There is one thing that am unsure of.
We all know that CME was gonna invest in bitcoins and thus it was gonna get in the market by 18 December.
Well it has already started trading also according to sources 51 billion dollars are going to be used up in all of this process.
But why the price is falling since yesterday ?
Yes.. I am fully aware of the fact that..none of the business trading is gonna take place in... Real bitcoins instead they are gonna use the money and dollars ..
Still its gonna affect the Bitcoins prices indirectly.
Also since the cofounder have sold all his bitcoins and converted it into bitcoins cash, I don't know if the afterwaves of it is still hitting.
Let's clarify this. Co-founder of Bitcoin.com. Not Bitcoin. Satoshi is the only one who founded Bitcoin. The other guy is a Bitcoin Cash shill. I must also note that Roger Ver, the owner of the same site is still holding his Bitcoins. The drop probably has more to do with the co-founder noise rather than Bitcoin futures. I mean look at this forum. People seem convinced that Bitcoin had a co-founder and that he gave up on Bitcoin. Read up guys. |
|
|
|
|
Not a big deal. What was that, a little more than a 10% drop? How much has Bitcoin grown the past few days? It's normal. It can't keep rising.
It may have something to do with another round of Bitcoin Cash FUD, as it seems to have been pumped again and all this noise about Bitcoin.com's co-founder. Honestly, this isn't a cause of concern. Things are going to correct themselves in a few days.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, that guy isn't the co-founder of Bitcoin. He's the co-founder of Bitcoin.com, which Roger Ver controls. They're known Bitcoin Cash shills. This means absolutely nothing for the true Bitcoin. Let them dump. We're better off without them.
This has happened a month before. I'm not saying it will, but it's likely Bitcoin Cash will crash spectacularly again. Maybe then Bitcoin Cash supporters can finally open their eyes to the reality that they're being used to make money.
|
|
|
|
|
Lol wow. Oh well. I'm not worried this time around. It has failed once, and it will fail again. I'm not as concerned this time around. I doubt it will make much of a splash.
I don't think Bitcoin will tank. It's probably going to follow the normal fork pattern of pumping before the fork, and dumping after. Shouldn't have much long term ill-effects.
One-to-one refers to ratio. It means you get as much B2X as you do BTC, even if you have less than one.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a big deal. The warning doesn't tell people what they shouldn't already know. All they're really saying is that:
a) You can incur losses because the market is speculative
b) The intermediary (exchanges, online wallets, etc.) could be hacked
Everyone knows they could lose money, and it's being said over and over that it's a bad idea to not have control of your own private key. I would be very surprised if this affected Bitcoin's value at all. The hacking warning could put off would be investors who don't know how wallets work though.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so. Banks don't just store cash, you know. They make their money by luring you in with interest and then loaning away your money for their profit. The first function can be replaced for sure, because you don't need third parties to secure your coins for you, but nothing's stopping them from still handing out loans. These guys will adapt, as they have during the internet revolution. I don't think there's any way of getting rid of them. But why would we have to? For as long as they're offering something of value, they're valuable to society.
|
|
|
|
France's finance minister is planning to push for a discussion on bitcoin regulation at a G-20 summit in 2018. How would this influence the development of Bitcoin?
Looking forward to hearing different opinions!
Well we won't know for sure what kind of influence it will have on any aspect until we know what comes of their discussion. Either way, I feel like we have nothing to worry about. The G20 is a progressive group of countries, and I don't think crippling Bitcoin will be in the cards. At worst, it will be scrutinized on the level that fiat is. It's too early to be having this discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Nah. As things stand, Bitcoin is far more secure with more miners holding a big fraction of hashpower. IIRC three mining pools banding together would be enough to launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin is also a lot more popular with a lot more users.
Bitcoin Cash's only solution as of now is to increase the block size, and they can't keep doing that. We at least have the Lightning Network to look forward to, which is a massive step towards solving the scaling issue. I would like to note that Roger Ver, one of Bitcoin Cash's biggest supporters can't even put his money where his mouth is. He's still HODLing his Bitcoin stash.
|
|
|
|
Ebay, amazon and other companies like them will never accept bitcoin. The main reason:
1) There are a lot of scammers in the bitcoin sphere and we know that already. The issue is that is someone is scammed on eBay, for ex, Tony buys a laptop from George. George gets the $ on paypal immediately, but never ships the laptop. After a week or 2, Tony makes a report on ebay, which then takes the $ in George's paypal account to give back to Tony, while also suspending George's account. However if someone were to get scammed after paying Bitcoin, there is nothing eBay could do to get their bitcoins back, as bitcoin is nonrefundable(which is a huge issue when it comes to adoption). No one wants to know the money they spent and got scammed from is gone forever, with nothing they could do to get it back.
