Anybody else getting worried that this may be a possibility?  Long term, no. But we could be travelling a pretty rocky road for the coming weeks and months. Rolling out BCH as an opt-in airdrop was much smarter than the Bitcoin Unlimited route. Now instead of trying to manipulate public opinion, BCH's backers (like Bitmain) can manipulate the markets by pumping the price (and/or dumping BTC's price). And they can manipulate the hash rate, too. It's gonna be a fun few months. Then we have the November fork, too!  |
|
|
|
I was looking for the information of BTC price and BCC update,
it seems that BCC hashing will go higher up close to BTC mining competition and it makes sense.
Why does it make sense?
To be honest, accidentally the new (twin) brother of BTC has more capacity to include the confirmation (it is sort of better) and it has community and trust level equal to BTC. Segwit will be active on the network soon, which will provide an immediate > 2x capacity increase. And the Lightning Network could provide much more potential capacity for cheap transactions than Bitcoin Cash. And it doesn't need to bloat the chain 8x to do that. It doesn't have the same community; bitcoiners are bitcoiners. Bitcoin Cash folks are mostly just from the Bitcoin Unlimited camp. It's a very limited niche. The developers and community definitely don't enjoy the level of trust that, say, the Core developers do. Nobody even knows who the BCH developers really are... |
|
|
|
For me it doesn't seems like a threat at all, Bitcoin still stay strong at the top and the price is still stable over 4000$, for BCH it's just another pump and dump playing, the price is not stable, the rising is fast and the dropping is fast, BCH is lack of investors support
Not a threat at all also in my opinion. BCC or BCH is just another altcoins IMHO. Also, this november there is another fork being talked. Another Bitcoins split is on the pipeline. But still how many they split and replicate it, Bitcoin is still the original. LOL Do you think ETH is a replica, and ETC is the real chain? Are all hard forks illegitimate? I don't like the idea of hard forks, because they pretty much guarantee a split of the network. That's why I'm worried about the November fork... there's a lot more support from BTC services and miners for that one. Even BCH is gaining traction. All of this may end up damaging Bitcoin's network effect, if we keep splitting networks. They may not be the "original" BTC, but what do newcomers to cryptocurrency and prospective investors see? It makes it look like BTC can continually be diluted to those who don't understand forks... |
|
|
|
Why would miners want to compete with Bitmain in mining BCH when they know that Bitmain has the (significant) ASIC-Boost advantage?
Do we even have evidence yet that AsicBoost has been used in the wild? Last I heard, we didn't. More importantly, what matters is mining profitability regardless of Bitmain's hash power. If it's profitable to mine BCH, it's profitable. That's all that should matter to rational miners. Miners then have to compare the short term profitability of mining BCH vs. the long term profitability of mining BTC and the prospect of a network split that could damage the value of BTC. |
|
|
|
I am not sure if the price of bitcoin is really connected to blocksize or hashrate anymore.
The profit of miners surely is.
But what controls the bitcoin price is the demand.
And the demand comes from investor at the moment. One consideration here: mining is a form of investment. And given the massive overhead to enter the sector at this point, it is a long term investment. If you are investing into BTC mining, you are bullish on the price, long term, and you are a holder (beyond selling what is necessary to cover overhead). One reason for the big rise of bitcoin price is that the miners can not produce new bitcoins as fast as the market is asking for it.
With bigger blocksize or higher hashrates you only make the transaction times smaller or the fees lower. But that is not what an investor really cares about.
I think investors are less concerned about fees, as long as increasing fees aren't detrimental to organic adoption and network growth. There was a lot of fear mongering going around that say fees have been detrimental, but I think it's clear by now that there is strong demand for BTC regardless of past or present fees. |
|
|
|
Definitely not!! I cannot see how transaction fee makes bitcoin price higher. In fact if transaction fee goes up many supporter whines about it and thus making this supporter turn their back on bitcoin when they whining is not heed.
There's been a loud minority crying about fees for years now. Given the community's reaction to Bitcoin XT, Classic and Unlimited, it became clear that attempting to force a coercive hard fork on users would fail. It still looks like most users, services and miners (besides Bitmain) support Core, smaller blocks and Segwit, but Bitcoin Cash (as a non-coercive hard fork) was a smart way to go about this. Using market manipulation and Bitmain's hashpower, the backers of Bitcoin Cash can give the appearance of organic adoption and market demand of BCH, whereas the backers of Bitcoin XT, Classic and Unlimited couldn't do this. |
|
|
|
After 1st aug BCH value getting down as it was expected and 2 days ago it was about 0.07btc/bch. It was also expected that it would be more down after 14th Aug as poloniex credited bch to their customer that day and was expected that it will me dumped. But now it is surprising last two days .It price rise up nearly 0.2btc/bch. Is it threat to BTC market??
