|
Two flash crashes on Bitfinex, I would trade somewhere else. Send a message with your withdrawals.
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I know this is impossible... yet I just can't get my head around it as it seems to be the case (as far as I can see.) Perhaps someone else can work it out, because I sure can't. I have about 3.1 or so BTC in a Trezor... or at least should. the majority should be at this address and somewhere in the region of 2.8+ or so: https://blockchain.info/address/15A6kTYaoTBdT4acEqUKWsJDYGAdBocDP7That address is saying I only have 0.428 BTC. But my total Trezor account is saying different (see image below)... and there are only three addresses on it. The transaction of 2.069 BTC at the above address I never made - I don't even have those addresses in my multi-sig that it was sent to - and it's not recorded on my transaction list either - see pic below. Between the other two addresses there is only about 0.27 total (give or take) On blockchain, it looks to have occurred on the 23/8. Yet look on my transaction list screen shot at the 23rd. Nothing. No record of that at all.  Can some one please explain this to me? A large chunk of my BTC has just gone??? Relax you have not lost any bitcoin. Someone would have to compromize your Trezor to steal the private keys and that has never happened. Your MyWallet account is showing the total bitcoin your own. The address 15A6kTYaoTBdT4acEqUKWsJDYGAdBocDP7 only holds .108 bitcoin verified both in your MyWallet account and the blockchain. The rest of your bitcoin are held at other addresses. Check the receive and send tabs. On receive tab click the chevron to show previous addresses. Hope this helps! |
|
|
|
I am relatively new to this discussion, but seems that everybody (or almost) supports a raise in the block size, either by BIP 100, 101 or XT.
Some people say it is not needed to raise block limit yet, but still support a raise. I have seen considerably less people supporting that maintaining the block size to 1MB is the way to go so ...
Wouldn´t be better to make some preasure on the developers to do the raise instead of fighting about the XT vs. Core thing?
Publishing Bitcoin XT on Aug 15 is putting pressure on the Core developers to reach consensus. |
|
|
|
Good thread, valuable info, thanks! Hard evidence that buying S5 hashing power at Hashnest is a better investment than Genesis Mining. |
|
|
|
What do you mean by "lose" their investment? No money back for those terminated contracts?
Anyway I think they will mine again as Bitcoin price is rising. Nothing back at all, they are sold as a contract that runs until 10 days have passed where maintenance fees are higher than income. At the moment 6 days have gone by, bitcoin would need to reach ~$249 dollars in the next 4 days for them to continue, can't see that happening. That's ridiculous man. If all UMISOO investors will lose their whole investments, that doesn't make any sense. Why don't people sell for whatever price now? It's better than lose them all. UMISOO is a high reward but high risk contract and my favorite to trade when bitcoin price is above $260. Hashnest makes clear on their website the terms of UMISOO. If you happen to own UMISOO you can sell now but the offer price is almost nothing. Traders got out of UMISOO when the price started to downtrend weeks ago. Right now UMISOO and S2 contracts are only profitable if bitcoin price is over $256. S5 is profitable down to $130, S4 is $181 and S3 is profitable above $214. |
|
|
|
Thanks! Just added to the article Bitcoin XT ELI5 to help others understand how dangerous Bitcoin XT is. |
|
|
|
BTCChina have started signing the coinbase of their mined blocks with BIP100  What is the url of the chart you displayed with Coinbase Blocksize Vote please? The only reference I have right now is http://bitcoinstats.com/network/votes/ |
|
|
|
UMISOO contracts looks very cheap. Are they still mining positive at this rate?
No, and in 4 more days (unless there is a sudden spike in btc price) the contracts will be terminated What happens when contracts terminated? Money back to UMISOO owners or something else? Contracts are terminated and those who own UMISOO hash lose their investment unfortunately. |
|
|
|
I just restarted the pool to change the sig.
There should have been little if any failover since it was a normal immediate restart.
I've changed the sig to now say "/Kano /BIP100/"
I see BIP100 as the best option in all this crap that's been going on recently since it gives block size control (up to 32MB) to the pools/miners.
I see XP-BIP101 giving control to Herne/Gavin without even proper consensus - so I'm am clearly stating I'm against XT-BIP101
The sig change itself is not following any officially defined voting anywhere and since it is a sig change only it is not changing the blocks produced either.
Are you using coinbase to show your preference for BIP 100 per https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.4440 Thanks for supporting BIP 100. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core is not a democracy thank God.
|
|
|
|
i wonder if u got proofs that NSA/CIA/FBI/Cartoon-networks/... are watching bitcointalk's members will U still use it!
Thank u.
You should be more concerned about the OS you are using. |
|
|
|
So how much nodes there are now of XT?, it is limited to 900 or what?
