Does purse have lightning integrated yet? I used to use them for stuff on Amazon all the time. You'd think places you buy things from routinely would jump all over lightning.
Nope, and as I recall, they were/are big blockers. They added support for Bitcoin Cash instead of working on Lightning, and they've floated the idea of adding Ethereum as well. I doubt you'll find much work being done to support Lightning at Purse.io beyond this blog post. |
|
|
|
Its just that my other open dimes are fairly large amounts of bitcoin ,so it makes me nervous to trust .....any thoughts/suggestions appreciated....  I would advise against an Opendime device for storing large amounts or for long term storage. You cannot securely back up the private keys. In the case of device malfunction, you will lose everything. Even on their FAQ page, they recommend against it: For long term HODL/Storage and large amounts we recommend COLDCARD Hardware Wallet a ultra-secure Bitcoin wallet also made by us. |
|
|
|
This is a potentially exciting development for future Lightning integration: Square Crypto Is Creating a ‘Lightning Development Kit’ for Bitcoin WalletsSo rather than create a standalone Lightning node, we’re building a Lightning Development Kit (LDK) that gives wallet and application developers a convenient way to create custom experiences. LDK will include an API, language bindings, demo apps, and anything else that makes integrating Lightning easy, safe, and configurable. The API is based on the Rust-Lightning project, which offers clean interfaces and minimal system dependencies. Rust is also among the safest systems languages, one that will attract developers who can sustain LDK independently of us. Here’s just some of what LDK will simplify: - Adding Lightning capabilities to existing bitcoin wallets — no need to create a separate wallet just for Lightning.
- Supporting multi-device, multi-application access to a single wallet.
- Allowing wallets to make UX/security/privacy tradeoffs such as external transaction signing and customizing their state backup to a cloud service.
Today’s Lightning infrastructure is incomplete without features like these. https://medium.com/@squarecrypto/what-were-building-lightning-development-kit-1ed58b0cab06I think Square is probably correct on that last point. Improved LN interoperability among different devices and existing Bitcoin wallets is crucial to achieve an ecosystem that's ready for mainstream consumer/merchant adoption. |
|
|
|
Doesn't it say something different than the article and people here are understanding? My take is people won't have to pay taxes on transactions where they made $200 in profit or less. So if someone bought 1 BTC for $10000 and would buy something for $10150 after BTC price had increased to $10150, they wouldn't have to pay taxes on the $150.
Yes, up to a total of $200 in gains per year. I am confident the IRC does not allow for endless de minimis tax exemptions taken in this manner, though. We can't just gain $199 per transaction over and over without triggering tax liability. This is aimed at very small transactions and accordingly, very small gains. |
|
|
|
A bill has been prepared entitled "‘Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020"[1] which proposes to exclude cryptocurrency transactions of less than $ 200 from the tax base.
The wording of the bill is slightly confusing -- it makes it sound like all transactions valued under $200 will be exempted. I'm fairly sure that's not the case, based on these articles: https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1235320https://www.coindesk.com/us-lawmakers-try-again-on-tax-relief-for-small-crypto-paymentsRather, up to $200 per year in personal transactions will be exempted. That's why Neeraj Agrawal is talking about such small amounts: Neeraj Agrawal, director of communications for Coin Center, which lobbied the representatives on this bill, said it takes some pressure off everyday users.
"Extending this sensible exemption to cryptocurrency would allow users to do simple things like send small transactions to each other or fractions of pennies to dapps without having to deal with a fairly complicated capital gains calculation every time,” he said. |
|
|
|
With locktime, you can access the funds in the meantime. It's just that every time you spend, the timelocked transaction paying your heirs will become invalid because of double spent inputs. In other words, spending those outputs achieves the same thing as "sending satoshis to an address" in your example above -- it prevents the switch from activating. To recreate the dead man's switch, you'll just need to craft a new timelocked transaction each time you spend.
