Im gonna buy a ledger but i still want to.spread the risk among some other wallets. Problem is most now apart frrom core uses a 12 word passphrase. Problem is John Mcafee says millions of phones and computers have keyloggers so they can take photo.and send your passphrase quite easily.
Is this a serious risk?
How to use a wallet that solves this?
I would definitely take the dangers of keyloggers seriously. That's why you get a hardware wallet such as the ledger in the first place. I'm not sure how much sense it makes to spread the risk among other wallets. I know Trezor supports multiple passphrases (leading to multiple accounts), Ledger should be able to do that as well. In the end that should be all the security you'll ever need. Just don't forget to keep your seed phrase backup offline, on paper. Make a second seed phrase paper backup, stored in another, secure location. Then there's nothing you need to worry about (well, apart from the whole lot of other things that get compromised if you happen to have a keylogger on your system, that is). |
|
|
|
i get this message also maybe its because we are a newbie accounts?
No, I got the same, several times. I'm sure they were threads that has been deleted. A lot of 'eSomething' threads here in the last few days... Definitely deleted. They possibly also violated a couple of forum rules, as a lot of recent Airdrop threads seem to be made by posters that are not fully aware of them (eg. asking users to post their address for free tokens -- causing spam threads -- comes to mind). |
|
|
|
|
I don't bother much with new alt coins to be honest, but those I trust passed the following criteria upon closer research (ie. whitepaper, about page, announcement thread):
1) Does it smell like bullshit?
2) Does the problem they are trying to solve actually exist?
3) Does their solution look technically solid and viable?
Most alts don't even pass the first point in my book. Too much crypto-babble abound and too many cash-grabs.
|
|
|
|
|
Of those three Bittrex has the best reputation. I personally like Poloniex as well, but their support appears to be lacking, especially with alt coin withdrawals / deposits.
Of Yobit I'd stay clear. Their investbox and non-provably-fair gambling make them a bit shady.
|
|
|
|
Ironically though it looks like B2X already took a huge bite off BCH. That makes perfect sense to me. Bitcoin Cash and B2X are basically splitting up the big blocker camp. In that sense, it's good for Core and status quo. Legacy BTC holders are also in a position of advantage from a market perspective: they get coins on all the forks. When BTC gets hard forked, BCH holders get nothing. After Segwit2x, when BTC gets hard forked again, B2X holders get nothing, etc. Pretty much my line of thinking as well. I wonder what happens to BCH in case the B2X fork goes through and survives. A couple weeks ago "the other subreddit" was heavily populated by anti-SegWit hardliners, but now with B2X looming that sentiment seems to have changed. [...]
how about the fact that price has been going up?
anyone wants to comment on that? are people buying bitcoin to get more coins out of the following forks (gold and 2x)?
I think the recent price increase is mostly due to the China drama confirming USD 3k,- as a strong bottom, despite CNY valuations being even lower than that. |
|
|
|
I think B2X has yet to be priced in. That, or the expectation of a price increase once the hardfork drama is done with is balancing out the uncertainty of the possible B2X fork. Ironically though it looks like B2X already took a huge bite off BCH. so far it seems like the only effect b2x future market had was an increase in bitcoin price or maybe it is just a coincidence because nobody takes "future markets" seriously. and bitcoin price is currently above $4500! for the first time after a long while of big drop followed by a slow rise.
the closer we get there may be some fluctuations which can go either way but i say because we already had a very big drop down to 3k range it is not possible to see any big drop in bitcoin price because all the weak hands are already out and have not yet came back.
What worries me is that the volume has been rather low lately so it doesn't look like the market is all that confident right now. |
|
|
|
if i have an opinion on this issue,
Bitcoin will be fully regulated by the government because the value of bitcoin trade in a country is very high, and with government regulation, it can affect the bitcoin price itself.
But better bitcoins like now are not bound by anything, bitcoin prices can rise and fall only affected by the market rather than by the government.
Bitcoin prices are already affected by governments, if only for a short while. Nonetheless even given a high grade of government regulation full control over the Bitcoin price is luckily unattainable, even less so than with other commodities. Fiat value can be controlled by simply issuing more of it, no such thing with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
How do you think we can protect bitcoin from such an attack?
