuana is legal or not. There will always be that stigma.
But then again, the same closed-minded individuals will find every excuse to hate on Bitcoin, so there should be no ill effects in the end. You can't lose what you can't win over after all. More merchants accepting Bitcoin and altcoins is always a good thing, no matter how small. Others may dismiss this as nothing, but castles are built brick by brick.
|
|
|
|
Well at the moment the transactions fees is coming down little by little, but what baffle me mos is the fact that each time bitcoin increase in price transactions fees will go high why is it like that. Transactions fees will eat up all the gain you make and at times I use to feel that we are working for the miner's and block chain's because they are the people gaining in the price rise in bitcoin using system to collect back the money but I thank God for the lightening network that will be lunch soon I pray and hope it will in eventually solve the problem of high transactions fees.
This isn't always the case. There is some truth to it, because fees are inevitably going to get higher as satoshis rise in value, but a few cents multiplied by Bitcoin's growth should still be a few cents. It becomes a problem once the fees rise into the dollars, as they do now. You can't blame that on the increase in Bitcoin's value. What usually happens when Bitcoin's value rises, though, is increased market movement. This leads to a congested network where people try to outbid each other to be able to confirm their transactions sooner. That's why there's a perceived correlation between Bitcoin price rallies and fees skyrocketing. Also, Bitcoin isn't broken. It has always had a scaling problem, which is just manifesting itself now. |
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be even more unfair if the early adopters who actually stuck their necks out to make Bitcoin relevant weren't rewarded? At some point in the future, Bitcoin will be regarded as low risk, and low risk ventures rarely yield high returns. It's just standard economics at work.
I mean, I guess it kind of sucks how much easier it was to get Bitcoins back then, but Bitcoin was never really meant to equalize wealth -- just access to it. Just take the risk now and you'll still be much better off than even later adopters.
|
|
|
|
ZH thinks so? There was no mention of Russia nor China in the article. It was basically a FAQ for newbies. Why did you even cite it? Lol. There were some discussions on the comments, but that hardly has anything to do with the website's views. That means the title of your post is misleading, and the body of it isn't supported by a source. WE know NSA created BITCOIN, we know they don't want the USA ppl to touch it, tax it hard, we know its wild-west bitcoin in asia/russia/east-europe, all the places USA wants to destroy
This is a conspiracy theory with no solid evidence whatsoever. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but I find it hard to believe that the NSA created and weaponized a technology that they have absolutely no control over. It's against their SOP to engineer a technology without a backdoor, and we know Bitcoin doesn't have one. |
|
|
|
|
I do think the current fees are definitely a factor, but I highly doubt it's the only factor. Bitcoin's current state is well publicized, and it may turn off prospective buyers who believe it's a stagnant product. This brings altcoins into light and could be why money is flowing into them. It's the new year after all, and people are looking into entering new ventures.
Another factor may be altcoins surpassing Bitcoin in growth the past year. Bitcoin has been popular for its massive investment potential towards the end of 2017, but people are finding out that there are faster growing investments. We'll see. Money from alts are likely going to flow into Bitcoin when it goes on a bull run, as it always does.
|
|
|
|
It depends on the fees, as it always have. It has nothing to do with the transaction amount. Right now, the recommended amount is 530 satoshis per byte, and it should confirm within 30 minutes. You can check it over at https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/. You'll also be able to gauge how long it will take your transaction to confirm if you pay a certain amount. |
|
|
|
|
Well they kind of have to. Strike while the iron is hot, as they say. Bitcoin is probably at its most vulnerable right now, and this might be their only chance to win converts. Him and Jihan Wu are also in a race against time to squeeze all that they can from Bitcoin Cash before the Lightning Network completely renders it obsolete. I just hope the Lightning Network really works that well, and that it arrives soon. Things are really getting out of hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Was it a large amount? Banks also have to comply with anti money laundering laws, and they may have been afraid to get caught up in that. I have heard of some banks in the US tagging crypto transactions as scams of sorts, but I've personally never encountered this problem. The US government, obviously allows it, but banks can have different internal policies.
Either way, you should let your money do the talking. Take your business elsewhere. Let them know that that kind of behavior will not be tolerated as you close your account. It may make them reconsider in the future if enough people do it.
|
|
|
|
|
I would normally advise you to wait a bit, but it looks like the transaction backlog is increasing again, so it doesn't look like it's an option. It's pretty sad, but you're correct that the fees are outrageous, and it's completely unusable as it is right now, with seemingly no end in sight. Switching to traditional payments may be your only option if alts aren't.
