So the hard fork is near and it must be difficult for beginners to what to choose. I am myself confused what to do.
Vote your choice and see the results and share your opinions on the fork.
Obviously everybody would want to make this opportunity a profitable one by increasing the capital. So what do you think would be more profitable out of the given options.
Shopping for altcoins is like wading through a blood bath right now. I'd prefer to see some lower volatility bases before buying into most alts at the moment. BTC looks strong and might be a solid hold into the Bitcoin Gold spinoff fork. I expect some turbulence in November with the 2X fork, but for now, it looks like many altcoins will continue to bleed while BTC rallies. I'll be buying alts in November. Too much blood right now. |
|
|
|
First Cash, Now Gold? Another Bitcoin Hard Fork Is on the Way
is it TRUE?
Yes, bitcoin gold is going to split on October 25 so we are near. And the other one will takes place on November but I don't have an idea on what specific date that test will happen on November. The November fork is based on block height, not time, so we don't know the exact date. But based on current difficulty and assuming typical block target time, the Segwit2x fork is slated to occur ~Saturday, November 18, 2017. So it's about 43 days away. There is a countdown tool that you can use to track it here: http://bashco.github.io/2x_Countdown/Thanks for adding that since I really don't have an idea on when that November fork is about to happen. But can somebody here tell it on what is your speculation on when this November fork will takes place aside from November 18? And if this is the final countdown then we have to wait for that day, I hope that the first one will successful so that this will lead the next fork will be successful too. No one knows. For now, the general feeling is that there will likely be two different coins -- legacy BTC and altcoin B2X. People also seem to agree (as the futures markets suggest) that legacy BTC will be worth more... by ~3-5x. However, we are still a ways away from the fork, and the futures markets are probably pricing in contingencies like the fork not happening or NYA signallers dropping out. If it turns out that 90% of miners switch to B2X, I wouldn't be surprised if the market reacts differently. |
|
|
|
And as we will see imo, the forks won't have any negative effect on Bitcoin in any way, as long s they are not contentious of course.
It seems like you're only viewing this from the perspective of a holder, so you see these forks as dividends being paid to you. But what about new investors? A few months ago, someone who wanted to buy their first bitcoins knew what they wanted. Two months from now, they might have 4+ different forks with "Bitcoin" in the name, with 3 of them in the ~ Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap. Do you really think legacy BTC is still going to get 100% of that new investors' money? There's also the matter of direct competition. If BT2 (Segwit2x) tokens are trading at 0.25 BTC, that effectively means that it would take 25% of BTC's market demand, all else equal. Assuming the same amount of investment money, 25% less may be going into BTC. I'd say that's a pretty negative effect on Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
So how many more forks are we likely to see in the future? I still haven't claimed my bitcoin cash either so I should really do that soon at some point. Unfortunately I had some bitcoin on coinbase too and never got bcc for that although they say we will eventually.
I think we will see more forks, and they will keep cannibalizing the network value. Haven't you noticed -- airdrops are all the rage now! It was the case in altcoins/ERC tokens, and now it's spilling over into copy/paste Bitcoin spinoffs. The Segwit2x backers seem to be coming to terms with the fact that the legacy chain won't die, and that they will be supporting two coins. And I don't think that Bitcoin Gold is the last we've seen of the spinoffs, either. And even though Segwit has just been activated on the network, Luke Jr is already back pushing for a new hard fork. And he wants to repeatedly fire the miners -- brick all their hardware -- in order to make "Bitcoin" more decentralized. (I put Bitcoin in quotes because changing the POW algorithm requires a hard fork  ) PoW change is already more than justified, ever since mining got centralised. It's just stupid that the community has let them get away with it for so long, even after miners began actively attacking the network.
There is nothing nuclear about a PoW change. It is a simple upgrade to fix a long-standing flaw that was introduced. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/73x7ch/heres_the_uservsminer_bitcoin_compromise_uvmsf_do/dnx9ds8/So long as we get in the habit of changing PoW whenever miners try to centralise, we can strongly deter it. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/73x7ch/heres_the_uservsminer_bitcoin_compromise_uvmsf_do/do0z5ns/ |
|
|
|
$6000 is not that far though. Assuming Segwit2x doesn't affect or cause any splits then we can say that the price would be atleast near $5000 before its even implemented.