For a common man, this increase in BCH price looks like an alien thing as everyone was predicting it to fall high time. But if we look at the facts, we shall come to know that since BCH was distributed free from the hardfork, this made most of people to sell their free Bitcoin cash and got BTC instead. This happen in the last few week and price was consistantly dropping because of this high selling. But then when those people emptied their BCH, the real miners and investors left and they start purchasing it to make its price rise again. The contrarians who understand market sentiment and remember the ETH/ETC split knew better than to follow these predictions. When everyone expects one outcome (e.g. for BCH price to plummet and for the chain to die from lack of use and hash power), the opposite will likely happen. I highly doubt that Bitcoin Cash is viable long term (compared to Bitcoin), but it's certainly just as viable as many altcoins. I could see it remaining in the top 10 if Bitmain is willing to keep sponsoring it. Now that it's more profitable than BTC to mine, it's not a bad deal, either... |
|
|
|
What is the reason why people should use mixers (if they for example want do launder btc)? Never used such services but for me it seems better just buy some forks on exchange and buy bitcoins back. At least you won't get even dirtier coins than you had before.
I think what just happened to BTC-e shows the failure in this line of thinking. The regulated exchanges won't let your darknet market coins in. They'll freeze your account and report you to the authorities. BTC-e never would have done that, but here we are. To be honest, I don't even send coins into KYC exchanges anymore. I send fiat money into Bitstamp or GDAX, buy, and keep the coins on exchange or send to cold storage. Whatever coins I've made from sports betting or trading, those definitely don't get sent there... In the end, kyc is the only way that the SEC and and other financial security agencies do not continue to harass many users and the bitcoin trading market, this is a very vital case and we have obtained the facts from btc-e, money laundering is not expected by the government and eventually mixer business will make them reluctant to continue the program. I'd say that any of the larger exchanges like Bitfinex, Poloniex and Kraken are big targets for the US government now. That's why we see Bitfinex exiting the US market, Poloniex changing its terms, and Bittrex enforcing stiffer verification, all in reaction to the BTC-e shutdown. Smaller exchanges, especially if they prohibit US customers and don't handle fiat money, are probably fine to continue operation. But it's clear that regulation is where we are heading now, and larger exchanges can't hide from the long arm of the US law. |
|
|
|
What is the reason why people should use mixers (if they for example want do launder btc)? Never used such services but for me it seems better just buy some forks on exchange and buy bitcoins back. At least you won't get even dirtier coins than you had before.
I think what just happened to BTC-e shows the failure in this line of thinking. The regulated exchanges won't let your darknet market coins in. They'll freeze your account and report you to the authorities. BTC-e never would have done that, but here we are. To be honest, I don't even send coins into KYC exchanges anymore. I send fiat money into Bitstamp or GDAX, buy, and keep the coins on exchange or send to cold storage. Whatever coins I've made from sports betting or trading, those definitely don't get sent there... |
|
|
|
I have not heard too much talk regarding the recent (July 25th, 2017) release of the DAO Investigative Report. It clearly states that US citizens who participate in ICOs that are considered securities can be legally held liable. I understand no charges were brought in this case in particular, but what does this mean for US citizens who invested into other ICOs? Full report: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf US Investors held liable: http://imgur.com/a/IcNYx Recently the SEC declared the DAO as securities: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-131 Basically this means that they are subject to the agencies regulations. From their standpoint, these tokens are a form of shares and selling them without licenses violates federal securities laws. Many pI eople who were unable to access ICOs because of geo-restrictions used VPNs. From my knowledge, the reasons ICO providers prevented US citizens from participating was to protect themselves legally from the United States government. That is true, but also note that the investor themselves can be at fault as well. Reference this thread by Marco Santori, who is well known when it comes to law and cryptocurrency. He had this to say about the recent SEC statements. Please pay close attention to #6. Let me know your thoughts! https://twitter.com/msantoriESQ/status/890200014370287620 https://twitter.com/msantoriESQ/status/890187373828616192Sounds like we need to hire a lawyer to know which tokens are safe to invest in, based on that tweet thread. In fact, knowing Marco Santori, that thread was a big advertisement to provide exactly that service. I gave the SEC decision a look over, and my take is that they are taking a hands-off approach. I don't think they are going to find investors at fault for anything. It's more of a question of establishing a test for future cases against those offering unregistered securities (including exchanges that allow trading of such tokens for US customers). |
