|
Although I also find it harsh, our opinion doesn't worth much in the matter. Trust feedback is not moderated.
OP: your best bet is to ask nicely and without insisting too much that Timelord2067 reconsiders his feedback.
On the other hand, you seem to be rushing for signature campaigns while you're posting mostly in the Turkish subforum and the posts I've got to translate were more like Politics & Society style than bitcoin related.
It may be an unpopular opinion but I fear that if your red tag will be removed you may start spamming the forum just to meet your posting quota. But again, it's all up to Timelord2067 whether he removes that feedback or not.
|
|
|
|
but there is still a chance to return to 40-50k this year
If we get back there is already very much okay, really. We're in the middle of the 4-year cycle. If the historical data means anything the next 6 months the price may not go higher, may even get lower. However, we had some sort of double-ATH/double bull run this cycle, so I would not be so much surprised if more modifications will happen in the (more or less) pattern. If this means earlier start of the bull run, or at least a bit of recovery, even better. |
|
|
|
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Electrum\electrum-4.2.2.exe" --oneserver --server 127.0.0.1:50002
I think that what you need there is (note the :s at the end) : "C:\Program Files (x86)\Electrum\electrum-4.2.2.exe" --oneserver --server 127.0.0.1:50002:s |
|
|
|
|
While I always recommend great attention with Google search result, this is somewhat different than the usual cases.
The image shows searched for crack for CCleaner, not CCleaner itself. And it's 100% expected that most of the crack and keygen apps come with extras = malware.
So, really, nothing new nor unexpected here.
|
|
|
|
And what is the reason for this? It seems to me a lot of confirmations considering that 6 it is usually considered safe for transactions with inputs and outputs. This would be for transaction without inputs or coinbase I understand, there must be a good reason.
I think that the reason is more like historical, from the days then the network was not as strong as today. In the same way, the merchants ask for much more than Bitcoin's 6 confirmations for a lot of altcoins. And when the risk of reorg is getting smaller there too, the number of required confirmations (by merchants) decreases. On the other hand, the rule from the code doesn't harm, the miners can wait that much easily. So there's no good reason to change. And maybe I'm overthinking it, but maybe a very small number for coinbase maturity could incentivize miners mine forked/stale blocks and scam somebody? |
|
|
|
If Binance had the power to shut BNB down completely and invalidate all of the coins, then I'd say it's a centralized token.
BNB is a PoS coin and I think that whatever the papers tell nicely, Binance does have that power. Some explanations are here: https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/what-is-binance-smart-chain#header-3Basically, from my understanding, Binance can easily have more than 50% of the coins (since almost everybody keeps BNB coins in Binance's custody), they are also PoA validators and they probably the ones approving new PoA validators too. |
|
|
|
UTXOs can be from real long term hodlers or from people who lost their Bitcoin.
Well, long term hodelrs and people who have lost their coins do match the expected pattern: they make the markets have less coins to play with and this can have the effect of increasing the price. |
|
|
|
I've just found on Twitter some interesting/intriguing announcement. Electrum 4.2.2 fixes a vulnerability that can be exploited on some Windows+SMB configurations. Please upgrade if you have not done so already. From what it was written in here the importance of the update was not so much obvious. Now it is. So, especially the Windows users, please update asap (myself included). |
|
|
|
Would it be less complicated when the system would simply allow me to spend 0.09 btc and receives nothing back?
The current way it the simpler approach. Maybe not as simple to gasp, maybe not as simple for us humans, but it's the more straightforward for the system/computers (tracking the utxo is much more straightforward than keeping the results and making sure they're correct) And for humans can be easy too (or at least easier) by just thinking of each input as a variably sized banknote. The result of every transaction getting to you is such a banknote. When you spend, you usually spend a number of such banknotes and get another one as change. The receiver gets a new banknote with a new size = the amount he has to receive. (If you knew all this, even better). The result is something that easily allows the system track the amounts and their history very easily. And the wallet adds up all the utxo from your addresses for convenience and easier reading. |
|
|
|
So what do you think about Kiyosaki's point of view, is it possible that "crashes are the best time to get rich"?
I'm a bit late to the party but imho he's right and wrong in the same time. Yes, it's easiest to get rich when the prices are crashing. But in the same time, not all the prices that have crashed will get back to high levels, hence it's identically easy to become poor by buying at crashed price. I see people give examples with Bitcoin when the price was low. Now it's low too compared with the ATH, remember? But somehow people don't seem to tell about the way-too-many altcoins (some shitcoins, some not so bad, but clearly unlucky) that have never recovered after the 2018-2019 crypto winter. |
|
|
|
Being rude is a subjective term. I perceive that you have been rude to me in both of your posts even though I did not point it out in the first place.
OK, I also apologize then, although my rudeness was not intentional. I mostly tried to express my surprise over the concept you've been presenting. But yeah, I don't find always the best words. I hope this would end our argumentation.
Yes please.
So, back on topic: I guess now that I didn't misunderstand the concept, since franky1 understood the same thing. He also managed to express better what I tried to say: you cannot use UTXO data (combined with market price of date the UTXO moved) to make any price predictions.. .. today, this week, this month..
sorry, you just cant,
Since it was compared somewhat with TA, I'll start with that: even TA doesn't always work, even TA is not accurate alone (and can easily get traders into trouble). I find using this new "metric" - utxo amount and age - for predicting the price to be... more likely a trap than a tool. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know for sure; maybe my examples are too rare or don't matter in the sheer number of utxo. But I would not trust such a metric, that's for sure. That's how I feel. |
|
|
|
First there were no "mistakes" when this was discussed in the technical section, I would rather say "clarifications"
We can use any term you prefer. Sorry you dont appreciate my intent to discuss something that might be of interest to others. Maybe you expect topics like "If I give 1 btc, what would you do?