It's becoming increasingly likely that a chain split will occur, though. BTC1 developers are definitely doubling down by hiding their 2X service bit to prevent Core nodes from disconnecting from them pre-fork. Surprisingly, we still aren't seeing miners defect from the New York Agreement, and Peter Smith (Blockchain.info), Erik Voorhees (Shapeshift.io), Tony Gallippi (BitPay) and others seem to doubling down on their pro-2x/anti-Bitcoin rhetoric as well. Tony Gallippi yesterday, for instance: when hashing power leaves #bitcoin, blocks are not produced. This may only get worse That's some harsh FUD... |
|
|
|
We are seeing several forks in the road ahead and miners are Chain hopping between these forks. Every time we fork, a percentage of the total Bitcoin hashing power is sacrificed to mine these forks. If we have enough forks, miners might assign dedicated miners to mine these forks and the original Bitcoin will have less hashing power. If this is sustained, the difficulty might drop.... right.  I think that buying demand for BTC and hash power pointed at the BTC chain will both, to some extent, continue to suffer from competing forks. We can't ignore the fact that Bitcoin Cash is the #4 coin. That means there must exist demand to buy up the available supply -- more so than the vast majority of cryptocurrencies. A lot of that money would otherwise have gone into BTC. Same goes for hash power when BCH is more profitable to mine. Take a look at Segwit2x futures. BT2/BTC is currently trading at 0.264. That means that the futures market is pricing in a 26% decrease in demand for BTC because of the existence of BT2. All this money might flow back to BTC someday, but that's impossible to predict. For now, we can't deny the realities of supply and demand. |
|
|
|
|
I'm looking for some general information on the tax implications for US citizens with regard to staking or running a masternode. They are pretty similar. In POS, blocks are minted rather than mined, and the creator of blocks is decided based on coin stake (the more coins you control, the more likely that you will mint any given block). With masternodes, you are paid a percentage of block rewards once you control enough coins (plus some additional conditions).
I know how to deal with the capital gains on the block reward payments. But I'm having trouble determining how the block reward payments themselves should be treated. Is each receipt of a block reward (or pro rata share) considered a taxable event? What kind of transaction is it exactly?
Thanks in advance for any info!
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't be too concerned about margin trading being unavailable. The fact is that Coinbase is in uncharted waters. Cryptocurrencies are incredibly illiquid markets, hence extreme volatility. With the CFTC investigating the June flash crash, they need to be careful. Their books simply aren't thick enough to support much leverage. The other issue is US regulations on margin trading and whether GDAX is properly enforcing margin traders' status as "Eligible Contract Participants" under the Commodity Exchange Act: In order to access Margin Trading on GDAX, you must be an Eligible Contract Participant ("ECP", as defined in Section 1a(18) of the Commodity Exchange Act and applicable regulations thereunder).
You qualify as an ECP if you meet one of the following definitions:
You are a corporation, partnership, proprietorship, organization, trust, or other entity that has a net worth exceeding $1,000,000 and you enter into margin trading in connection with the conduct of your business or to manage the risk associated with an asset or liability owned or incurred or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred by you in the conduct of your business.
You are a corporation, partnership, proprietorship, organization, trust, or other entity that has total assets exceeding $10,000,000. I wonder how many people have been margin trading on GDAX that never actually met the legal qualifications. I saw this posted on Reddit from 9 days ago: Thanks for writing in. Unfortunately, margin trading is disabled on all order books until further notice. Because of this, it’s not possible to open new margin positions at this time. We do not yet have an estimated time on when it will be re-enabled.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
Thanks, GDAX Support Team |
|
|
|
None of this seems verifiable, but the Google translate is so bad that maybe I'm missing something. The recent reports of missing ETH deposits is very out-of-character for BTC-E, so hopefully these are just false rumours. Exmo has been speculated to be affiliated with wex, but there is no solid proof to be found other than the obvious similarities. Looks like that market is definitely in need of some healthy competition to allow users to spread.