Now, some of you may say, "Well you can use an escrow system to accept Bitcoin, you know like they do on drug markets on the darknet". That may work on smaller mutlivendor marketplaces, but I'm pretty sure sites as large as eBay and Amazon won't want to deal with the constant reports of "I didn't get this package and my bitcoins are stuck in escrow, can you help me?" etc etc that come with an escrow system, as well as the fear of getting hacked.
And that's besides Bitcoin's extreme volatility and slow confirmation times, etc
Fair points. It's undeniable that there are challenges. Bitcoin is still in its infancy so merchants haven't really adapted to it yet. I'm sure there will be more efficient solutions to these kinds of problems in the future. Also, I while I agree they wouldn't want to deal with the problems associated with accepting Bitcoin, can you say for sure they won't consider it if they stand to gain a significant amount of money from it? These large companies are agile and are always looking into ways to adapt with the changing world. If the people starts to demand it, they will have to oblige. We're nowhere near that point though. |
|
|
|
Allow me to understand the advantage of Bitcoin.
Earlier today, I moved $25,000.00 from my bank's savings account, into a new bank to open a high yielding CD. Transaction was confirmed in 10 minutes. The CD will start accruing interest in ~2 days.
1) Neither bank charged me any fees. If I did the same thing with BTC (move Bitcoin), will I be charged a fee?
2) I didn't have to worry about "protecting" my money in an online or hardware wallet. I have had money in this savings account for 12+ years. I don't worry about moving from exchanges, fees, keeping hardware wallet keys written down and safe, etc. Again, it seems that Bitcoin and cryptocurrency is again at a disadvantage.
Please educate me and tell me how Bitcoin is safer, easier, less stressful, and cheaper to own? I am all ears.
1. You will have to pay a fee. 2. Yep, banks do that for you. That's why they're currently the golden standard. Bitcoin isn't safer. It's safe, and unlike banks who have to give you approval for you to take back your own money, ypu have full control of your Bitcoin. Bitcoin is easier if you know what you're doing. There are no limits to online transactions unlike some banks. I don't know about it being less stressful because that's completely subjective. I've honestly never been stressed with my bank nor with my Bitcoins. I guess it could be said that it's cheaper to own because you don't typically lose money to inflation. There are also some banks that implement a maintaining balance system of some sorts. |
|
|
|
It seems now that BTC and many of the main cryptos are our of reach for a majority of people. It’s become a speculative disaster waiting to happen. A peer to peer decentralised form of payment now left in the hands of 2 individuals who own more than 40% of it and an ever increasing and volatile price which makes transacting in BTC for goods and services practically impossible. It’s fair to assume that satoshi would be appaled by what is taking place.
Do you have a source on the bolded part? I seem to be seeing a lot of outrageous claims like this lately. Some say 10 owns 50%, 10 owns 40%, etc. but none of them have the data to back it. I'm sure such a disparity isn't completely impossible because of how easy it was to get coins back then, but I'd really appreciate a formal source. This is basicallt FUD. As for Bitcoin's value being justified, I would say yes. I mean, the people basically decide its value. No one will buy if it isn't justified. How long it will stay that way, you never know though. |
|
|
|
|
Well if all you really need is a device that's used for specifically storing your coins, we already have one of those. It's called a hardware wallet, and they happen to be considered the most secure way of storing your Bitcoins.
If you just want to run core, you could just build a PC with a large storage. It's quite pointless in my opinion unless you want to run a full node, which you didn't mention.
|
|
|
|
That is the only bottleneck for bitcoin to be accepted as a transaction facilitator. The exorbitant fees are holding a lot of people from transacting in bitcoin and forcing to use other currencies like ETH. They are still a lot cheaper than bitcoin and faster as well. It makes no sense to pay 26 USD as network fees because bank transfers are now a lot cheaper than bitcoin transaction.
I would say the volatility is also a major issue, but at least that could be worked around. Bitpay seems successful enough. But yeah it's blatantly obvious that Bitcoin cannot handle an elevated level of demand. The scaling problem wasn't supposed to start being an issue this soon, so we also need solutions sooner rather than later. We're kind of screwed if this keeps up. |
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/xS-eWwwmcooIt's just unbelievable what's coming out of the mouths of these people. Terrorism, money laundering? Banks have had a monopoly of those for a long time, now a more transparent technology came out, they'd start accusing it of those crimes? Considering that these bankers has also talked about removing the insurance in bank savings accounts, it just strikes me as revolting for them to say all these. If people felt secured with their money these banks are holding and then loaning away with massive interests, then maybe people wouldn't feel the need to find other ways of keeping their money. Sigh, guys, they've finally taken notice and has become more serious now. The battle has begun Well the terrorism and money laundering angle is hardly new. We don't know exactly how much Bitcoin is being used for these purposes, but I feel that the concern is at least somewhay valid. You might say that fiat could be used the same way, and I absolutely agree, but fiat is regulated. Bitcoin is in the spotlight right now, for both the general public and regulators. You are correct that this is the beginning, for better or worse. |
|
|
|
Hello,
I have an above average knowledge about Bitcoin network, but I lack some advanced understanding as how transaction works. So I hope you can clear this that is in my mind for some time.