I see, as long as I can still access the funds in the meantime then that's a viable solution. I do not want to spin up a server and expose private keys, If its not something capable from within bitcoin's system then its not for me so that's not an issue. I will have to look more into locktime and what can and cant be done with it. So if I am understanding correctly, I could create a timelocked transaction that is configured to transfer funds from one address to another, and there is a way to interrupt a timelocked transaction if I need to extract funds. Yes, exactly. In fact, you'll need to do so periodically to prevent the timelocked transaction(s) from becoming valid, which would allow your heirs to take your bitcoins. Just to be clear, there is no way to automatically transfer the funds in a reliable way. After creating the timelocked transaction, you need to give it to your heirs (or leave it in a place they can/will access) so they can broadcast it if/when the time comes. |
|
|
|
Oh I see. This is probably not the solution I am looking for then because I want to be able to access the funds in the meantime. I think an easier way to describe it would be for me to have some sort of dead mans switch, where I send some satoshi's to an address behind my two-factor to keep the funds alive every few months, and if there is no inbound satoshi's being detected after x time it then releases the funds to another address derived from my seed phrase that is not behind the two factor passphrase. So the solution linked above would be great for cold storage but my use case isn't specifically cold storage. Think about how vulnerable and unreliable that would be. These scripts would need to be self-executing, hosted on a live server, with access to your private keys. What happens if the server gets compromised? What if there is a hardware failure or power outage preventing script execution... and you're dead? Alternatively, you can utilize a trusted third party like deadmansswitch.net -- similar pitfalls. With locktime, you can access the funds in the meantime. It's just that every time you spend, the timelocked transaction paying your heirs will become invalid because of double spent inputs. In other words, spending those outputs achieves the same thing as "sending satoshis to an address" in your example above -- it prevents the switch from activating. To recreate the dead man's switch, you'll just need to craft a new timelocked transaction each time you spend. |
|
|
|
Blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis said Wednesday that it traced $2.8 billion in Bitcoin being sent by criminals to crypto exchanges in 2019, with the bulk of those transactions going to Binance and Huobi.
"While exchanges have always been a popular off-ramp for illicit cryptocurrency, they’ve taken in a steadily growing share since the beginning of 2019. Over the course of the entire year, we traced $2.8 billion in Bitcoin that moved from criminal entities to exchanges," Chainalysis noted, with 27.5% of that amount going to Binance and 24.7% going to Huobi. Isn't Binance a client of Chainalysis? This is posted on Binance's website: A big challenge in the cryptocurrency world is keeping illicitly gained money out of the system to maintain the integrity of the assets circulating in the system. This is the mission where Binance and Chainalysis are working hand in hand. Throwing their client under the bus and making themselves look bad. Good work, Chainalysis.  |
|
|
|
I am not sure if this is the right term, but my specific setup for bitcoin is that in addition to my 24 word seed phrase I have a two-factor temporary password set up on my hardware device where most funds are stored. In the event of my death, I want to have something set up where after some time of inactivity, the funds are released from the wallet stored behind the two-factor temporary password and into a wallet attached to the 24 word seed phrase itself. The reason for this is because I want to have some way to simplify things so that anyone inheriting does not have to also figure out how to set up a hardware wallet and also use the two-factor password. It can add quite a bit of complexity. For anyone unfamiliar with what I mean by two-factor password, its explained here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Seed_phrase#Two-Factor_Seed_Phrases . On a hardware device such as my ledger this is described as a temporary passphrase. I am unclear if a timelock is what I am looking to setup, and also unclear on how to set up such a thing. Any advice would be appreciated. This thread may be of interest to you: Using Locktime for inheritance planning, backups or giftsInstead of the paper wallet in that example, you could give your family the 24-word seed and send the funds to an address derived from it. |
|
|
|
1)He could improve scalabitlity with
- 3 Mb Block size We already have a 4MB block weight limit. Further capacity increases would just increase throughput. They would not improve scalability. 2) He could improve TX Time and savety by set up Masternodes with an reward of 5% of every block. This would not be really POS if you dont like that It is a form of POS, if only a hybrid form. There is a long list of potentially desirable hard fork changes to Bitcoin called the "Hardfork Wishlist" -- hybrid POS will never be on it.  3) He could make himself quantum resistent That could be done with a soft fork, like the implementation of Segwit's signature scheme. There will never be enough consensus for a hark fork other than a catastrophic technical problem. There are just too many competing interests and agendas. All attempts to force it have failed and as time goes on it'll become ever less likely.