What attack? Quantum computing is able to solve a certain class of mathematical problems faster than traditional CPUs, it's not some kind of voodoo magic. The only known theoretical attack vector so far would be deriving the private key of an address from its public key. However this would only be applicable in case of address-reuse, as the public key is unknown prior to the first transaction. So folks, stay quantum-safe and don't reuse addresses! |
|
|
|
What if bitcoin will be made as the official cryptocurrency, promoted and regulated by the government, what will be the effect to other cryptocurrencies? Is there a chance that others will be banned? How do you if will affect the bitcoin price? Will it be a negative impact on bitcoin itself?
I doubt we'll ever see the day where Bitcoin will become legal tender, but I could imagine reaching a point where the first country decides to build Bitcoin reserves. As soon as that happens it will only be a matter of time for other governments to follow suits. Needless to say this would be one of the scenarios where Bitcoin would come close too, if not surpass, Gold's market cap. |
|
|
|
I think the bigger question is, when are we going to see an end to attempts to support all these constant bogus forks?
I know it's putting unneeded stress on their businesses. Perhaps if companies like Coinbase and the exchanges get tired of having to deal with all the forking and providing means to the coins for their customers, they will finally put an end to all this nonsense by stating "Any and all future forks that are contentiously launched, we are flat out just not going to support. Period."
I'm guessing it'll only take another round of this shit or maybe two before they finally throw in the towel.
I guess short- to mid-term B2X is going to be the last meaningfully supported fork for a while, since forking off Bitcoin is already getting stale. BCH caught most exchanges off guard. Bitcoin Gold seems to get mostly ignored. B2X has been more or less pre-scheduled for quite a while now, so not supporting it at all seems like a risky move from a PR point of view. What wallet will you use to park your bitcoin durring the fork so you get both after the fork?
I personally use a Trezor. But in the end any desktop / hardware / mobile wallet should do. |
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid it's a bit early to predict the demise of S2X as there are still many industry proponents left. While I doubt that S2X will come out on top, there will likely be a lot of chaos during and after the fork, which might actually give S2X a fighting chance.
In the end miners will undoubtedly follow the money, which means it will largely depend on which fork manages to gain larger monetary support. However I'm not sure whether this time the result will be as clear cut as with BCH.
|
|
|
|
I haven't read the book itself, but this introductory chapter gives a great overview of Bitcoin's technological and historical context: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3136559Additionally it contains a lot of references to the fundamental body of work that ultimately lead to Bitcoin and the crypto-currencies we know and love today. The book itself can be found here: http://bitcoinbook.cs.princeton.edu/ |
|
|
|
|
Trezor is my hardware wallet of choice, but that's mostly because it was the only game in town back then. Nonetheless I wouldn't hesitate to buy it again.
I guess it mostly breaks down to price, availability and alt coin support. If you're looking to get into alts you should definitely get a look at which alts are supported, lest you get disappointed that the alt of your choice is not available. If you're just going to stick with BTC, either hardware wallet should be fine.
|
|
|
|
So with the SEC actually going after individual projects, it seems that the only way to pass the Howey test and still offer something that people actually want to buy is by offering a utility token. Not a promise of profit; its more of a purchase than an investment. You are essentially buying brand credits for whatever functions that platform provides. If the token is to increase in value, it would due to market speculation on the "scrip", not because of on increase of valuation in the underlying asset (the issuing company). Is this truly a work around? fundamentally, the price is tied to the valuation of the brand, even if the share doesnt represent equity. its like buying walmart store cards in a walmart ico  If I remember correctly utility token have been brought up before as tokens that would not fall under the SEC's jurisdiction. Arguably it's also one of the reasons why the SEC stated that not necessarily all ICOs are deemed to be securities. I don't think it really matters whether the price is tied to the valuation of the brand. In case of an utility token, it's not much different than any other crowdfunding campaign where funders are offered product instead of equity. I guess the main challenge for ICO projects will be to find a way that makes utility tokens gain value over time, without triggering the SECs interest. If each token is pegged to a fixed fiat value, akin to a gift card, there's no reason for people to buy in. |
|
|
|
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.  Is this the main idea behind these forks. { Breaking up the hashing power and weakening the security by having less nodes dedicated to the original Bitcoin? } I never really learned under what circumstances the difficulty of bitcoin drops. Does it drop if less hashing power is dedicated to the network? Or does it stay at the same level until it increase again due to high amounts of has power being dedicated to the network? The difficulty of Bitcoin drops whenever the average time between blocks within a given difficulty period (~ 2 weeks, as determined by block height) exceeds 10 minutes. Thus it drops if less hashing power is dedicated to the network, but only at the end of a difficulty period and only if the hashing power stays low until then. If a significant amount of hashing power is lost, difficulty can take longer to re-adjust, due to the increased time between blocks (while the duration of a difficulty period strives to be 2 weeks, it is actually determined by block height, not by timestamps). |
|
|
|
From what I understand, the BitCoin Gold fork is different than the potential SegWit2X Fork.