|
|
|
Demo accounts are usually good to practice but not all trading sites makes provision for that but there is this site you can use www.hitbtc.com has a platform for demo but you will have to and create an accout then login in other to gain access to the site as well as the trading platform. oh really? thanks for the information. i thought that it doesnt exist that demo platform. i will visit that site to to make practices on how it will be in trading. Yes I haven't found any other trading platform that offer demo account except hitbtc. Just try them, there is also another platform simplefx.com that also offers practice account but they are not a true crypto trading platform like hitbtc. In some ways, I prefer CFDs. I especially liked the way that 1broker handled their BTCUSD market, and I can't wait for them to return with their proposed 1fox service. If they have the same fee structure (i.e. no fees to hedge short BTC), I'll definitely be trading there. There have been times when I've been able to take advantage of the time lag between the CFD broker's (1broker or SimpleFX) API and the exchange indices, getting out at a better exit price than was actually available on the exchanges. |
|
|
|
Hello,
I am interested in learning to trade and would like to ask the board for suggestions on a good demo trading site.
My hope would be to identify a site were I could learn for a few months and then move into actual capital.
Any suggestions would be great.
Thank you.
If you're looking for bitcoin/altcoin demo accounts, I'm not aware of many. SimpleFX has demo accounts and apparently has MT4 capabilities. They offer bitcoin and litecoin CFDs, along with lots of other real world markets. But to be honest, I was checking out their site a bit, and it seemed a bit janky to me. Maybe it was my browser, but it seemed a bit sloppily put together. I know people who trade on it, though, so YMMV. |
|
|
|
I had some DASH on BTC-E when the domain was seized. Someone told me to go to bitointalk.org to get updates. I tried searching but get error messages. Can anyone point me to where I can get updates on BTC-E?
Thanks!
Here is a link to their profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=33012This was their latest update: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2088302.msg20889376#msg20889376They've been posting links to their updates on Twitter, so you can follow them here: https://twitter.com/btcecomUnfortunately, all updates are in Russian. Supposedly, they are planning to relaunch at the end of August. It's unclear exactly how losses will be handled. Apparently, if you were holding DASH at the time it went down, you can expect to receive 55% of it back, along with debt tokens for the lost amount. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin can be 'huge' with very few people involved.
If you hadn't noticed most of the world is skint and dependent on central banking. How many gold owners do you know?
Yeah, but being "huge" is a far cry from what the OP is talking about (Bitcoin as the biggest threat to central banks and governments). It could definitely thrive in a niche similar to gold. As far as the OP's concerns, I don't think that the authority of governments, generally, is being threatened right now. People are definitely still locked into a statist mindset, for the most part. |
|
|
|
Central bankers are not sitting back idle. Aside from a few countries where bitcoin is legal, such as Japan, Singapore, Switzerland and South Korea (not sure about the last one), the central banks are putting pressure on the respective governments to curb the use of crypto-currency everywhere. But as we can see, their measures have failed so far.
Is that really the case? There's been action against darknet markets; that's expected. Okay, the BTC-e thing was a bit out of left field, but I think that can be explained by an overall crackdown on unregulated exchanges. I think that BTC-e will have been the most dramatic shutdown, but certainly not the last. Cryptocurrency is simply getting too mainstream now for the unregulated exchanges to survive many years longer. |
|
|
|
+1
Totally agree. I was in exactly the same position as you.
People talk about fiat holders but we are dealing with a trading scenario and for most it was probably just a question of timing as to whether we were in coin or fiat. There is no such thing as a "fiat holder" in the context of a crypto exchange.
