Is bitcoin connected in any means by SDR (The supposed to be New Word Currency) ?
Bitcoin is the new world currency How is that ? Pardon me, but I smell trolling here. Just wait a couple of years  |
|
|
|
Is bitcoin connected in any means by SDR (The supposed to be New Word Currency) ?
Bitcoin is the new world currency |
|
|
|
oh hai  Less than 3 tps isn't going to cut it on the main chain, even in the reasonably near future, let alone forever. Then you should tell your friend over there on reddit that he should cancel his order while there is still time |
|
|
|
lol you guys are over estimating the winkles.
also, the etf is not going to happen anytime soon (within the next year).
They even switched legal advisors, for Gemini trust license they are now using Kaye Scholer LLP instead of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (which is/was used for their ETF)
I guess Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP couldn't get the job done, so they found another attorney.
good indicator: a few months before the ETF goes live because they will submit another S-1A excluding companies like mtgox, btc-e, and including companies like itbit, gemini, coinbase exchange etc
I think the SEC looked at the current, and previous, S-1A's with all those shady companies and laughed.
also, Gemini and ETF are unrelated. gemini is not a magic pill to get the ETF approved. Gemini and itBit are practically the same in terms of regulations. And itBit is already launched. ETF's dont require the sponsors to launch their own exchange. You should check the facts before sharing your fud http://www.dfs.ny.gov/reportpub/wb150724.htmJuly 22, 2015 (TR-CRB)
GEMINI TRUST COMPANY, LLC
30 West 24th Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York 10010
Articles of Organization received.
Organizers
Cameron H. Winklevoss, New York, NY
Tyler H. Winklevoss, New York, NY
Evan L. Greebel, Scarsdale, NY
Charles R. Macedo, Ardsley, NY
Kathleen H. Moriarty, New York, NY As an additional note this is interesting because it pretty much confirms the theories of Gemini being a integral part of the ETF process. |
|
|
|
lol you guys are over estimating the winkles.
also, the etf is not going to happen anytime soon (within the next year).
They even switched legal advisors, for Gemini trust license they are now using Kaye Scholer LLP instead of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (which is/was used for their ETF)
I guess Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP couldn't get the job done, so they found another attorney.
good indicator: a few months before the ETF goes live because they will submit another S-1A excluding companies like mtgox, btc-e, and including companies like itbit, gemini, coinbase exchange etc
I think the SEC looked at the current, and previous, S-1A's with all those shady companies and laughed.
also, Gemini and ETF are unrelated. gemini is not a magic pill to get the ETF approved. Gemini and itBit are practically the same in terms of regulations. And itBit is already launched. ETF's dont require the sponsors to launch their own exchange. You should check the facts before sharing your fud http://www.dfs.ny.gov/reportpub/wb150724.htmJuly 22, 2015 (TR-CRB)
GEMINI TRUST COMPANY, LLC
30 West 24th Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York 10010
Articles of Organization received.
Organizers
Cameron H. Winklevoss, New York, NY
Tyler H. Winklevoss, New York, NY
Evan L. Greebel, Scarsdale, NY
Charles R. Macedo, Ardsley, NY
Kathleen H. Moriarty, New York, NY |
|
|
|
Can I ask what is so good about Gemini?
Aren't there already exchanges? Why expect a upward movement in price?
Just wondering.
Thanks
Gemini will be a "fully regulated, fully compliant" exchange with major fiat backing (Winklevoss twins) They also have a major stake in Bitcoin with a reported 1-2 percent of there assets in BTC. The Twins seem serious and motivated to "Make Bitcoin bigger then Facebook". If sombody will make BTC "Mainstream" it will be them. Yeah but is this just a U.S thing only? Most exchanges are awful with Euro, pound sterling etc. Apart from in the U.S. it's pretty shitty for the average person to buy bitcoins. This has most likely been mentioned 100s of times but if the winkles have that much what's to stop them dumping on Gemini? Not trolling, just asking. Latest report mention they are filling for charter in the New York State which, correct me if I'm wrong, would make them the second fully regulated exchange in the U.S (on a national scale). My guess is chartered banks are likely to eventually have better support for international customers than traditional exchanges. |
|
|
|
Again no guarantees. But obviously I feel confident enough that I sold to dollars at $315 all Bitcoin.
Will make sure to up this one when we're at 400$ a week or so from now  |
|
|
|
I see, we're dealing with a serious lack of foresight here. Gvt of the world will not willingly convert to BTC. They will do it because their economy will eventually crumble and BTC will be the only safe asset left. Here, some reading for you: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/speculative-attack/ |
|
|
|
Did you bother reading the article? I can't find any explanation or arguments from which his theory of "BTC cannot become reserve currency" can be derived Troll Swanson trolling as usual |
|
|
|
...
