Please contact Roland Smith the Office Depot CEO (eg via LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/roland-smith/6b/597/701 or email: Investor.Relations@officedepot.com ) to encourage them to accept bitcoin. It is time for this great web retailer to adopt another customer preferred payment method and abandon the more cumbersome expensive alternative PayPal. Thank you. After you contact them, come back here to report you've done your bit by adding your name to the list.
List: Mike Wirth it does not take very much time/effort to send an email. Similarly it does not take much effort to ignore an email. IMO it would be much more effective to make a phone call and/or send a actual letter |
|
|
|
https://paybycoin.intuit.com/Announced yesterday - I've not yet seen a thread on this development. Quite frankly, this seems huge to me. Intuit's QuickBooks is the overwhelming leader in bookkeeping and accounting software for small businesses. It also powers the Intuit Point-Of-Sale system, which is a widespread cash register and inventory system for many many small retailers. Integrating one-click Bitcoin payments into this platform is massive. Granted, this is only for their Online version (not the traditional installed application). But that integration may soon follow. It is really just quick books being able to handle the accounting/tax portion of accepting bitcoin by a small business |
|
|
|
Would you all be happy if WU started using Bitcoin to move money instead of ACH or wire transfer? Take a look at this page and tell me it wouldn't be better looking with a Bitcoin option. http://onlinefx.westernunion.com/fees/The only thing WU could really do with bitcoin is exchange it with fiat. If someone wanted to send money the same way that western union does they could simply send bitcoin to them. It is almost like bitcoin is a competitor to western union |
|
|
|
Near zero fees don't exist now. They are some of the most expensive transaction fees you'll find, but they are hidden in subsidies that are paid for via inflation.
The block subsidies are designed to give miners an incentive to mine until the time comes that bitcoin is widely enough used so that there will be sufficient volume of BTC transactions with TX fees to make it worth their while. |
|
|
|
I feel sorry for Spanish people.  "They" have plans to do this everywhere, including the US and UK. Yep, as far as I know legislation has already been passed for all Europpean governments to put their hand into peoples bank accounts so there doesn't need to be a repeat of the emergency measures of Cyprus. It was proposed as beginning in 2016 but moving it forward is a whole lot easier than getting it through and that's nice, comfortable, far away date. UK law coming in soon is that if someone has over £5k in their bank and they have not paid their tax, HMRC can take th funds out... even without a court order. Yes and that sounds very much like a nice, easy to digest "its only the tax evaders they're after" to make it more acceptable. I bet it will be less than 12 months before it can affect anyone and everyone once the need for a court order is sidestepped with this. What in the world is going on ? This seems to be the first time in history, governments gone wild trying to rape bank accounts of the citizenry. I had always assumed there was a fairly clear line in the sand, and the government doesn't cross that line unless there are extreme circumstances...and if the government starting losing their trust, people would start mattress stuffing and not use banks, etc. Maybe now they are just saying to hell with it? or what... i dunno. We are in extreme circumstances throughout much of the world. Many governments are facing huge deficits and their ability to repay bondholders is being put into question. The situation has calmed down somewhat over the past few years but most european governments are not far from financial ruin |
|
|
|
I don't care how much regulation you throw at them. If you let them bitcoins in custody we'll have one billion bitcoins in circulation before a year. They simply can't be trusted.
Thats not possible; Banks can't just create more bitcoins, just like a bank can not produce more gold or simply issue more stocks of a certain company. (that is the beauty of the Bitcoin) actually, if banks did hold bitcoins as a financial product they offer. it wouldnt be to much of a stretch for them to try off-chain transactions. by giving people a SQL bank database balance of bitcoins and let people trade the database (leading to fractional reserving) where there are only 21million real bitcoins, but the banks showing 1billion bitcoins on their SQL database.. ... just like the current FIAT debt crisis ... just like karpals let people trade his SQL database while hiding the real coins. Banks would probably not do this as it would be very difficult to force someone to pay them back in bitcoin. The closest thing they could do to this would be sue them for fiat and then use that fait to purchase bitcoin on an exchange. Another issue is the interest rate they would need to pay to get people to deposit bitcoin (and the interest rate they would need to charge borrowers). Interest rates in terms of bitcoin are just too high for this to make sense for them to try to do. |
|
|
|
DOGE
We're not DOGE.
We're a a whole different animal entirely.
I like DOGE because of the fundraisers. In fact, this is the only reason I own any DOGE.
