There is no mathematical or logical truth in your post. Here are the answers to your questions. a) why is BTC quantity limited with 21 millions? What limits it?
Majority consensus of the users limits it. If a minority tries to change the limit, the minority is exiled. b) what is the point of decentralised money, if its so volatile, that rate would drop 75% in 6 months (or grows by the same)? this is called a hyperinflation.
Decentralized money removes the control over its use by any third party. Volatility can be a problem now, but it won't always be a problem (hopefully). c) why is blockchain technology better in 99,99% of transactions, than regular private/public key technology?
The blockchain removes the need for trust in a third party to manage a common pool of value. Bitcoin uses public key cryptography, but public key cryptography isn't sufficient all by itself. d) do You really understand, what is private/public key crypto and blockchain in its core, or they just sound cool?
Many people don't understand it, but understanding it is not necessary in order to use Bitcoin. e) if BTC had at more or less decent chance to boom again, why dont all the richest investors in world buy it?
Many are skeptical, and many oppose it because their wealth and well-being are dependent on the survival of legacy currency systems. Either way, unanimous belief in the success of Bitcoin is not required for its success. Maybe it wasnt planned so, but BTC is the most genious scam in the history.
In order for it to be a scam, someone must be the scammer. Who is the scammer? 1) The blockchain part or "mining" in case of BTC is a special kind of scam. For getting a coin You must invest into electricity and computing power. In return You get VERY little chance to be awarded with a coin. This chance is so small, it is mathematically ridiculous, but in practise. ZERO! Nada, ничто, nichts... What kind of decent money is that, that everyone can apply by spending real money but only few of many millions are actually given by basis of pure luck?
It may be small, but it is not zero, even in practice. Many people earn money from mining, so it can't be zero. 2) The coin part of BTC is a monetary fraud. Although people make transactions voluntarely, they are cheated with the very core concept of BTC. While blockchaining may have some usage as a concept as well as cryptocurrency, it does still not mean that BTC is legit.
It is not monetary fraud. Where is the fraud? People are not cheated by the concept. How can they be cheated by a concept? BTC is legit. You have provided no information at all to back up your claim. |
|
|
|
~
all of it is true but when we are talking about price we are mainly talking about speculation. and when it comes to speculation the expectation of people is more than enough for a certain price movement. we have many examples of these situations where logically price shouldn't change but it does (both rising and falling examples). for instance when exchanges get hacked, or when google banned crypto ads, ... logically price shouldn't have dropped but it did because people expected it. the same thing will happen during halving. when people expect price to rise and also seen it happen twice they will start buying bitcoin a while before the halving itself (usually 1-2 months before) because they don't want to "miss out" and they speculate a price rise. so price does goes up. My dream is that bitcoin will reach a level of adoption such that speculation is no longer a major influence on the price by the next halving. It's not likely. |
|
|
|
... Because due it's low value we can buy now ...
... because due it's low value we can buy now ...
Selling at this condition in the market is not a good idea, market now is very low,...
Why do so many people say the price is "low"? It is 2x higher than it was a year ago. The price is high! Furthermore, it seems that every time the price drops, people say it is "don't sell now because it is low". But then it goes lower! Speculators seem to live in their own fantasy world, clinging to nothing more than hope and wishful thinking. ... Remember that by just holding your bitcoins, you are not losing any money.
Why do people say that? Are you saying that if you never sell your Bitconnect coins, you haven't lost any money? I'm sure there are many sad Bitconnect owners that will be happy to learn that! |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a world-wide internet-based censorship-resistant payment system that has its own currency.
|
|
|
|
I guess that the 2020 halvening is likely to produce some major upleg of the price, either in 2020 or more likely in 2021.
The belief that the halving causes the price to rise is a popular misconception. Here are some of the myths that support it: - The halving cuts the supply in half. Actually, the halving cuts the production in half. This cut in production causes the supply to increase more slowly, but it continues to increase because bitcoins are not consumed. It will continue to increase until it reaches 21 million, and then it will be constant. The supply never decreases (ignoring the effect of lost coins).
- There is less supply in the market because miners have fewer bitcoins to sell. While that might be true, consider that the total daily volume on exchanges is about 1 million BTC per day, but miners can sell a maximum of only 1800 BTC per day, or about 0.2%, which couldn't possibly have any significant effect.