BitCoin Gold will launch Oct 25th, and is basically someone's attempt to "cash in" by splitting the chain. The SegWit2X Improvement will activate around Nov. 18th, and as I understand it, could be another split point in the chain where a group may attempt to continue mining on the "unimproved" block chain to create another coin.
Is that accurate?
You are correct, the Bitcoin Gold fork is a different one from the SegWit2x fork. Bitcoin Gold plans to replace Bitcoin's original Sha256 proof-of-work hashing algorithm with a new, ASIC-resistant hashing algorithm. SegWit2x plans to double Bitcoin's blocksize, which will lead SegWit2x to split from the original blockchain. Be aware that SegWit2x is a move away from Bitcoin's original development team. |
|
|
|
the market cap is too small
as the market cap grows, it will take much more to move the price
That is not the only reason. Its market capitalization is more than $70 Bn. There are a lot of companies who aren't valued at those levels. Still Bitcoin is much more volatile. Market cap doesn't even drive price. Market cap is a consequence of price. Market cap is not a reason why the price fluctuates.I don't think Prince8 argued that market cap is driving the price. I think his point is that the larger the market, the more money it takes to move (or manipulate) the price in a meaningful way. Buying / Selling USD 1 million worth of BTC now has a lesser impact on the market than it would have 2 years ago. |
|
|
|
After having a 130,000 usd amount of money stolen by Hitbtc.com I now have to ask people why we transfer our money to no name and no face organizations? .Why do you think there are exchanges with fake addresses like Hitbtc.com operating (Hitbtc is located in Delelware) and poloniex with addresses that have no real people working on them. I dont know how a company established in the usa is allowed to steal so much money from the users of altcoins and the government does nothing to stop the thieves.Just because they have a company established with a lawyer and a website does not mean they are legitimate and how can they put fake addresses or not share their address? I thought the government was supposed to be in charge of justice?
That's why people have been warning against storing larger amount of coins on exchanges for years. Storing coins on centralized exchanges is beside the point of crypto-currencies. Centralized exchanges apparently being a necessary evil for the moment being, I guess it's mostly a matter of greed and convenience. Sorry for your loss, but what the hell were you thinking? There's no reason to keep a crazy amount of money like that on a single exchange. |
|
|
|
Given the controversial nature of Bitcoin, I'd say privacy, most likely. Apart from that it makes sense for a project that is so keen on trustlessness and decentralization to be leaderless as well. Just imagine if Satoshi Nakamoto's identity were known and he'd die. Or if he'd favour one fork over another. Satoshi would be a potential single point of failure in either case. There may be another reason. What if bitcoin was invented in order to create an outflow of capital from the American economy. Maybe bitcoin is a bomb planted under the economy of America. If so then I understand why the names of the creators of bitcoin is carefully concealed.
Capital outflow to where? If anything Bitcoin is a backup for not just American, but for global economy. |
|
|
|
|
For Bitcoin mining you need specialized hardware, ie. ASICs. Not necessarily insane, but definitely dedicated hardware.
Many alt coins are still profitable to mine using GPUs, although even here in some cases you already need ASICs nowadays.
Unless you have a gaming PC, mining with an ordinary home computer will at most yield you your electricity bill, even with alts. Depending on your specs, most likely not even that.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