Enough with the joke coins already. No Doge is not a different animal. You do not support Wikileaks, EFF, or anything serious for that matter. Where was Doge during the Typhoon in the Philippines? How many homeless people did dogecoins feed in the last few years? Where is the Doge 100 list of charities? Sadly, if dogecoin was actually takes seriously, it would also be used by criminals because that would mean it has actual value. Dogecoins are today's Garbage Pail Kids of the cryptocurrency toyland. Enjoy the laughs while you can. The criminal thing is actually an interesting point. You don't hear about a lot of doge scammers either. You don't hear about scammers in litecoin, namecoin, ppcoin, or any other altcoin either. There is nothing special about dogecoin there. Ummm...people aren't scamming other people for Litecoin, Namecoin, PeerCoin and Dogecoin? What planet are you guys on? The one where news media reports Bitcoin crimes only. Outside of forums and Reddit, nobody reports altcoin scams. Like I said, nobody hears about them. that is because not enough people know about altcoins to make it worthy for the MSM to report on. |
|
|
|
Finally. I was wondering when this thing was going to get signed. It seems like we've been waiting forever for them to change their very poorly written laws. While this effectively changes nothing, since it's not like people were really prevented from actually using bitcoin, it does add some legitimacy to bitcoin overall. I don't think there is anything to complain about here. Unless you're some rabid anarchist who gets offended at the fact that the government would even begin to think they could tell you that you now have permission to use bitcoin.  I don't think this law has any real effect on the "legality" of bitcoin, although one could argue that it does provide clarification on using bitcoin. It should hopefully give some level of legitimacy to bitcoin in CA |
|
|
|
from 2009 to 2011 there were 5million coins mined, from january 2009 satoshi and other programmers (a small group) were all playing around with mining and making the first few versions of the bitcoinD
SATOSHI DID NOT OWN ALL MINED COINS OF 2009 as others were mining it too
2010 it started expanding where a few hundred to a couple thousand people were mining, meaning satoshis slice of the pie was getting smaller
in 2011 CPU farms and then GPU started growing, meaning that alot of average joes were getting a nice slice of th reward pie.
although satoshis hoard was large, if you do some actual maths of miners around between 2009 and 2011. satoshi did not have 20% control of all mining for the whole 2 years, which would result in a 1million hoard. id say he had 50% control at the first month of release, then dropped to 20% before summer 2009 and then dropping ever since, as bitcoin mining started to expand. id say he has about 100k not 1mill.
but no one can know for sure how much hoard he has, we can only speculate via the maths and putting known data into prospective... all i know for sure was that there were not just 5 miners in 2011 thus impossible for satoshi to have been at 1mill in 2011, when he disapeared
The first difficulty increase took place ~1 year after the genius block (dec 30 vs jan 3, both 2009). The difficulty is recalculated once very 2016 blocks and back then one block was worth 50 BTC. 50BTC * 2016 blocks means that BTC100,800 is mined every two weeks. By following your assumption that he controlled 50% of all mining the first month it would mean that he would have mined ~100k the first month. If he controlled 20% of the mining from February 2009 to December 2009 then he would have mined BTC40,320 per month. This times 11 months is BTC443,520 for this time period. Add this to the 100k from his first month of mining and he would have mined just under 550k BTC assuming that he stopped mining when the difficulty first increased. |
|
|
|
I have read a different places that Satoshi holds 1M Bitcoin. Is there any definitive proof/explanation for the same ?
Is there anyone or any institution holding more coins than Satoshi Nakamoto, e.g. Winklevoss Brothers or GHash.IO ?
Satoshi Nakamoto holds 0 coins, but has given 1 million coins to the rest of us via deflation. He would need to transfer all of his coins to an unspendable address for this to be true. AFAIK he still holds the keys to the addresses he mined to. |
|
|
|
Here's some terrible math. 42 bidders x $25,000 minimum = $1,050,000 / 48,013 coins bid = $21.87 per BTC. Let's hope not. More likely the $1,050,000 would bid on 1 block of 3,000 which would be $350 per coin. Just shows we don't have a clue until someone steps forward Monday.  the 25k is just a minimum, it would be likely that most bidders bid much more then just 25k |
|
|
|
at current block limit of 1mb per block.. there is a max monthly growth of ~4.4gb, with a current block fill of 10%-25%.
as it has been discussed, its not a problem.
for instance Call of duty has a larger data size then bitcoin, with its updates, patches and new versions every 18 months. call of duty need to solve their problems of data bloat and download times.... way before blockchain does
yet i do not see millions of shoot-em-up users complaining.
same goes for world of warcraft. and many other games.
this is not the 1990's where hard drives are a 32gb max limit, where internet is 64k.. we are in the age of fibre optic cable and where something smaller then a postage stamp can store more then games/bitcoins needs.
