Good news! Community interaction is always welcome  Keep it up, we'll be waiting for our coins |
|
|
|
I could choose 1, 3 and 4... But 3 seems the most appropriate answer. It's the dream we all have, long term, to leave banks behind and be the owners of our own money. Give back to people what's theirs |
|
|
|
This sounds good It could even open possibilities to pay something like bills with Bitcoin to companies who don't accept it directly... |
|
|
|
Well, she's into Bitcoin, trying to spread it, and has a small business in selling Bitcoin apparently, and uses her own image for marketing while at the same time directing attention to the fact that there are women into Bitcoin. I see no issues with that... Whatever floats her boat is fine for me, as long as everyone is into Bitcoin and investing time/money/whatever in making it even better and marketing it |
|
|
|
It's true that Bitcoin ahs it's risks, investment-wise, but I don't really think an investment is safer in stocks than in Bitcoin... What guarantees a stock can't crash?. They are obviously more control than Bitcoin, but you can lose money on stocks too. Anyways, all the banks are just playing devil's advocate recently. It's pretty much their job to make Bitcoin something awful, otherwise they will lose all their clients!  |
|
|
|
|
If regulators feel like ignoring Bitcoin's basic principles, then they are free to use cash only, and we are free to circumvent having anything to do with them. No reason to regulate something one doesn't even care about, just because.
As for blacklisting measures, they will never work. It's a rough job tracking down all addresses associated with an ill-intentioned party, there might be addresses that are unknown to be linked with those types of people and they can simply tumble/mix their coins, or use a huge quantity of addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like you're the same person from Reddit that's posting about losing money on BTC-e. Well, they're a bit shady and completely unknown... They also probably think they're doing the right thing. Have the coins moved from the exchange's address? Have they moved back to bitdice? You should also insist with Bitdice staff, there's a thread from them in the Gambling forum.
Anyways, I'm sorry for your loss. You won't probably see the coins back. If you do, you're a lucky guy...
|
|
|
|
Same old story all over again: They should tell us how much swedish krona has been used in the last few years for illegal activities. But no, they just focus on Bitcoin  |
|
|
|
No, why should we need to? |
|
|
|
This doesn't really sound good indeed... But fortunately it's the worst case scenario, and an improbable one.No miner will want things to get ruined  Be careful about this. Anyone sitting on multiple millions of dollars worth of hardware is under threat. Miners will make the best choices for themselves in any particular scenario and that may or may not correspond to the long-term health of Bitcoin proper. Bitcoin as a blockchain with embedded value is probably around for the duration baring some fundamental and unknown (to me) weakness in certain of the cryptography. Bitcoin as a viable method of wealth protection and transfer is subject to periods of hiatus. I'd actually be quite surprised to see it be healthy and accessible in a time of economic crisis impacting the USD. As a corollary, I'd be surprised if all of the factors used to simulate Bitcoin's natural collapse (absent a bloatfork) were equally communicated. They are obviously under threat, that's why it's in their best interest to keep Bitcoin running smoothly and do everything for it's success... If Bitcoin is in good standing, so the miners are, I think. I'm not really seeing a situation where, for example, miners win and merchants loose. If merchants loose, miners will too in the long term, because Bitcoin will suffer... And it will suffer in price, and miners won't enjoy that, obviously But I may be wrong. What kind of best choice for miners are you thinking in that doesn't correspond to the long term health of Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Something quite a bit controversial... Putting messages in the blockchain can be interesting: it allows us to timestamp files for future proof. But it also opens the door to a lot of spam A poll would be interesting... |
|
|
|
Nevermind, Bitcoin QT 0.10.2 is garbage. It managed to destroy itself and won't open anymore. I downloaded it within the past week and its already managed to fall off the right blockchain, so the 0.16 BTC in there will be 0 if I have to resynch. Really unbelievable that this is called a stable release.
Even if I rebuild it I have zero confidence in it.
They w0on't be 0: just backup your wallet.dat and/or have your private keys in a safe place! As for fees, it doesn't bother me. I like to pay high fees normally, unless I'm transacting really small amounts... |
|
|
|
This doesn't really sound good indeed... But fortunately it's the worst case scenario, and an improbable one.No miner will want things to get ruined |
|
|
|
|
I think this has been discussed on the forum previously... I still have the same opinion, John Nash definitely layed the foundation upon which Satoshi inspired himself to make Bitcoin... And then Satoshi had the mind, the will power and the skills to join coding, mathematics and finance together to create Bitcoin!
|
|
|
|
Either trade them or risk some of them investing in a casino... But whatever you do, keep most of them in an offline wallet |
|
|
|
We have time to track these kinds of numbers. While the initial adoption of clients accepting bigger blocks will probably show the direction in which we will be going in the future, it will be long until the day we switch to bigger blocks... And that's where we really to see numbers, so we can see if we have 90% on "the other side" |
|
|
|
The author, like most people, is confused about the issue. He says we risk splitting into two with the hard fork. This is utter nonsense, the fork will not happen without 90% consensus. The remaining 10% will then be forced to join or be worthless. If that consensus does not happen, then there is no hard fork. No point in reading the rest of the article, as the author clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
The authors idea still stands: if we split on "votes" and don't reach 90%, we will get zilch. Bitcoin will be compromised in the long run. |
|
|
|
Had an amazing laugh with this!  He probably wanted some Bitcoins badly... |
|
|
|
|
Voted the first two... But I use Bitcoin for the first seven options!!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