- The cost of mining will go up and since miners won't sell at loss, the price will go up. Nothing about that statement is true.
- The cost of mining will go up ... Due to the economics of mining, the cost of mining is roughly equal to the value of the block reward. The subsidy is halved, so the cost of mining actually goes down. (Note that the revenue also goes down and that is why it becomes less profitable for miners.)
- ... and since miners won't sell at a loss, the price will go up. A rational miner will sell at the best price they can get. If that means selling at a loss, they will sell at a loss. Anyway, miners have very little influence on the market (as explained above).
- The price always rises after a halving While there have been two Bitcoin halvings and the price has risen several months after both halvings, the price has also risen at other times not associated with the halvings. In addition, Litecoin had a halving and the price fell.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is likely to undergo gradual deflation over time, given its limited emissions of 21 million coins. As a result, under the laws of supply and demand, most likely, the value of coins will constantly grow.
Only if you assume that demand grows. |
|
|
|
|
There are various services that accept Bitcoin.
There is also Purse.io, which can be used to buy stuff from Amazon at a discount using Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
A hash that begins with "21e8" (after the zeroes) is rare, but not unusual. It is expected to occur in 1 out of every 65k blocks on average. In the 529206 blocks so far, we would expect to see 8 blocks whose hash begins with "000...21e8". In fact, the first one occurred in 2009.
|
|
|
|
Some reasons I believe bitcoin is likely to rise next time
Bitcoin is dropping sharply from $ 20,000 down to about $ 6,000 by the end of 2017, but that's a lot more than $ 2500 a year ago.
Laws gradually intervene in the market, may form the law for crypto, institutional investors can peace of mind to invest in the market
Mt Gox is allowed by law to compensate bitcoin victims for a percentage, without the need for cash compensation, which could end the sale of large amounts of bitcoin.
How do you believe bitcoin will increase from now until the end of the year?
Wishful thinking is a poor tool for evaluating investments. |
|
|
|
As we know USD is backed by the value of the gold, but Bitcoin does not have anything that is backed by, but the value is setten based on the supply and demand, as much demand that much the value increases.
USD is not backed by gold. It is backed by nothing -- just like Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Some 1,000 bitcoin holders -- out of a total 11 million -- hold some 35.4 percent of currency, according to BitInfoCharts.
Whenever an article brings up this well-worn misconception, you know that the rest of the article is full of mistakes and misunderstandings. |
|
|
|
|
Every technology has a good side and a bad side. If you ignore the benefits of the technology, you remain ignorant.
|
|
|
|
The more popular blockchain becomes, the longer the chains – which causes longer transaction validation times. The current transaction delays with popular blockchains make crypto currencies unusable for many use-cases. What do you think about that? Any example of the technology that can change that?
That is simply not true. I'm surprised that only one other person has mentioned that the OP is wrong. The transaction validation time has nothing to with the size or length of the chain. The validation time of a transaction depends on the the block interval (which is fixed), the maximum size of a block, the number of transactions waiting to be confirmed, and the fee paid compared to the fee paid by other unconfirmed transactions. |
|
|
|
I've considering many facts that suggest that Satoshi Nakamoto was actually an AI. No errors in the code, no test net, no critical vulnerabilities.
If indeed Satoshi Nakamoto was actually and AI made to invent this new currency is that functional to the Illuminati agenda?
The claims that Satoshi had no errors in his code and that there were no critical vulnerabilities are simply false. Either way, how would that indicate that he was "actually an AI"? It sounds like science fiction to me. And what does that even mean? |
|
|
|
The price of Bitcoin went up by over 210% during the past year, trading from about $450 in mid-2016 to record-breaking levels of $1,400 in May 2017. In the eight years since its founding, Bitcoin has braved skepticism, rejection, and experienced volatility, to the present day, when it?s slowly being recognized by governments and even dubbed as an emerging asset class. Here?s a look at the dynamics behind Bitcoin?s rising price.
...