I disagree, when you trade BTC for fiat each coin can have only one owner at a time else there would be an imbalance. eg. for BTC/USD there must be one BTC holder and one USD holder at completion of the trade. The IOUs created in the trading database can each only have one recipient, and must be honored as they were at the time of the last trade (or rolled back to the last backup snapshot which would be worse) You can't have two people claiming ownership of the same crypto coin or the same fiat which is what you are trying to do by disregarding the holding, timing is everything. Converting balances based on available funds doesn't leave multiple people claiming ownership of the same coin. BTC-e didn't segregate user coin accounts (they pooled wallets). Bitfinex even socialized losses as mentioned above despite segregating user Bitcoin accounts. The point is to create solvency on the books. It makes sense to denominate the losses in a common currency, then redistribute based on the lost amount. The tokens need to be denominated in that common currency (eg USD). They don't need functioning fiat capabilities to redeem the USD token value. They can do that in other coins at the time of each distribution. And since it will be based on current market value at each distribution, users would be fine with that. Just like Bitfinex. The trouble, of course, is that they have to reconcile a lot of accounts. And they need to do something with the shitcoins that are socialized. That does make this tough. |
|
|
|
About fiat withdrawal: There are many different possibilities, they even could send out gold by courier. I remember also that they offered "cash by cab" (or something like that) in Moscow.
If they can manage to get some actual fiat withdrawal options like this, maybe fiat markets are still possible. No one will trade on them, though, until it's clear that the fiat is flowing. I remember at one point, they had cash couriers in the US. I used to play on an online poker site that did the same thing. As long as the money is flowing to some extent, some confidence could return regarding the premium paid to escape BTC-E fiat obligations. I wonder if they will still have their BTC-E code economy? I think that's one of the things that kept the price so low on BTC-E. Codes were so liquid that customers could use them instead of buying cryptocurrencies to exit the exchange. |
|
|
|
Biggest threat to them especially central banks is bitcoin. These elite 1% of the world population have power and control over everything and i find it hard to believe that they will let bitcoin grow and overtake them.
Central banks can create unlimited fiat money out of thin air. Can they use that unlimited fiat money to keep buying all the bitcoin to drive the price up and when it is at its highest create a huge sell order to crash bitcoin and kill it off?
Is there any suspicion now or evidence to show central banks is buying bitcoin at whatever price with their printed fiat money for the sake of crashing bitcoin?
Central banks aren't all working together as some organized or unified cabal. They are tied to national or multi-national currencies and in many cases, have competing interests. The fact that Bitcoin is decentralized (vis-a-vis nations) likely aided its acceptance by governments around the world. If a government banned Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, its country would just fall behind the rest of the world. Governments are competing against one another for future market share (as hubs for future cryptocurrency industry) and also want their populations to prosper with the growth of cryptocurrencies. It makes no sense for any government to ban bitcoin at this point. |
|
|
|
There's a bit more to the story. There may be somewhat of an exodus happening from unregulated exchanges after what happened to BTC-e -- especially from Bitfinex, who just said they will soon be prohibiting US customers. The only way out of the exchange is in coins, since they have no fiat banking anymore. Since they lost banking in March or April, the supply of Tether has increased by more than 6x, which is also very suspicious.
i believe bitfinex started this after the rise has happened for a while. so it shouldn't have to do anything with their new rules regarding US citizens. I'm not saying that Bitfinex is purely responsible, but may be a large contributing force in the context of the broader uptrend. Bitfinex is the largest exchange in the West, so it can't be ignored that 1) they have no working fiat withdrawals, and 2) US customers need to exit their exchange. So this should definitely push the price up. Tether can be used to soften this effect, by moving USD obligations to other exchanges (hence the huge recent increase in supply). |
|
|
|
Wait till this really starts to go up we will all look like genius.
I love waking up everyday to new all-time highs, but this euphoria is getting pretty tangible. I'm seeing lots of these threads. The last couple posted today predicted a 50 trillion dollar market cap within a year, and prices of up to $60,000. And you are saying that buying anything under $18,000 will make us look like geniuses, so that means you expect much, much higher prices than that. Maybe the time for a nice, fat correction is coming soon.  I think a correction is due soon. These prices seem to be a pump by whales. If so, they will be dumping soon. I still think bitcoin is going to keep going up in price overall, but this seems too quick There's a bit more to the story. There may be somewhat of an exodus happening from unregulated exchanges after what happened to BTC-e -- especially from Bitfinex, who just said they will soon be prohibiting US customers. The only way out of the exchange is in coins, since they have no fiat banking anymore. Since they lost banking in March or April, the supply of Tether has increased by more than 6x, which is also very suspicious. It should be said that Bitflyer (Japan) leads as often as Bitfinex does. But they also have no trading fees, last I heard (similar to Chinese exchanges until recently), which can allow for some manipulation as well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