Alternatively, you could just cash out a substantial amount that could cover your payments for a while, but going that route forfeits prospective gains from hodling. You either lose potential gains, or money from fees.
|
|
|
|
|
Not more than half is probably a good rule? I don't know, though. I like to go with the assumption that if I'm keeping coins in an exchange, I could lose them any time. They're less secure, and you don't even control the private key. It technically isn't even yours. High profile hacks are often centered around exchanges, and inside jobs could never be ruled out. It's going to be hard especially if you depend on trading for profit, but a good rule would be to not keep more than you could afford to lose. Just keep in mind that the exchange you're keeping your coins on is only trusted until it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Why would it affect the environment? The only thing that can easily affect it is the mining, and the electricity that the miners need in order to mine.
But that is nothing compared to all the shit that the cars, the petroleum, and everything who has quimicals is doing to the whole environment.
Anyway, you are just trying to create a bad face of bitcoin, so it is a waste of time
Well, if Bitcoin's electricity consumption has already surpassed that of entire countries', then I would argue that it is in fact affecting the environment. Unless all miners are using clean and renewable energy (some are starting to make the shift), this is bad for the environment. While cars and the like are far worse, the world is starting to go green. Bitcoin isn't. The issue is worsening, and we can't really afford to give governments around the world yet another excuse to pass unnecessary regulations. You have to acknowledge that there is a problem before you can solve it. |
|
|
|
I don't know if miners are against it, but I can think of one group that wants it to fail: big blockers, with Bitcoin Cash shills at the forefront. I visit their reddit now and then and they always find reasons to shit on it. It's easy to see why, too, since the Lightning Network seems like it can kill Bitcoin Cash altogether. As for obstacles, I don't think there are any. Transactions have been completed in it after all. It's probably just a bunch of dev work and rigorous testing at this point. We're talking about money here, so it would have to be flawless. The biggest obstacle I see is how to sell people on Lightning Network when it isn't a decentralized system. This to me will be the hardest problem to overcome but there are several different problems pick your poison.
Does it make bitcoin whole network centralised permanently or is it a centralised off chain layer temporarily centralised when lightning transaction happens? Or what scalable solution is available for bitcoin out there that is not centralised? Just the off chain layer. It doesn't even necessarily have to be centralized. There could be multiple payment channels owned by multiple groups. They also can't do anything to the transaction other than to facilitate it either, to my understanding. I don't believe this to be a problem. I don't know of any other solutions. Even bigger blocks lead to centralization. |
|
|
|
|
I don't get why people are freaking out over Ripple just because it surpassed Ethereum. It's still ways away from Bitcoin, and its centralization makes it fundamentally different from Bitcoin. They're both digital currencies, but they couldn't be more different. I mean, I guess how it could be perceived as a threat in the short term, because it's fast and scalable, but its centralization is its downfall. Once Bitcoin closes the gap in speed and scalability, which it will, I'm guessing Ripple will be obsolete. Either way, I don't even consider it cryptocurrency -- my personal definition requires decentralization.
|
|
|
|
|
That's interesting. The price has been stuck to around $13,000 the past few days so I was wondering why the price surged a bit. I thought it was just Bitcoin's volatility at work, but it looks like we have definitive proof that someone moved the market. We can't say anything for certain because we don't have exact numbers, but if we were to credit this purchase for increasing Bitcoin's price by 11%, then that means all it took for someone to move the price by that much was to buy around 1,500 worth of coins. I know things don't necessarily work the same way the other way around, but it's ridiculous how such a small amount can move the market.
Good publicity either way though. Great way to start the year.
|
|
|
|
|
It's crazy how two countries can look at the same situration and see things very differently. Japan foresees Bitcoin's boom as an opportunity to spur growth, while South Korea expects an imminent collapse. I obviously support Japan's stance much more. The people investing are adults, and all you need to tell them is that they're taking on a risk. Whether they choose to take that risk should be of their own accord. Regulation is good, if only to weed out all the scammers trying to steal from hard working people, but they should also be in support of said hard working people.
But yeah, Japan has always led the global charge in technology so their support of Bitcoin is hardly a surprise. I'm sure they didn't get to where they currently are by stifling new technology.
|
|
|
|
|
Well what's the point of currency if you're not going to spend it? You unfortunately cannot spend it directy for a lambo or a Nintendo Switch, so you'll have to go about the roundabout route which is to trade it for fiat (you can just think of this as forex or something, whatever makes you sleep at night), then for what you what to spend on.
Either way, few people get out of the game entirely. They may spend a portion and keep another portion. Heck, you don't even need to keep any to believe it's the future. You can spend it all and get in the game again later on. It's a moot point.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
