It took so long to invent Bitcoin because no one before Satoshi managed to make a truly decentralized system without any single trusted entities. Your system seems to introduce them again, because someone will have to organize this whole process. Only a tiny fraction of the total hash power of the network is saved in the block that gets accepted. Maybe there's a more fair and efficient way to mine.
You're misunderstanding mining. The point of mining is to generate blocks every 10 minutes without any third parties. It's not about "protecting the network" or "backing bitcoins with energy". |
|
|
|
|
It's okay to be scared, because at some point a crash won't be just a correction, but a real ending of the bull market, and you can't really tell the difference between them until it's too late. Hodling and buying the dip might be good in long term, but you can't blame people for wanting to take profits, especially if it will enable them to make some spendings that they have wanted for a long time. So, worrying for short-term price is pretty legit.
|
|
|
|
Hey, i just wanna ask if someone here has tried bruteforcing random bitcoin wallets, i understand that some of you will give me big numbers of how impossible that is, but hear me, there are more than 30.4 million bitcoin wallets with a balance (source:cointelegraph), so by dividing that 2^256 by that number you still get a high number
2^256 is of order 10^77, 30 million divided by it is of order 10^70. It's basically the same complexity for bruteforcing with modern equipment. but by studying the algos that create those wallets and patterns that may exist i think that number will be much lower, add to that if somehow you found thousands of people who are willing to brute force using a good algo for couple of years straight, then what are the chances that you maybe find a wallet with a large balance,
There are no patterns. Private keys are created with cryptographically secure random number generators, if they were weak, all our communications would be compromised. and for people who may say this theory is crazy and not possible i refere you to the guy who actually done just that for couple of years and found private keys of 3 small wallets.
This is like digging for gold and by technology going up i believe oneday it will be possible to brute force about 20-100 wallets each year using some crazy asic machine and a whole industry will be built around just this idea.
Some people used some small numbers as their private keys, like 42 or 1337, perhaps as brain wallets, so if you try all keys from the start, you will find them. Big deal. |
|
|
|
The way I see it: let's say that Satoshi was unmasked and is still alive, and everyone learns that Satoshi is a supporter of a certain controversial politician(let's say, someone like Trump). The people who are passionately against Trump might end up dumping their coins or end up boycotting bitcoin because of that affiliation (even though Satoshi is NOT Bitcoin). Hence, probably ending up with Coinbase taking a hit on their trading volume.
I don't think it works that way, there are some people in open-source community that said or did very controversial things, and the world didn't stop using their software. And with Bitcoin, Satoshi wasn't a developer for more than 10 years, so it's not like he could force his politics onto Bitcoin protocol in a situation like this. Satoshi's coins is the biggest concern, dumping 1 million coins and the implications of the creator losing faith in his creation could create a bearish market for many years. |
|
|
|
Apart from Facebooks try with Libra, is there anyway they could start competing on the blockchain world? My take is that they should.
What's "blockchain world'? Should they all start creating their own cryptocurrency? No, there's already thousands of crypto coins, a few more won't change anything. Bitcoin is the leader of crypto anyway, it literally has the best engineers in this field working on it, they shouldn't even try to compete with it. And having a separate currency for each platform will not work, users don't want that, they want one payment method for everything. |
|
|
|
If this is a concern to you, you can always ask the seller to show the inputs that they will send you.
i wonder if anyone would give the same suggestion to those who are dealing with fiat. specially when you know for sure that fiat that reaches you is most definitely "dirty". imagine if you went to the grocery store and the seller asked you to first provide a bank statement about where you got your money from! Yes, it's called financial monitoring. If you're buying a house or even a car or doing any other transaction past certain limit, your bank or even your counterparty will ask you about the origin of your funds if it's not clear to them. For example, if a bank sees that you receive salary, save it and then make a big purchase, they'll probably won't ask you about it, but if you're a new client and bring millions in cash, they will require some proof that the money are clean. |
|
|
|
I can confirm anyone hadn't used the report button those had been replied to that thread since my report marked good.
Your report is marked as good if it leads to a moderator action. Everyone who reported the post gets it, regardless if they replied in the thread or not. Everyone replied there just filling their weekly quotas for the signature campaign.
This isn't just posting of sig campaign, it's complete laziness and lack of understanding of this forum. Such posts almost always get deleted, so their sig campaign posts get deleted too. It can even bite them in the ass if they will fail to meet their weekly quota because of deleted posts. Just want to remind the liability. Hope at least we will put minimum effort to prevent such as spams.
Agree, users should report spam and avoid engaging with it. Unless it's something malicious, then it can be good to leave a warning for newbies to not follow any links. |
|
|
|
Whats is the correct process...does seller provide wallet address coins will come from so it can be checked before transaction ?
If this is a concern to you, you can always ask the seller to show the inputs that they will send you. Then you can use sites like walletexplorer.com to try to learn about the history of these coins. If the coins were withdrawn from a known exchange or gambling site or even a darknet market, you will be able to see it. This does not guarantee that the coins are "clean", but it can prevent some problems. But if you are buying coins on p2p markets, maybe it wouldn't be a problem to sell them p2p, so taint wouldn't be a concern. |
|
|
|
|
Your title says "crypto", but you talk about blockchain, those are two very different things. Speaking of blockchain, it's actually not used in any serious project in any industry, cryptocurrencies are the only use case, and even then it's not fair to call them "a blockchain use case", because blockchain was created as a part of Bitcoin, it didn't start as some fundamental technology.