According to our resident troll, mayax, both BTC-e.nz and Exmo.com were registered by the same entity. If true, that would suggest to me that they are pretty closely affiliated. Frankly, they were sloppy if this is true. EUROSTYLE ADVISOR LTD is the registrant for BTC-e.nz, that much I can verify. But I can't verify the registrant history for Exmo.com without ordering a WHOIS history and paying for it because the registration was updated last month. Not about to pay for the report myself, not interested enough. Can't find any registry information archived, but for $10 or so, somebody can prove one way or the other: EUROSTYLE ADVISOR LTD registered btc-e.nz which belongs BTC-e.com
EUROSTYLE ADVISOR LTD registered Exmo.com
Nobody cares because this is a thread about WEX.nz Actually, I'm guessing that non-Russians are more interested in speculating about the admins, the FBI case, and WEX's connections to BTC-E (and others) than they are in trading on the exchange. In other words, if people are scared to trade here (and from reading this thread, they are), then clearly they do care... |
|
|
|
Many people, myself including, view SegWit2x as an attack on Bitcoin, but any attack can also be viewed as a test. For example, the most recent Bcash was also a test - it has proven that Bitcoin can withstand hashrate swings and that miners can't dictate community what to do - users and services didn't start switching to Bcash even though it offers much cheaper fees. As the result, both Bitcoins value and the network were not affected by competing chain. So, SegWit2x would be a similar test - it will show whether corporations and mining cartels can influence the network and its user, or if it's the users who are deciding the future of Bitcoin.
There are some pretty critical differences between Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x from an ethical standpoint. I view Segwit2x as much more of an attack. BCH integrated strong replay protection, made no attempt to coordinate a supermajority of Bitcoin's hashpower, and presented itself from the start essentially as an altcoin. Segwit2x is being presented by Garzik and company as an "upgrade." There is only opt-in replay protection, which means many people will probably lose money. And they are trying to coordinate mining power to coerce users into migrating to the Segwit2x chain. As much as I dislike Bitmain, there's really no comparing Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x. One of them is just an altcoin; the other is an attack. I'd only consider BCH to be an attack if LTC and all other Bitcoin forks were considered attacks. |
|
|
|
I think that the second hard fork would also fail to deliver the expected results for miners and some companies who try to do it.If it fails,then we could be almost free from such future attempts. I would like to think so too, but I think that's pretty idealistic. VCs have poured a lot of money into the current crop of Bitcoin service companies... Blockchain, Coinbase, Circle, bitFlyer, Canaan/Avalon, ShapeShift -- all heavily VC-funded. They are motivated by profit and that venture capital was, in many cases, sold on the basis of Bitcoin as a cheap, instant payment system. The inability of the industry to force the developers to pivot to their use cases has, in turn, caused them to pivot to altcoins (or other sectors entirely; see Circle). But that hasn't made them give up. Not after XT, Classic, Unlimited, Bitcoin Cash. Why would they give up after Segwit2x? From the perspective of a VC-funded startup, it makes more sense to simply fold than to change your entire [badly conceived] business model. |
|
|
|
This is, however, a crucial problem for Segwit2x: An user would have to install the 2x client if she wants to receive money from the 2x chain and use (send) it. So after some time - some days, some weeks at most if she doesn't use BTC too much - she must install the 2x/Btc1/Electrum2x/whatever2x client if she wants to use that chain.
The question is now how many users will do this. Exchanges and other companies that support Segwit2x will surely try to promote a Segwit2x client, and they could have some success because from what I perceive, most non-technical users are "apolitical" in the block size debate and would use the client that gives them personally the greatest advantages.
This is the age-old conundrum of hard forks and why many believe they will inevitably lead to multiple blockchains in a mature currency like Bitcoin. I wouldn't be surprised if most Bitcoin users don't even know/care about the block size debate and various forks. They've just been running Core or Electrum and will continue to do so. Bitcoin is a real, live economy. Businesses run like clockwork on it with scripts and APIs. Every user manually, simultanously installing a new client? In Bitcoin? Give me a break -- impossible. On smaller and/or more centralized networks, this isn't necessarily true, as we've seen with Ethereum and Monero. But clearly hard forks lead to chain splits once stakeholders really dig their heels in. The most likely outcome is, in my opinion, that the Core chain will "win" the battle, Segwit2x will be marginalized, and big blockers will switch to Bitcoin Cash definitively. That could have as a consequence that Bcash will be stronger than now, although I don't think it can ever be the leading coin.