While I wanted to be helpful and not repeat the same "clarifications" others have done, hence skipping to the more important/useful part, while I had my own questions (I am not 100% sure I understood the conclusions correct), you decided to be rude. What can I understand from here? Was I supposed to present a topic like "If I give 1 btc, what would you do?"
If you'd do that I would probably warn people to be wary of a potential scam. There's no free lunch. Are we getting now closer to the same page? |
|
|
|
I think you are making things more confused than they are.
This was my take too when I've read this. OP sounds confused and confusing too. I will even go over the mistakes OP made, they've got explained already in the pretty much duplicate post in the technical area. I will get to.. simple Bitcoin discussion: So if I mix some of my coins to various addresses for future use it can be seen in relation with the price? Also if consolidate some of my funds, again, will affect somebody's price predictions? It doesn't sound right. I just remember that not long ago a big platform (possibly Binance) did consolidate a great lot of its funds. Should I conclude that such a move has triggered the price drop? Really???!?!? |
|
|
|
Interestingly amidst the current bearish market environment, the number of times Bitcoin has been declared ‘dead’ so far in the first half of 2022 stands at 12.
I'm not sure how accurate this can be, there are literally too many places/mediums people may express such opinions, however, I guess that on the average it can't be that far from the truth. Even more, nowadays some started thinking whether Bitcoin is or isn't too big to fall. Fun to think where we got to evolve, and rather quick actually... |
|
|
|
In this regard I was thinking, when can a miner confirm the child transaction?
It occurred to me the other day while doing a transaction and I will try to explain what I mean. Suppose I have an unconfirmed parent transaction, given that a transaction is usually considered confirmed after 6 confirmations, or maybe less if it is a low amount, if I send a child transaction with a high fee for both to be confirmed, can the same miner who confirms the parent transaction confirm the child transaction without waiting for more confirmations of the parent transaction? Or has he to wait for 5 confirmations more until he confirms the child transacion? I don't know if I make myself clear.
The number of 5, 6 confirmations is something the merchants and various platforms require and here the discussion is a bit different. Here, by confirmed, we say that the transaction is included into a block. If you do CPFP then the parent and the paying child are both getting included into the same block. That means 1 confirmation. For both. Afterwards, with every new block added to the blockchain after the one with your transaction(s), their number of confirmations is increasing. |
|
|
|
PlagiarismUser: Myntist.official https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3468710Post link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5401818.msg60315670#msg60315670Archive: https://ninjastic.space/post/60315670I didn't mark paragraphs, it's really a direct copy-paste of the entire news. PayPal has announced that it will now support the exchange of cryptocurrencies between users, effectively turning the platform into a fully-featured crypto wallet.
Previously, PayPal users were only able to buy, sell, hold and pay using popular cryptocurrencies - and only in select countries like the US and UK.
However, the latest update introduces the ability for US-based users to send and receive cryptocurrencies, transfer coins into PayPal from third-party exchanges and move coins into external wallets.
PayPal goes big on crypto
PayPal first announced its foray into the world of cryptocurrencies back in October 2020, at which point it granted US-based customers the ability to store select crypto tokens (including Bitcoin, Ether and Litecoin) against their accounts.
At the time, the company cited opportunities around financial inclusion as the primary reason for the initiative, as well as an ambition to increase the utility of cryptocurrencies in the context of ecommerce.
In August 2021, the payments giant extended its cryptocurrency offering to users in the UK, following positive feedback from users on home soil.
The latest update perhaps marks an inflection point for PayPal, which had previously attempted to silo its crypto services by limiting the opportunity to shift holdings freely.
“Allowing PayPal customer the flexibility to move their crypto assets into, outside of, and within our PayPal platform reflects the continuing evolution of our best-in-class platform and enables customers to interact with the broader crypto ecosystem,” wrote Jose Fernandez da Ponte, who leads the crypto initiative at PayPal.
“We’re excited to connect PayPal’s customers to other wallets, exchanges, and applications, and we will continue to roll out additional crypto features, products and services in the months ahead.”
Fernandez da Ponte also announced that PayPal has been granted a full Bitlicense by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), which he described as a demonstration of the firm’s commitment to all regulatory guidelines that apply to its dealing in the crypto space.
The decision to push further into the industry comes amid a steep drop-off in the price of all major cryptocurrencies, caused in part by the decoupling of multiple major stablecoins from their peg, which has wiped out billions of dollars in value. Down from an all-time high of $68,990/unit in November 2021, Bitcoin is currently trading for circa $31,000 per coin.
Original: https://www.techradar.com/news/your-paypal-account-just-became-a-fully-featured-crypto-wallet
|
|
|
|
Maybe everything comes tool late to Belgium and that makes it 1st page news?  LOL! The current prices and related hype makes the news "worthy for first page". Else it would be buried somewhere. And maybe some years ago it would have been coming with explanations (like "Bitcoin is like some online-game-money and NFTs are like online-game-unique-equipment") [j/k] I wonder how they evaluate the price, because they probably need an official statement from an expert - at the end they need to know if it is worth $10 or $1000.
Yeah, NFT prices are pretty much random. I guess that they'll ask a specialist and, subtract some 20-40% to be sure they can sell it, then auction everything together. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin related to crime was seized and auctioned away by many countries for many years. I don't feel that much has change since then, maybe only the fact that newer coins/tokens were "added to the list", including the NFTs (but I already said tokens).
|
|
|
|
The simplest solution would be to just never ever use them again.
...and also don't forget to tag them as no longer used / no longer accessible. Since they were secondary/unsafe accounts maybe even neutral tag would do. Imho the hassle of recovering them makes sense only if we find them hacked and posting around. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