AI also suffers from people just throwing it at every problem hoping it will magically solve it, but at least it can show a great amount of achievements that are known by everyone - facial recognition, self-driving cars, speech recognition, management, marketing.
You shouldn't ask "what if we combine AI and blockchain", you should ask if there are problems that require both?
|
|
|
|
|
There is no war, Bitcoiners think that if Bitcoin is a competitor of fiat currency, then surely all governments and banks will want to stop it, but this isn't true. Yes, some governments have banned Bitcoin, but most of them, especially those with huge global influence have not, because they simply don't see Bitcoin being a serious threat to them. Adoption is still so low that governments don't look too much at Bitcoin, so they don't ban it not because it's impossible, but because it would just create more work for them that isn't worth it.
|
|
|
|
CNBC, Fox, Sky News, BBC and the lot are branding Bitcoin as a Meme  Central Banks & Government know that banning Bitcoin is Futile and waste of time so they are targeting Bitcoin at a different sinister angle. They don't need to ban Bitcoin software, they can just close Bitcoin exchange, prohibit institutions from owning it, don't allow companies to accept it as payment, and it would be enough to ensure that there will be no mass adoption and that Bitcoin will be just a currency for "nerds". So, it really makes no sense to develop some complicated plots to combat Bitcoin if they can stop if with flicks of their fingers. But because now we have big companies invested in BTC, the governments wouldn't want to antagonize them, so the chance of ban grows smaller and smaller. |
|
|
|
|
You won't be able to reliably send large transactions via Lightning, it would be in many cases impossible to find a route with enough funds.
If you're buying a house or a car, you don't really care about a double-digit fee and 30-60 minute confirmation time. As I see it, on-chain transactions will be used for high-value transfers, Lightning will be used for small consumer purchases. There will always be some balance between them, if on-chain transactions will be cheap, more people will use them, so the fees will go up.
The current fees are a glimpse of what will happen when there will be even more adoption, especially if BTC will be a reserve currency for everyone. So, I wouldn't worry about miners getting no fees.
|
|
|
|
|
The price bounced back because Bitcoin was oversold. There were other bullish news today and yesterday, like Microstrategy's new purchase, outflow of BTC from centralized exchanges, but we still haven't returned to growth, we're still not far from the bottom of this dip, so even serious news are not enough to return the market to its bullish course when there's so much panic. Maybe a lot of people bought at $50k and now they are selling whenever the price trice to bounce, so they can break even.
|
|
|
|
|
"Long transaction time" happens when people send their transactions with higher fees that your. Miners generally include transactions with highest fees first. So, it's not just about demand, it's about the fee market. Most people experience long transaction times because they are not fully aware that there's a market for transaction confirmations, and wallets do pretty bad job at explaining it and predicting a good fee.
On a protocol level, the only solution to high fees and long confirmation times is Lightning Network, because it allows you to make transactions without including them on blockchain at all.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin never "needed" news to go up, this is a "all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs" type of situation where a great news would make it go up of course but it could go up without a great news as well, it is not a must and that is what we had on that recent run.
This doesn't mean that great news like tesla buying, microstrategy buying or something becoming more relax in regulations etc etc whatever good news is would be bad for us, I would love to hear Apple buying 5 billion dollars worth of bitcoin for example, not saying that would happen but if it were to happen that would be amazing and increase the price insanely high, probably closer to 70k as well. However just because that would be awesome doesn't mean that the price will go back to 10k unless Apple buys bitcoin, it doesn't work like that and we should not be making that a must neither.
I never said that Bitcoin can't rise without news, this was merely an observation. I was just curious if the fact that Bitcoin kept going up without news could mean that retail investors have became more active, or if institutions decided to stop announcing their purchases. Or maybe it's some rich private individuals have joined the market? Or this fact actually doesn't mean anything? That's what I want to speculate about. |
|
|
|
|
The best time to buy is at a price that will never be seen again. I highly doubt that even if this rally continues, we won't return to this level in the bear market that will come after it. Now is a good time to buy because Bitcoin will bounce back, but there will be even better opportunities.
|
|
|
|
I did understand what he meant, yet it's still weird that he first helped Doge pump this many times, his company invested in BTC, he then went bullish on BTC and shortly afterwards he calls it almost as BS as fiat.
The "BS" statement is still a bullish statement, what's the problem here? It seems more like Musk is using his Twitter account to provoke FUD and FOMO to his advantage rather than expressing his own opinions. There is a big difference between expressing your opinion and using your so-called "opinions" to manipulate markets.
He also at some point that that Tesla is overvalued. Maybe this was even a reference to it. It's not a secret that he is a troll, and maybe it's irresponsible for him to mess with markets in this way, but there's not much evidence that he is manipulating markets to profit from it. |
|
|
|
|
It's not a secret that majority of the price action happened when there were big news about institutional buys - PayPal, Microstrategy, Tesla, adoption by Visa and so on. But recently Bitcoin has been going up without any such things. The Tesla-induced pump ended at around $48,000 and now we're almost $10,000 higher than that.
So, who is buying? Are institutional investors grabbing it quietly? Or is it retailers joining the bull run?
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on your total networth. If you weren't doing very well, but now with Bitcoin increasing almost by 6 times in this bull run you are finding yourself "wealthy", then it's a signal that you should consider selling some BTC now or a bit later and reinvesting it in something more predictable. Because Bitcoin will very likely crash, and you will again return to were you started, or maybe will even have to sell some BTC down the road. Those who say to HODL no matter what are likely not having to worry about money at all because they have enough income to be rich even without BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