I know that it is possible to purge a transaction nullifying it, for example if you sent a transaction with a low fee it will remain unconfirmed for some time and it gives you the opportunity to purge it so it will be canceled and your balance will be fully restored in your wallet.
My doubt resides on it, considering that my previous statement is true (please correct it if it's not), is it possible to set a server with automated bots that will be checking the mempool/network for unauthorized transactions comming from your wallet and auto purge them to prevent it?
If what I said is not possible by any reason, please explain and if you have the knowledge, please try to answer this as well: is there any coin that allows it? I mean, it won't hurt the network as it's only for unconfirmed transactions.
You can't purge your transactions. It will simply disappear from the mempool after being in limbo for a while. It happens when you pay too low of a transaction fee. If you're worried about your Bitcoins being compromised, just take every step you can to secure them. It's harder to steal them than you probably think for as long as you follow basic security steps. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Bitcoin hasn't been usable for microtransactions for a while now, but the problem is currently on a completely different scale. These problems have usually resolved themselves in the past given time, but that doesn't look like the case at the moment. The number of unconfirmed transactions is nearly the same as when I checked it a day ago. That means the network isn't getting any progress in trimming down the number of transactions in the mempool.
The only real solution on the horizon is the Lightning Network, but who knows when that will roll out. I would personally support a temporary band-aid solution, should someone come up with one.
|
|
|
|
"whats the point of bitcoin if i am not profitting?" Maybe because bitcoin didn't exist to make you profit?? Bitcoin is invented to replace fiat, or at least to go together with fiat depending what your views are. BITCOIN IS NOT A MONEYMAKING SCHEME.
You are absolutely correct. Let's be honest here, however. We all know Bitcoin is only as popular as it is because it's being used for profit. It doesn't even have a shot in replacing fiat as things currently stand. I'm very optimistic about where Bitcoin can go in the future, both in value and utility, but it can't be denied that at the moment, what it does best is storing and multiplying your money. Granted, it's not a moneymaking scheme per se, but it can be used to make money all the same. It sucks, yes, but it's the truth. |
|
|
|
|
Well judging by the fact that Bitcoin value is measured in USD, I'd say the Bitcoin value you would pay would be roughly equal to its USD cost. Would you pay in Bitcoin if you were charged quite significantly more than what you would have been charged in USD? I'm guessing no, right?
Service providers like Bitpay make this easier by being the middleman which could pay out the vendor directly. Guess what value they base their charge on? Yep, USD.
|
|
|
|
It's a finite quantity.. sure they can be split into many pieces, but something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.. Take gold for example...
There is a fixed supply, and no one can change that, not even the real satoshi nakamoto (and we do not know if he is really alive or if he is dead/have ever existed) But yes, they can be divided in other pieces, or just be forked, like it happened with bitcoin cash on the past. Nowadays there are a lot of forks, but they are not the same, they are just for profit purposes, they are not taking the main "reason" of creating a fork, they are just using that idea to fill out their pockets, nothing more.
There is a fixed supply and no one is able to change that. The community can possibly change that. A fork could increase the supply, technically, but doing that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. It's both impractical and unnecessary. If satoshis rise in value so much that they become unviable as the smallest denomination unit, then it makes much more sense to simply allow even smaller divisions. |
|
|
|
Many are holding the bitcoins rather than spending it. If there is many transaction then automatically fee will be reduced due to large number of transactions. But, many are just holding it to get gain. if this trend continues, we will see a fall sooner or later.
If small transactions not approved fast then many will move out, leaving big fishes take out all money and we are facing a downfall.
Fees and confirmation time has to be reduced in some way.
Do you have a figure you would like to cite? Steam did drop Bitcoin as a payment option, but other than that there hasn't been many news in that end. You also got the relationship between transaction fees and transactions backwards. When there are no transactions in the mempool, you have instant priority. You could probably get away with not paying a fee. If there are a lot, then you will have to outbid everyone else's transactions to get quick confirmation. Small transactions haven't been viable for Bitcoin for a while now and it's as strong as ever. It's still quite ideal for larger transactions, at least. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
