|
You might consider running over a VPN too depending on the use case.
|
|
|
|
how i can genrate 100.000 bitcoin addresses with bitcoin core all this address need to be associated only with 1 wallet.dat ...
The default already is pool size=100, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_BitcoinYou can alter that value, performance will depend on size and what you are attempting to do. |
|
|
|
Winklevoss bro's say $100K and Roger Ver says $34K. Of course I would love to see Bitcoin anywhere in the range they quote. But is it realistic....? Hmm, not sure. Probably not.  actually they (WikiTwins) say 40k and i my view bitcoin will go at least beyond 10k or will go to zero. This. It is something of a binary proposition, it will be worth a lot or nothing. If Ver and "his friends from he foundation" would gladly sell at $2k, they would've sold at 1200. I'm no fan of TBF, but Ver and most of them are not going to dump at 2k. They know the potential. |
|
|
|
Interesting. They post a lot of crap stories around. What I want to know is how did you audit their twitter profile? When I tried to see what mine would be like it said I need to sign into my own account.
I think you have to sign in to your account and then it can audit other accounts. I logged in as mine and then audited a different one. It isn't perfect because one I checked (who I know) has less than 10 followers and all are real, but it says 1 is fake. It is all based on statistics so isn't perfect, particularly with small samples, but I guess should give a reasonable idea. Interesting link... Ah ok. I wouldn't expect it to be 100% accurate and there will be some false positives, but are you 100% sure all his follows are real? Some can look real on first glance but are clearly fake after a bit of investigation. I know the one with less than ten (6 followers in fact) are real since they are personally known - it is just that one of them hasn't tweeted or done anything, just registered and followed "to try it out." :-). That would seem fake to the statistical analysis I am sure. It is a cool tool. |
|
|
|
Interesting. They post a lot of crap stories around. What I want to know is how did you audit their twitter profile? When I tried to see what mine would be like it said I need to sign into my own account.
I think you have to sign in to your account and then it can audit other accounts. I logged in as mine and then audited a different one. It isn't perfect because one I checked (who I know) has less than 10 followers and all are real, but it says 1 is fake. It is all based on statistics so isn't perfect, particularly with small samples, but I guess should give a reasonable idea. Interesting link... |
|
|
|
Hi, Good luck with your venture, but I just need to say if you "don't have a clue where to start" this is probably something you do not want to do lightly. Relying on a script/engine will in all likelihood result in the loss of bitcoins. This is not to dissuade you, just to be careful and it will be really important to figure out what is going on where in the code. Perhaps you can find a partner to do coding while you bring capital and experience or some similar division of labor. Just be careful because there are unlikely to be "off the shelf" scripts to do this. (As an aside, this probably does not belong in this section, perhaps in the Services section).  |
|
|
|
...<snip>
The only problem I see is a 51% attack. However, a 51% attack would probably lead to bitcoin losing a lot of value and therefore the 500 BTC would be worth a lot less, so the risk doing this cannot be calculated.
Well, pools could also cooperate to rake in the 500 BTC and split the money. If most pool participate, the mainchain would get almost no more blocks and the fork would be over soon. This could be an attack thats actually worth is for pools, because it seems like there is a consensus in the network and only a few miners are on "the wrong" chain.
However, even with this you don't know what it might cause to teh price, it's just the attack that is most likely to succeed without destroying the value of the fee.
This. Without a 51% attack, it is a non issue. I won't rehash what he said, but whomever tried a 51% attack - in this scenario or any other one - would be destroying what they are trying to steal. And a pool that was complicit in it would lose their composite miners quite quickly and probably put themselves out of business. It isn't as simple as it seems. |
|
|
|
When people don't like something they say you are "hoarding" or "being greedy". When they do like it, they say you are "saving for the future" or "investing in the future of <country>". They tip their biases by the language they use to be negative about something. Usually it is those who are envious who are using the "greedy" label. If someone wish to become rich and get into financial freedom by investing in bitcoin!
They are often looked down cheaply like
"lazy ones trying to get rich by doing nothing"
"bitcoin is to spend and it is not an investment to get rich or a get rich quick scheme"
People often hate those who want to become rich and are labelled greedy!
Why is this so?
