Bitcoin offers an alternative to traditional (fiat based) finance.
There's no interest that's inherent in this system. There's no mechanism for easy lending. There's no money supply manipulation. There's no lending off of a balance sheet (only) asset, i.e., imaginary money.
Does Bitcoin offer a positive evolution to finance? If so, how?
Well bitcoin cannot be an alternative to finance but rather it can play as a form of payment and as a medium of exchange for goods and services but it can never be treated as a currency by countries. Thus it simply means that it can never be good enough to be used in lending or other forms of financial activity aside from payments. |
|
|
|
This isnt funny at all and it was shocking. But I dont think John Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto at all. Even those evidence are not sufficient enough to back up the claims that he is the real Nakamoto. But in case that he is the real Nakamoto it will never be the end for bitcoins. The community has survived without even knowing Nakamoto and even if he is gone, which is very sad if it is true, bitcoin will continue to survive. |
|
|
|
I know how they try to make money. They milk as much money as possible from their customers by introducing not-really necessary services and life insurance. They try to attract you with their promos. I just opened my account last week. To be safe, I only open an account on top banks renowned worldwide.
I just finished some reading materials last month and I realized that banking system is not really focused in giving services but rather making profit. As long as it guarantees them huge income they need to create more services and offer it to the public. That is why that banks are called evil since their intention is no longer customer oriented but profit oriented. |
|
|
|
I think bitcoin can't survive until 20 years from now, maximum maybe only 8 years again. The security and banned from the government is the main factor that make bitcoin can't survive for long term.
No, bitcoin can survive until up to 20 years and longer. The total market cap of it keeps on growing and that's the reason why it can survive for a longer time, there would be changes and upgrade but it will remain as the original/origin of cryptos. And once 20 years has passed, the price will become bigger and we can use 1 satoshi for buying something. I thought for 20 years of bitcoin will survive. therefore a time not so long ago. especially at this time bitcoin is still in development stages. course of time it would be a good time for bitcoin Yes most of us believe that bitcoin will survive for 20 years. And it is very possible that bitcoin can be one of the most used currency throughout the world 20 years from now. Once the development of bitcoin is done and we saw the great progress of it and many liked that change then it will make bitcoin as one of the most promising new currency. Bitcoin will not just survive for 20 years it will remain to exist for more than 50 years. Though bitcoin will not be able to replace the fiat currency around the world but it will be accepted as a form of payment in all parts of the globe. Japan last April 1 has launched its statement that they will accept bitcoin as a form of payment. Though different countries will not accept bitcoin as a currency but as long as it can function as a medium of exchange and will continue to increase in value I will still be thankful. |
|
|
|
I'm not following you. By the way I'm using Electrum
According to my friends that is the disadvantage of using electrum based wallets I did not confirm it but I want to share it since you opened up this topic. There are cases that when you placed a small amount of miner fee there are tendencies that your satoshi will be delayed for a long period of time and sometimes it will no longer come in. It is much better to use web wallet since even with a small miner fee you can actually receive your satoshi in your wallet. |
|
|
|
I wont click on your link and feel too lazy to run it in sandbox ( use another service to open the link) can you explain what it is good for? why do we need it? what can this do?
The same goes for me I got error while clicking the link the browser tells its not safe to open. Well anyway I have the same question such as what is the use for calculating private key to public key? Im sorry if I asked this, Im not very good with technicalities and so I am glad to see your post. I am also hoping I can already open your link without getting an error. |
|
|
|
The war on syria were all just for show and big people from big countries are controlling the conflict since they want to have control over the resources of Syria which is the oil deposit. The real victims here are the Syrian civilians especially the children. This is very sad knowing that the war was not done out for protection and welfare of the people but because of greed by some people. |
|
|
|
The only health reaction against Miners Mafia that threat not only the developer that maintain bitcoin for 8 years now but and the whole bitcoin community is UASF. Today after the expose of ASICBOOST and Jihan open threats for one more time against everyone, node that signal UASF had a huge spike http://uasf.saltylemon.org/#oo  everyone must signal or comment to their nodes for UASF. To do this you need to simple add to bitcoin.conf this simple line and after restart the node uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148 This is a good news since the bitcoin holders such as us have a control on the nodes. If this continues then we will no longer mind the conflict between the core and the bitmain. But hope that someday the UASF will not also be controlled by greed and will not become problematic on the long run. Bitcoins success for this point of time will rely on UASF. |
|
|
|
Should I sell now ?