The OP neglected to include a link to the original article: https://www.investopedia.com/news/surprising-reasons-bitcoins-rising-price/ |
|
|
|
Some corrections and clarifications: Bitcoin utilizes a proof of work (PoW) system and works in the following manner,
1. A set of transaction is bundled into a memory pool (mempool)
2. Miners verify each transaction in the memory pool by solving a mathematical puzzle
3. The first miner to solve the puzzle is awarded with newly mined bitcoin also knows as block reward
4.The verified mempool now addressed as block is attached to the block chain.
1. The "mempool" holds all unconfirmed transactions. A miner selects a portion to be added to their next block. 2. PoW is not verification. It's purpose is simply to add a cost to mining. Transaction verification is done before the PoW step. 3. More accurately stated: The "block reward" includes transaction fees plus the "subsidy". Proof of Stake
Under this method there is no need to solve a mathematical puzzle instead, a creator of new block is chosen based on their stake. Stake is the number of coins/tokens one possesses. Under this system all tokens/coins have been already created so there is no block reward instead the miners would get a transaction fee
Many PoS coins include a subsidy in addition to transactions fees. Unlike Bitcoin, they have permanent inflation. Security
PoW – Forking of blockchain is not desired as it is unhealthy for a network and can lead to instability. Under PoW system if a blockchain is forked miners will have to chose between the blockchains or if they plan to support both blockchains their computational power has to be split. As a result from an economic perspective forking is generally discouraged under a PoW system
Branches in the blockchain can add some minor instability, but it is not necessarily "unhealthy". The instability is minor because miners are motivated to choose one branch to follow.
PoS – This system does not inherently discourage forking and therefore when the blockchain is forked it can possibly result in a problem knows as “nothing at stake”. This essentially happens when a validator/miner receives a duplicate copy of their stake for a newly forked blockchain and he is able to sign off on both forks and potentially claim twice the amount of transaction fees as a reward and double spend their coins. A participant is not required to increase his/her stake to validate transactions on multiple blockchains and results in no economic incentive preventing the nothing of stake problem in the PoS system.
The "nothing-at-stake" problem occurs because validators are not motivated to follow a single branch (unlike PoW). They can choose to follow every branch and the result can be serious instability. A miner following multiple branches does not receive extra rewards, but they can potentially use the instability to spend coins that that they ultimately don't own. Centralization
PoW – High risk of centralization mainly due to the reason mining being a expensive process and therefore reserved predominantly for large scale operations. This is contrary to the main principle advocated by blockchain technology which is the concept of decentralization
PoS – A fairer concept in which the amount of network control granted is directly proportional to the the amount invested in the token/coin.
PoW – Larger-scale mining has an advantage, but it does not preclude small miners. The degree of centralization depends on the ability of larger miners to reduce their costs more than smaller miners. PoS – PoS can be just as centralized. For example, 10 addresses control 50% of the EOS tokens. |
|
|
|
Excellent data! That leads me to my next question, is it good to makes tons a post every day? Would posting 10 times a day increase the chances of getting merit? Low quality posts would make it lower, but let's assume each post is of the same high quality. Would more posts mean more merit? Or would members check my profile and see lots of posts per day, and that may come off as spam?
From what I have seen, simply posting more does not increase your chances of receiving merits. Quality is still the primary requirement. 1. I think the first post in a thread is more likely to receive merits, so starting more threads may increase your chances. However, quality still seems to be a necessary requirement, so a single post with thoughtful, insightful, and valuable content is more likely to receive merits than any number of mediocre posts. 2. I believe that a reply posted earlier in a thread is more likely to receive merits. Replying early gives you the chance to state something that hasn't already been stated. Also, once a thread winds up or starts filling up with worthless replies, readers stop caring about it. Take this reply, for example. It might a quality post, considering the time and effort I have put into it, but it is #33, so I doubt that many people will read it, and even fewer will consider giving it merit. 3. Don't bother posting in "mega-threads". There are many mega-threads with hundreds of replies and none of the replies receive any merit. Anything you might want to say in a mega-thread has already been stated many times, and nobody cares about an opinion that has already been stated 100 times. 4. You will easily exceed the activity requirement for a rank long before you reach the merit requirement. Unfortunately, many people have not yet figured that out and the forum continues to be flooded with worthless posts. Anyway, that's how I see it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