It seems as if those who do not have the brains or skills to be innovative with bitcoin should not dream of becoming rich!
why so?
|
|
|
|
...
I was just being funny with the secret forum LMAO and I agree the elite moniker is dumb.
I know - I was continuing it. ;-) |
|
|
|
I heard on a secret forum, they are going to pay the foundation to make bitcoins a proof of stake coin.
I AM JUST SAYING...
What do you guys think is going to happen? The protocol is going to change overnight LOL Whatever happens will not effect bitcoin in the least bit. Now if they were banks I be scared.
You mean the BitMessage secret forum or the one on that .bit web site? All this conspiracy nonsense is just that, nonsense. It is just some people who have similar interests and believe in the promise of the bitcoin technology. People meeting, discussing business and improving their offerings is a good thing. Nothing changes in the protocol, the people I saw who were attending on the list wouldn't abandon bitcoin and sell their coins (no matter how few or many they control). At worst someone may get a good idea about a new product. And, btw, this so called "elite" moniker is just a ridiculous meme. They just wanted to make it sound exclusive to entice people to come. Since it is difficult to know who is behind what address/group of addresses, inviting so-called "whales" to meet on a nice island is a crapshoot. |
|
|
|
What do you think? I think I might be close. I'm guessing $10,000 per bitcoin by then.
Possibly, but what will $10,000 buy you then? A loaf of bread? they said the same thing in 90 year, about 2010-2015 years, and guess what, nothing has change Yeah, perhaps I was a little extreme. Okay, two loaves of bread and a croissant. Jam and butter too? Or is that an extra $200. |
|
|
|
Essentially they want a donation to pay themselves. If it is a good idea, sell us shares, make it an investment in the company. If they can't do that, I worry about the nature of their business.
Look at how many of the Bitcoin companies did it, e.g. Blockstream. I agree with the poster above me, how do we know this isn't a scam within a scam.
That's an extremely uniformed, and frankly, narrow minded comment. They have already put out some promising tech. And they did all that on their own dime! They are going with an iterative development model. This is a project for the commons. Keeping the greed out of it is a very wise move to actualize the project vision. By the way, I don't think it is greedy for them to want to be paid for their work, but if you think keeping greed out of it is a wise move, then why are they asking for money? (Or is it not greedy for them to want to be paid by someone else, but people who are paying them wanting a return on their money is greedy?) And by the way, I've lost a lot more in fiat than in bitcoin, when you take into account the loss due to inflation. I've lost nothing in bitcoin, I have exactly the same number of bitcoins I have had for a long time. I have no problem with their project, nor the way they fund it, but telling people they are wrong because they don't agree with their method of financing it, IS wrong. Decentralized exchanges, decentralized everything involved in bitcoin for that matter, is a good idea. |
|
|
|
How much have you lost -- either directly or indirectly -- because of the shenanigans, hacks, frozen accounts, and all out thievery of central exchanges?
0 RRIIIGGGHTTT... and the value of your LTC was never affected by central exchange hacks & thefts. Sheesh... how can the community be so damn short-sighted? Perhaps it isn't the community that is "so damn short-sighted"? |
|
|
|
Essentially they want a donation to pay themselves. If it is a good idea, sell us shares, make it an investment in the company. If they can't do that, I worry about the nature of their business.
Look at how many of the Bitcoin companies did it, e.g. Blockstream. I agree with the poster above me, how do we know this isn't a scam within a scam.
That's an extremely uniformed, and frankly, narrow minded comment. They have already put out some promising tech. And they did all that on their own dime! They are going with an iterative development model. This is a project for the commons. Keeping the greed out of it is a very wise move to actualize the project vision. I firmly believe in supporting people, but unless they are going to operate as a charity, I don't believe in supporting them like one. They want handouts from other people so they can build something and then potentially profit from it or at minimum support themselves and their lifestyles from it. What is an extremely uninformed and narrow minded comment is your's. |
|
|
|
|
Essentially they want a donation to pay themselves. If it is a good idea, sell us shares, make it an investment in the company. If they can't do that, I worry about the nature of their business.
Look at how many of the Bitcoin companies did it, e.g. Blockstream. I agree with the poster above me, how do we know this isn't a scam within a scam.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