I think that's what Bitcoin Cash supporters are hoping for, and why they seem generally supportive of 2X. I suspect you're right. I'm not sure which altcoin chain will win out between 2X and BCH, but I think probably BCH. It's the big blocker's bloatchain of choice. ~
I don't think it's possible to use nLockTime in Electrum. Not in the standard user interface, anyway. I've browsed through Electrum's command line documentation and I don't see any reference to nLockTime, either, so I'm at a loss for how to make it work.
i couldn't find it either. but i remember something about this! you can always make the transaction and before signing it, manually change the last 4 bytes of the raw transaction (8 hex characters) to your locktime  a little advanced but not hard. for example the transaction ends with: "....88ac00000000" for locktime of 0. and last block height now is 488503. you set it to 488504 which is 38740700 in little-endian "....88ac38740700" Wow, you learn something new everyday. I'll experiment with some very small transactions. |
|
|
|
faster chain will be on block 200 and slower will be on block 100 (examples).
you create a transaction on faster chain and set your locktime to 201 and also enable RBF (change the sequence to a smaller number) this tx can only be mined on block 201. the faster chain mines this. the slower chain needs to find 101 more blocks to be able to mine that transaction so you have a long time.
as soon as your tx was confirmed on faster chain you double spend it on the slower chain but this time send the coins to another address you own.
Looks good. Is there software what can create such transaction ? bitcoin core and by extension any fork of it (including SegWit2x) will automatically add locktime based on last block height so you are goo there. but i am not sure how you mark the transactions as RBF in Core. i think you have to do it through command line! but Electrum for example has RBF option in the preference which is as simple as checking a box. but it does not have option to change the locktime (i think they were planning on adding this in the new versions but i have not yet checked it). I don't think it's possible to use nLockTime in Electrum. Not in the standard user interface, anyway. I've browsed through Electrum's command line documentation and I don't see any reference to nLockTime, either, so I'm at a loss for how to make it work. I also just came across an interesting case where even Segwit2x users are vulnerable because of the way replay protection is being implemented: https://twitter.com/hrdng/status/915967021254414336In short: blacklisted addresses can cause payment channel users to lose money. The bottom line: be very, very careful after the fork. I would avoid doing anything until some experts release good tutorials on how to properly split coins. |
|
|
|
The splitting of coins is a worst case scenerio if a proposal does not receive enough support. In this case, segwit2x. As far as support goes, it's not getting a lot of it. So right now, a fork is pretty much inevitable.
With a hard fork, a split chain with multiple resulting coins should always be expected. In Bitcoin, it's always inevitable due to its high level of decentralization. What usually prevents such forks is a high level of centralization, as we see in Ethereum. In their hard forks, the founders/core developers coordinate closely with mining pools (which are much more centralized than in Bitcoin) and wallet developers. Wallets are set to fork by default, so any users who aren't actively opposed to the fork will fork by default. In other words, the ETH developers coordinate their forks so the majority of users can be passively "harvested" (for lack of better words), rather than users making conscious choices about changes to consensus rules. |
|
|
|
Are all the core developers going to quit because of this ? No, they have jobs and careers established and most won't be going anywhere so they will just start working on an implementation which in compatible with Segwit2x and which also brings in the changes they want to see introduced. This could be the segwit2x code base or it could be a branch from the core code. Several Core developers have expressed that they will not work on an implementation compatible with Segwit2x. I haven't seen one Core developer who has agreed to work on a post-fork Segwit2x-compatible client. And I believe that James Hilliard's BIP91 effort was entirely related to safely activating Segwit (instead of using BIP148), and not to do with the NYA/Segwit2x effort. The minority of very very vocal developers who are against this may decide to leave the community but this may be because they have taken very strong stances which they don't feel they can back down from. If this is the case then I don't see this as a big loss. If you can't be pragmatic in a community project and accept "your" grand idea might not have made the final cut then the community is probably better off without you.
Certain people within the NO2X crowd (inc. developers) have talked about a change to the POW algo. or switching to Proof of Stake. This is up to them but in my opinion this is an even bigger change than amending a blocksize cap and anything new implementation with those changes won't be Bitcoin. With one or two exceptions I think this is a bluff anyway.
There's a couple very politically vocal developers (like Luke Jr. and Eric Lombrozo), but mostly the devs stick to the mailing lists and technical discussions. Luke has been trying to fork off for years. He's been talking about changing POW algo and difficulty algo for a long time. He's an exception to the rule and I think much of the community would be happy to see him move onto an altcoin and away from Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
2x update without a replay protection is no joke. Hope someone will balls with strong market influence standup? Somebody save bitcoin. Our dreams will be ruin by these selfish investors who wants to hardfork btc.