Use https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/ about 930 true count now click on Network Map and then red dot lower right hand corner to show nodes with same IP as adjacent nodes. If there are significant PseudoNodes you will see tall red spikes on the graph Do they have a way to tell real full nodes from pseudonode and notXT? At bitnodes the only graphic you have is to click on the Network Map then red dot lower right hand corner. When there are many PseudoNodes (several hundred) you will see tall red spikes. Right now 925 XT nodes with no significant PseudoNodes. Guess the redditors got tired of the PseudoNode game. |
|
|
|
So how much nodes there are now of XT?, it is limited to 900 or what?
Use https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/ about 930 true count now click on Network Map and then red dot lower right hand corner to show nodes with same IP as adjacent nodes. If there are significant PseudoNodes you will see tall red spikes on the graph |
|
|
|
it's so easy to be against something, especially something with a label like "XT," and especially when there seems to only be two people behind it and the rest of the core developers are against it.
It's got a label which suggests it's fundamentally different that Bitcoin! Only Gavin and Hearn are pushing it! The rest of the developers are against it! I'm against it too! It smells fishy! There must be some nefarious intention behind it!
The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.
what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.
This is so dangerous to bitcoin that it requires VERY GOOD REASON AND JUSTIFICATION which I have seen not a single shred of. All I have seen is attacks on gavin's character, attacks on hearn's character, appeals to fear, ridiculous speculations that the CIA and the NSA are behind XT based on pure fabricated fear mongering, what I have not seen is a single LOGICAL ARGUMENT that is in the least convincing which suggests that Bitcoin XT should be opposed.
Many if not all of the core developers have financial incentive to maintain lower block sizes because they are invested in alternative solutions such as BlockStream. Yes the lack of consensus of the core developers suggests malpractice and misplaced priorities but we cannot just assume that the malpractice and misplaced priorities are behind XT because it is the "change" it is the "new addition" it is the "new proposal" so it must be bad! No, perhaps it is good! and perhaps those developers who oppose it do so for reasons of underlying malpractice and misplaced priorities. Perhaps they are more invested in the success of BlockStream than they are in the success of Bitcoin! These things must be considered!
What I am saying is that this split is very dangerous, and those who are perpetuating it by threatening to SPLIT BITCOIN IN HALF after 75% agrees that XT is the best solution have some explaining to do! We need LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, not appeals to fear, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and other fallacies. Bring out the evidence, bring out the facts, and lay out an argument dammit! You are threatening to destroy bitcoin without good reason otherwise!
The core developers did not start this rift. Mike Hearn did by using his commit access to publish Bitcoin XT with a trigger threshold of only 75%. Even Charlie Lee feels Bitcoin XT is "dangerous and irresponsible" see the reddit post. After a week of publicity xtnodes.com shows nodes running XT have leveled off at just less than 900 out of 6500. Only slush's pool has mined a total of three blocks using XT. |
|
|
|
I predicted scrypt.cc will be dead in summer and some users laughed about it. I withdrawed all BTC from scrypt.cc 1 week before they scamed. I am master of investing !
Not really if you just changed your sig to promote a different ponzi ... |
|
|
|
|
If this thread encourages people to get their bitcoin out of web wallets and into Bitcoin Core by the end of the year it will have done some good.
|
|
|
|
If you really want the site shut down why doesn't everyone report the site to the domain registrar enom? They have a customer using their services to commit financial fraud. They will take action although I don't know if they are required to report that to law enforcement. The site will be down pretty damn quick if a bunch of you also report it. They won't be able to tell anyone here if they do, but they may even have more accurate details who paid for the hosting.
scrypt.cc is hiding behind Cloudflare. You would need to talk to Cloudflare to see if they will file a complaint with the host. |
|
|
|
|
There will not be a hard fork until January 2016 at the earliest. BIP 101 patch can be implemented in Bitcoin Core as well, and I hope it is and soon. What bothers me is that Mike Hearn used his commit privileges to publish Bitcoin XT with only a 75% adoption threshold by miners. Hard forks are dangerous, and the threshold for adoption should have been 90% or even safer 95%. I suspect he set the threshold too low because he realized chances of 90% consensus approval for Bitcoin XT was slim.
|
|
|
|
It has been mentioned before but you need to stop using online wallets until the fork controvery is over. Why? If a fork occurs the online operator may be on the losing side of the fork. The safest option is to use the official Bitcoin Core client. If a hard fork to Bitcoin XT occurs in January 2016 all you would need to do is download and start using Bitcoin XT at that time. Bitcoin XT uses the same data directories as Bitcoin Core so there is no need to move your wallet.dat from Core to XT. You also have control of your private keys. So bite the bullet and use Bitcoin Core. With old versions of Bitcoin QT it was faster to use the bootstrap.dat to download the blockchain but with the newest version of Bitcoin Core direct sync is faster. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