 Give us a break. You're getting dangerously close to Anonymint-levels of megalomania |
|
|
|
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.
Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things. Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise. Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies. https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913 ^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size. " Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew. Another relevant dataset from today: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.htmlOn this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.
...
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor |
|
|
|
BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks. their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack: Large mempools are awful
The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.
Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost
What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?
Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4Hmmm sorry but that's mischaracterizing the idea behind this article. They are in fact very neutral and make no mention of a preferred position on the matter. Seems clear the culprit in this whole saga of "network disruption" was misconfigured architecture and apparently inadequate mempool implementations. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.
Evidently the core parameters were not optimized, something they suggest the core devs should concentrate and focus on maybe even before we think about block size. (I am aware there is already progress made toward alleviating this problem) |
|
|
|
It reeks of desperation when you are spinning every story, news and thoughts of yours in some low-level childish "diss". It'd be nice if this news could get us out of this price funk though! |
|
|
|
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009538.htmlJeff Garzik jgarzik at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 22:30:59 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Short Term Use Addresses for Scalability
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
....
So I respectfully disagree with "core devs don't control the network" and
"core devs control the network" both.
There are checks-and-balances that make the system work. Consensus is most
strongly measured by user actions after software release. If the
developers fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know. Jeff knows damn well he doesn't have network consensus edit: but yes, this is basically what is going to happen.
|
|
|
|
"What have the core devs ever done for us?" It doesn't matter. At all. This isn't academia - there is no tenure in Bitcoin. Their position is contingent every single day on their continuing ability to produce new value. They can choose to embrace that reality, or they can choose to pout about it. Bitcoin will be fine with or without them. well put JR. i hadn't even thought about it that way. and what we absolutely don't want is core dev thinking that Bitcoin "owes them" something. you do know that also goes for Satoshi and Gavin ? |
|
|
|
People might be using exchanges (especially those with zero fees) and/or gambling sites as mixers. One consequence of not having a mixer site and having a lower market cap is that LTC is less anonymous than BTC. Which makes it easier to track ponzis and scams. ... BTC continues having problems with online payment adoption:
http://www.coindesk.com/expedia-exec-purchases-with-bitcoin-are-down-40/Well that was expected. Retail adoption of Bitcoin was never a good idea to begin with and only redditards fooled themselves into believing it was gaining any traction at all. |
|
|
|
this really isn't good and is reason for us to want to increase the growth of new users by whatever means necessary:
Despite a decline of approximately 40% in bitcoin purchases, Connie Chung, senior payments product manager at Expedia, says the option to pay with the digital currency will remain as long as there is a demand for it.
Chung noted other merchants had been more affected by what she called a recent decline in bitcoin payments – with some reporting a decrease of up to 90% at various industry events.
According to the report, the fundamental challenge facing bitcoin as a medium of exchange of legal goods continues to be low consumer adoption and a lack of advantages over credit and debit cards.http://www.coindesk.com/expedia-exec-purchases-with-bitcoin-are-down-40/?utm_content=buffer59a4e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferim just not too concerned about this one. pretty much everyone who has bought bitcoin over the past 2 yrs is even or under water. no point spending them at a loss. Also, the early adopters who could be spending their coins on hotels/etc. realize that "store of value" and "im not selling this low" are still valid reasons not to be spending them yet as well. im also spending my fiat more than bitcoins at the moment. if my net worth jumps another 5-10x, i'm sure i'll start spending them again. its still a buy and hold imo Merchant adoption could be non-existant for all I care. Total non-issue. |
|
|
|
So for it to even get to $32k/btc, millions of people have to happily be buying at that price, yes? So why would they? Why would we all be happily buying more at that price?
Supply versus demand. The supply of bitcoins is limited. The demand will grow. ...It's the equivalent of saying that Gold is cheap at $1100/ounce, since it will be at $30k/ounce...
For years gold was $35/oz. It could certainly go a lot higher than $1100. Some people just don't get it, will never get it. Hey, you're talking to a bitcoin bull here. I'm still in. But going on 2 years of nothing and I'm still seeing, well, nothing going on. Seriously. Adoption ground to a halt. People have lost interest. No major retailer announcement since early 2014. It's getting a little ridiculous at this point. Oh but that is why. You are obviously looking at the wrong things. Major retail adoption is irrelevant to Bitcoin success. It will come organically much later. Bitcoin is steadily adding thousands of users every day which is somewhat encouraging given the bear market we have experienced. Now while user adoption may not be through the rough, corporate acceptance, interest and participation is at an all time high. Billions of dollars are actively put to use by some of the smartest brains in finance and computer science to develop an infrastructure that can manage and ultimately substain the coming levels of adoption. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