data storage and internet speed evolution is the solution
This may be true but bandwidth and storage is not free. The fact that it costs people money to provide a service to the network (keeping it secure) while not receiving anything in return (anything tangible) will always have the number of nodes depressed. |
|
|
|
Pretty interesting, to say the least. It's been a while since I've seen a really large block time, so I think it calls to ask: What could lead to such a long wait?
variance. 10 minute block time is on average, sometimes 4 blocks can be found in 10 minutes, and other times 40 minutes can pass without finding a block. it's a random process. So essentially as long as it averages out to roughly 10 minutes the process works exactly as planned? Haven't actually looked at the source to see where variance is accounted for. Thank you for this. It is expected that blocks will not be found exactly once every 10 minutes, but rather, on average once every 10 minutes. When the average block time goes under 10 minutes then the difficulty will increase and when the average block time is over 10 minutes the difficulty will decrease, this is check ever 2016 blocks |
|
|
|
Isn't this a good thing?
Its a consumer group that helps people out with protecting themselves/recovering from fraud and such... That's good right?
Or is there something that the tin foil had brigade thinks it knows about consumer groups?
Neil
It is not good to have a government agency protect you from yourself |
|
|
|
What would him having a greater investment in a particular investment then his "enemy" have to do with anything. I was just saying that the fact that Winkelwii owns 0.5% of all the Bitcoins in circulation is not a valid reason for Zucker to hate BTC (Well.. if he thinks so then I can't help). Why concentrate on 0.5%, when the remaining 99.5% are owned by someone else. I think it really depends on how stubborn he wants to be. If he wants to stop his "enemy" from succeeding at all costs then he will likely not integrate bitcoin into facebook. IMO this would be a very bad business decision |
|
|
|
New idea. Deposit $200,000 into US auction of confiscated SR coins. Get as many as you can and hold for dear life! *or diversify If you pegged the auction coins at 550 a piece, the smallest block of 3K, would cost just over half of his 3M. 550 * 3,000 = 1,650,000 Heck, in that case, with the direction bitcoin price is currently heading he just might be able to purchase two of them. Obviously that would wipe out any sort of diversification of his investment, much riskier but potentially that much more lucrative. The terms of the auction is that you must say the maximum price that you are willing to pay and how many you are willing to buy. If he wanted two then he could say he will buy 2 @ 1.5mm each. If he wanted to be sure to get one he could say he would buy 1 @ $1.65mm (and 1 @ 1.35mm if he wanted a chance to get a 2nd one) For the lazy ones : "This auction is for 9 blocks of 3,000 bitcoins (“Series A Blocks”) and 1 block of 2,656.51306529 bitcoins (“Series B Block”)." "1. The eligible bidder who offers the highest price will be the prevailing bidder; 2. If there are multiple bids at the highest price, the first bid received will prevail; and 3. If fewer than all of the Series A blocks are sold to the highest bidder, the remaining blocks will be sold to the successive highest bidders until all blocks are sold." It closes June 30 but we won't have the winners&price immediately, does someone know if the final auction price will be public? This is correct, but it does not make it any easier for the OP to be able to get 2 3k blocks from the auction He can get a 3k block and the 2.6x block I am sure he could invest more than 3m if needed The OP said he is looking to invest 3m so I doubt he wants to be upselled to be investing more |
|
|
|
lol what you also should note is that luke JR is a greedy mo-fo.
he is the guy that pushes to make people add TX fee's to their transactions by changing the eligius pool code to be greedy and ignore 0 ze tx's and only let a couple in per block,
he tells people to use fresh addresses eachtime so that when you send your whole stash there is not just one input, but hundreds. meaning large data size, meaning more tx fee.
and he was the one that got the bitcoin-core to, by default hide pre-used addresses. subtly causing people to use new address , as i just explained.
when a greedy guy that wants to tax bitcoin more by charging fee's, and a greedy mining pool that wants more than 50% of the pie get together... look out
only including TX with a miners fee is expected behavior by pool operators over the long term. When block subsidies get smaller (probably when they reach 6.25 BTC per block) it would be likely that all TX must include some kind of fee in order to be included by the miners. |
|
|
|
SHA256 ASICs are hard to make a ROI these days. I suggest purchasing a scrypt miner instead.
Check out gawminers!