In a few more years the thought of it will seem as outlandish as voting to get the sun to rise two hours later.
Basically. The market has spoken pretty strongly about this: A Bitcoin hard fork = a network split. |
|
|
|
Actually I read that part of the book but I didn't understand it very well This bit is important: Bitcoin scripts have limited complexity and predictable execution times. Script is not a general-purpose language. These limitations ensure that the language cannot be used to create an infinite loop or other form of “logic bomb” that could be embedded in a transaction in a way that causes a denial-of-service attack against the bitcoin network. Remember, every transaction is validated by every full node on the bitcoin network. A limited language prevents the transaction validation mechanism from being used as a vulnerability. Compare this to Ethereum, which was persistently attacked in 2016 with denial-of-service attacks. Another obvious advantage of Bitcoin's model is superior long term scalability. Bitcoin only retains a very limited form of state -- namely, the blockchain and the UTXO set. In Ethereum, by comparison, each block contains a "state root" which stores the entire state of the network -- account nonces, account balances, contract bytecode, contract storage. Ethereum allows for much more complexity and functionality vis-a-vis contract programming and is thus considered "stateful" (while Bitcoin is considered "stateless") but it comes at great cost: Eventually, as a node processes every block, we can thus expect the total disk space utilization to be, in computer science terms, roughly O(n*log(n)), where n is the transaction load. In practical terms, the Ethereum blockchain is only 1.3 gigabytes, but the size of the database including all these extra nodes is 10-40 gigabytes. Ultimately, this is probably why the number of Ethereum nodes has plummeted during a period where the number of reachable Bitcoin nodes has steadily grown. To counter unsustainable state growth, Ethereum will need to implement schemes like state rent. |
|
|
|
Am I the first one? I hardly used the website, actually didn't do even 1 trade, but now they locked me out and say they only allow me back in (and get my money back) if I give a photo of myself and my ID.
You definitely aren't the first one. Threads like this surface from time to time. They have always reserved the right to demand ID verification. This is from their terms: 1.5: HDR reserves the right at any time to verify your identity for the purposes of complying with the Seychelles’ Anti-Money Laundering Act 2006 or any other Applicable Law. |
|
|
|
Unless you desperately need Bluetooth functionality (and the Ledger Nano S is still compatible with non-Apple phones via a cable), then I don't think it's worth paying double the price for the Nano X unfortunately. That's the other nice thing -- iOS support for the Nano X. I have a Huawei but the primary phone I carry everywhere is an Iphone. Not that I really see myself transacting on the go much, but combined with the Bluetooth functionality it could be quite useful. The consensus around here definitely leans in favor of the Nano S. I'm still a bit torn, considering the bigger screen and iOS support. Thanks for you opinions! |
|
|
|
Any way How about COB tokens?
They are still trading on Mercatox at 0.00000004 BTC. Strangely enough, the market barely reacted to this news. I guess most people gave up on Cobinhood a long time ago. I don't know anything about COB and had to look it up on coinmarketcap--is that what's considered an IEO? Not exactly. Cobinhood launched an ICO in 2017 to build its exchange. The token was supposed to provide value/utility in various ways, much like Binance's BNB token. In any case, it makes me shiver when people hype coins like BNB, because the performance of coins like that are completely dependent on how the underlying exchange is doing, and if the exchange goes bust so does the coin or token. They are basically securities, much more like stocks than cryptocurrencies. That's okay by me. I just wish people understood the risks. It's like buying pink sheet stocks -- lots of those companies go belly up. |
|
|
|
The Nano X has a slightly better screen - its backlight is better and it's bigger so you can slowly read anything displayed on the screen (addresses do not fit on the Nano S; the text constantly moves). Also, it has a USB-C port - a small thing which might be important for some people. I don't like having a lot of different cables.