There will at least be opt-in replay protection. Basically, for a transaction to be valid on the legacy chain but invalid on the Segwit2x chain, users need to include an output in their transaction to this address: 3Bit1xA4apyzgmFNT2k8Pvnd6zb6TnwcTi Doing so will therefore split your legacy coins from your Segwit2x coins. Your legacy coins will be in the new address, your Segwit2x coins will remain in the old address (because the splitting transaction is invalid on Segwit2x chain). You will want to move your Legacy coins first to new addresses (your Legacy wallet), but each of these transactions will have to send a small amount to 3Bit1xA4apyzgmFNT2k8Pvnd6zb6TnwcTi. If you don’t care much about privacy, you can make one giant transaction that sends all your current bitcoins to another address or set of addresses. Just make sure a small amount is sent to 3Bit1xA4apyzgmFNT2k8Pvnd6zb6TnwcTi.
After that, you can send your 2x coins to different addresses and that would be your 2x wallet. https://bitcointechtalk.com/how-segwit2x-replay-protection-works-1a5e41767103 |
|
|
|
Hey guys,
I got banned from coinbase for buying a diabetic drug and so im curious if there is any other service like coinbase in the US that allows you to deposit and withdraw through a bank account. I really enjoyed how simple coinbase was...gotta say im pretty dissapointed about the whole thing.
Sorry to hear that. Coinbase is known for snooping on people's blockchain activity and terminating accounts. Unfortunately, there's only going to more of that in the future from all exchanges as regulators and law enforcement put Bitcoin under increasing scrutiny. You should at least move coins through a few local addresses first before sending them to gambling or black market sites. And I have a policy not to send coins into Coinbase -- only fiat. As for other sites..... your best bet might be Gemini (has ACH transfers). Otherwise, Bitstamp (European with USD markets, need to use bank wire). These are places where I'm willing to verify my identity and where I think they are fairly competent at security. But regulators are similarly up all their asses. By the way, if you go with Gemini, be warned: they require your ID or passport to be REAL ID compliant. If it isn't, don't bother. |
|
|
|
Ah, I should have known that the name "Bitgold" would have already been taken.  bitcoin gold is a new fork planning to make bitcoin GPU mine-able. http://btcgpu.org/that is why it is also called BTCGPU. so far the website has nothing on it except the date and the links at the bottom. but the information that was gathered it has a huge premine. Where's the info on the pre-mine? I assumed it was a straight copy of the UTXO set, just like Bitcoin Cash. I guess not. In any case, I'm not going to worry about it too much. It sounds like the project won't go very far. I'm confused for that Bitcoin Gold airdrop is that really happening on October 25th? Do you have some articles or news about it? Can you post it here so that we can able to read and be updated for the fork that will happen on this November.
I've seen a few articles, but there isn't much substantive info around. I don't think the developers are very active and I doubt the project will go anywhere. But you can follow it here: https://twitter.com/btcgpu |
|
|
|
Maybe it was another fake? Today is already October and I don't see any changes.
It was definitely fake news.... just clickbait. It was pretty obvious as soon as it was released, too. Squawker is not a reliable source, for one thing, and they don't even have much readership. And the entire article was just the rambling speculations of one person who isn't noteworthy. The only reason anyone took it seriously was because John McAfee posted it on Twitter. He should be embarrassed for spreading around blatantly false rumors like this. |
|
|
|
you guys keep talking about what will happen in the price after Segwit2x.
this question had been asked multiple times before and you should know that nobody know the answer. Speculators gonna speculate. This is the Speculation forum. Bitcoin price is determined not because of Segwit,Segwit2x and something like that.
it still need a lot of factors from implementation,network,economy and many others.
look at right now,korean and chinese banning ICOs.
and Chinese banning trading Bitcoin in their country,if other country following their footstep do you believe it will go higher again in the future? China has not banned OTC trading -- only order book exchanges. They are reportedly rolling out regulations on digital currencies which classify them legally as "virtual property" but no official news has dropped. If that is the case, I think we can expect licensing to commence for regulated exchanges. also,it is confirmed we will get another airdrop aka Bitcoin Gold ?
Apparently it is still planned for October 25th. I wonder if it will have any value, though. This airdrop isn't supported by Bitmain.... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