Since KNC, is coming out soon, even scrypt might be difficult to roi depending on shipping times. Better asics are also coming out to the market. True, true. But right now the ROI is really low and GAWminers are shipping soon. ROI is going to plummet with the advent of ASICs comming to scrypt mining. Yup, we will see a rapid rising in difficulty of litecoin (and doge and other scrypt coins) when the ASICs are shipped. This is a good example of why it is difficult to ROI with mining as it is difficult to predict the future of mining technology. |
|
|
|
Looking very good now. Ghash.io 31% BTC Guild 16% Discus Fish 16% And unknown is now down to 10% from 20%.  Yea it seems like some mining whales see this forum often, now we dont need to worry about it, it looks like that blockchain.info is also doing a better job of identifying unknown pools making this less suspicious |
|
|
|
I established the theory of Bitcoin Supernode early 2013. The current introduction to the topic can be found in another forum, quoted below: My dearest readers,
BITCOIN SUPERNODE - THE NORMATIVE THREAD aims to foresee the development of the socioeconomic Bitcoin network, discuss it, and guide the development with actionable suggestions that would interfere with the natural course of affairs as little as possible while bringing as many benefits as possible to both those who take part in a way or another and those who do not.
Background
Bitcoin economy consists of bitcoin holders and interactions between them. There are currently 2 million bitcoin holders who hold on average 6,000 mBTC (median 70 mBTC). About 790 of them have bitcoin holdings valued at least $1 million.
Rather large percentage of such large holders are bitcoin enthusiasts who also largely share a liberty-loving ("liberal", "libertarian", "anti-statist", ..) worldview. They are proficient in technology, highly educated and civil. At this point they tend to be male with age distribution centered around 30-35, which is not important per se, but nevertheless a fact.
The concentration of financial means in the hands of the people described above in a networked environment is a potentially explosive thing. Until now it has not been witnessed in a large scale because of the following factors:
- Large concentrations of bitcoins have been in the hands of earliest adopters, who are generally younger with less interest/experience/contacts/whatever in societal matters than the current profile of holders.
- The number of people whose bitcoin stash has been worth any serious old world money was negligible prior to 2013.
- There has been more uncertainty about Bitcoin's future, and the scenario of its ultimate takeover has been shared with very few people and even they may have given it a low probability of success.
- Many have been lulled into thinking that the Bitcoin Foundation is the way to further this kind of mindset.
The growth from 1 user to 2 million users in 5.1 years has meant 17.2x yearly increase. Meanwhile bitcoin price has risen on average 12.6x yearly. The market cap has grown from nothing to about $10 billion. The fiat value of a mean holding exploded in 2013 and is already $5,000. (I have a paid analyst who is currently compiling and verifying these figures.) All these can likely be modelled with exponential function albeit with considerable variation from the trend. [I cannot currently expound the dynamics why, but] Bitcoin's self-similarity suggests that the trends stay intact until there is no more new entrants, or a major event interrupts the system.
Staying in the trendline channel, the price of 1 mBTC is expected to reach $3-$13 in 2014. The number of users would be 10-30 million. The number of liberty-loving people who have at least $1M in bitcoins + other assets and capabilities would number in thousands. (This estimate does not count all large holders, only the ones that fulfill the criteria, which is - less the actual holdings - pretty much the same criteria I use when inviting people to this forum.)
At this point, and especially zooming forward to the end of 2014, 2015 and 2016, interaction between these holders, many of which already have connections between each other, will inevitably increase. The aim of the Supernode Network is to facilitate this interaction and, in a sense, to "regulate" it. At present the Bitcoin world is a jungle, where everybody has had to learn the hard way. I am all for learning the realities of this world, but now our combined effort could make the world a more difficult place for scammers and rogue and organized thiefs alike. Collecting and publishing the best practices, having some old world resources (media, lawyers) at our pay, and doing business among ourselves with the old-fashioned way of personal guarantees would go a long way of making this jungle a wild west - a place of liberty, opportunity or refuge, whichever way you like it.
By "Supernode" I mean a person, or person-centric organization, where the person possesses the willingness, knowledge, time and means (=bitcoins) to effectively participate in the mind-blowing transition that is ongoing and ahead of us. I would add that to qualify as a supernode, you should be fearless of adversity and manage your risks so that you can face the total defeat of all crypto (or prospect of it) without losing heart or your ability to function.
There is a rather widely held misunderstanding that Bitcoin network technically has or could have some kind of supernodes. It does not. Network nodes are equal. Some altcoins have masternodes and also have borrowed the term "supernode" for a technical meaning. But in Bitcoin context, the Supernode is a socio-economical construct bolded above. In the strict sense banks cannot be Supernodes even if they become major power centers, because Supernode is defined as being the opposite force to the legacy system. So the word conveys not only the extent of resources, but also the intent to use them for the furtherance of the liberation of mankind in the cryptoworld context. @Este Nuno: My Supernode was reactivated in January in the II Supernode General Meeting in Tallinn. Next weekend we are having the III Bitcoin Supernode Network Preparatory Meeting in Malla. There are delegates from Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, U.S., Netherlands, France, South Africa, U.K., Latvia and Korea. Some people think of supernodes as being a very well connected node (one that has a lot of connections to other nodes). https://blockchain.info/hub-nodes |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