The bolded sounds a bit maddening. Thanks for pointing that out! I'd definitely prefer a screen that displays entire addresses. Too bad I missed those Black Friday deals. Anyone have one of those 20% discount codes for me? Shoot me a PM, thanks! |
|
|
|
|
I'm planning to purchase a Ledger to play around with. The only upgrades on the Nano X seem to be capacity (for running more altcoin apps on the same device) and Bluetooth capability. Is that correct?
$59 for the Nano S sounds more reasonable given the lack of new functionality on the Nano X. Are there any other considerations to make?
|
|
|
|
I thought this idea had died years ago, and I'd hoped it did.
In my humble opinion, bitcoin should be denominated in either btc or satoshis, that's it. Same thoughts here. Trying to force new units on people isn't going to work, and it's why the whole "bits" experiment failed. So far, the only units that have caught on are BTC and satoshis. The market has spoken -- I'm fine with that. What makes adoption easier? Making something relatable. In this case, I'm talking about labelling two new, much needed Bitcoin units to accommodate present and future prices of goods and services relative to the US dollar and other fiat currencies. When the price of one BTC hovers near $10,000 USD, we have no unit worth 0.0001 (1e-4) BTC for an optimal conversion for the general public. If the price of Bitcoin gets to $100,000 USD one day, we also have no unit worth 0.00001 (1e-5), which is optimal for that price level. Bitcoin will be adopted either way because of its strong monetary properties and network effect. This isn't worth worrying about. |
|
|
|
What can be positive in the long run is the fact that it will no longer be easy to start a business related to cryptocurrency without knowing exactly who is behind everything, which would mean less opportunity for scam people and run with the money. Almost every time an exchange gets hacked or 'hacked', finding out who's running the business is not a concern. AMLD5 will do nothing to prevent scams from occurring, what it will lead to is higher regulatory barriers of entry, meaning lower competition, higher fees, lower limits, and a lower quality of service. The voice of reason has arrived. I understand that burdensome regulation is inevitable, but this tendency people have to paint it as fundamentally good really bothers me. It's very Stockholm syndrome-esque. |
|
|
|
You should explicitly state your AML/KYC policies. This page indicates that KYC is mandatory: While we respect and honor the privacy of our clients, corporate and individuals, we are committed to undertaking thorough due diligence of both our clients' identities and the nature of their businesses. Therefore customers have to provide the following mandatory documents to comply with “Know Your Client” policy If unverified accounts are allowed, you should clearly state the limits/features of each account tier like Poloniex does. Traders who don't want to verify will be interested to see that. Binapex says they employ a risk-based AML approach. Under what circumstances will you freeze an account and mandate KYC? This information is wrong. As long as you impose exchange pairs that deal with fiat money (X crypto/ USD,) you must submit to identity verification procedures.
In other words, the platform does not impose restrictions on identity is wrong information. That's not necessarily true. Bitfinex operates USD markets and does not mandate KYC. BTC-e did the same for many years. Binapex appears to work with 3rd party fiat processors like PerfectMoney who implement their own KYC. where is the platform is located? Can you provide any legal documents?
Republic of Seychelles Company #8424785-1 https://binapex.com/uploads/Corporate_Binapex_COI.pdfI can't locate a Seychelles corporate registry to verify, though. |
|
|
|
Terrible article. This is how the author proposes we solve income inequality: As reported by Bitcoinist, bitcoin outperformed every single asset class from gold to oil and stocks, in 2019. In the last decade, bitcoin price has also gained over 100,000% at its peak – something no other investment tool has been able to do. This, coupled with the fact that anyone with an internet connection can access the market, means that any US citizen has the opportunity to dramatically increase their wealth without the need to be a recognized ‘accredited investor’. That opportunity is only available to early adopters with disposable capital. Poor people don't have disposable capital to begin with. And years from now, these early adopter opportunities will have disappeared anyway. Bitcoin is just another form of capital. It may transfer wealth from one group/class to another over time as the price rises, but it doesn't address the underlying mechanisms that cause the wealth gap -- real property distribution, capitalist and banking economies, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