Yes, the price is already high dont wait for it to go down again. Converted my btc this morning when the price is at 1200$ . Hope i made a good decision. Sometimes it is better for you to convert your BTC into fiat, but if you can hold your bitcoin furthermore means you can make another 200$ profit because after many speculation and rumors, now bitcoin price is increasing after Japan declares bitcoin as legal currency in their country. Yes, i think japan will be the first accepting the bitcoin as a legal payment in the future and i hope more retail will be following it. the price will always increase in the future. The price of bitcoin has jumped again after a big drop a few months ago. The spike was probably caused by Japan who declared that they will start accepting bitcoin as a form of payment in exchange for goods and services. Though Japan does not look at bitcoin as a currency but their acceptance will bring about a major impact on the bitcoins price in the market. |
|
|
|
I am tired of this shit... First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
It is not that they feel that 1MB is the optimal number (if the max block size was currently 2MB, they would not be pushing for the max block size to be lowered to 1MB), and it is not that they are against 2MB blocks in itself, it is that they are against any max block size increase ever. From the core roadmap https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.htmlFinally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not
be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic
block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk
and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals
(such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will
be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and
understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the
risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor.
They want improvement and security BEFORE raising the blocksize, nowhere does it say 1mb forever.
It makes no sense from both a technology standpoint (i.e. afaik SegWit adds no significant reliability and security that would alleviate issues that a 2MB block could cause, instead the improvements of SegWit are bugs fixes for things that have nothing to do with block size) and also because it is quite clear that they know Bitmain can covertly block all block size increases, so they know that the 2MB offer is actually a clever ploy of Bitmain wherein Bitmain's own customers will end up blocking the block size increase (so Bitmain can deny that they did it) and also because Blockstream knows they become irrelevant once the market has SegWit and block size increases. The market won't be in any rush to accept further protocol changes from Blockstream. So Blockstream is fighting for their control against Bitmain. So then if you understand all this I have written, then you understand that Bitmain is really against block size increases, but they have such a clever strategy that they can make it appear that they are for larger block sizes. The covert aspect of asicboost is a very key component to the masterful chess that Bitmain is playing. Bitmain's goal is to keep the protocol immutable and to destroy Blockstream. Very simple. But they have a clever strategy which obscures their actual intentions. Blockstream's goal is to be in control of the changes to Bitcoin's protocol.
Read again Bitmain's statement with this new analysis in mind.
I enjoy figuring out these mental chess challenges. That is why I do it. Not because I am for or against anything. I am trying to help readers understand the facts.First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit. Blockstream probably couldn't repeat that in public, because Bitmain would deny it and accuse Blockstream of fabricating lies.
Am I correct so far?
First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit.
Am I correct so far?
It could be a matter of opinion. Or maybe you have perceived one actors tactical methods used in pursuit of their strategic goals. If you had the chance to get your most significant work approved (SegWit) and only had to accept a 2MB block, why wouldn't you do it? It makes absolutely no sense. Can you think of any other rational explanation than the one I offered? Even if Blockstream had an opinion that they don't like 2MB blocks, they wouldn't block their own work over such a small quibble. There has to be a more significant reason they refuse 2MB blocks with SegWit. I offered my reason. Is there any possible other reason that makes any sense? (note I am so very sleepy, so we may have to continue this after I sleep) Presuming I am correct that Bitmain knows that Blockstream will never accept a 2MB+SegWit proposal, then you can then re-analyze their statement knowing full well that he knows there will never be big blocks.
Furthermore Bitmain is challenging the community to make AsicBoost patent licensing accessible to everyone. And to enable AsicBoost in the most optimum way. But Bitmain already stated that larger blocks make AsicBoost less efficient.
And remember some "hacker" (which is actually Bitmain but nobody can prove it) can release the covert upgrade so all Bitmain's [existing customers who own] miners on the planet could increase their efficiency and side-step the patent (and also they would be against large blocks).
So Bitmain is total BS about wanting larger blocks. Bitmain is trying to destroy Blockstream by never allowing them to get any protocol changes at all. That is why they proposed the 2MB+SegWit at HongKong. And that is why @Gmaxwell is wanting to block the covert AsicBoost.
But Bitmain has checkmated Blockstream. Think it out. I am too sleepy to explain all the detailed reasoning.
So I hope you understand that I don't think Bitmain nor its customers are currently employing asicboost in mining. Rather Bitmain has an installed base of customers worldwide (where the patent is a liability for the customers) whose hardware could suddenly be made more efficient if Bitmain were to release the software/firmware upgrade to enable asicboost.
Thus Bitmain has a poison pill on any block size increases which won't pin the blame on them for the failure of any soft (or hard) fork which attempts a block size increase. Because a "hacker" (who is actually Bitmain) could release the covert asicboost upgrade over the Internet, and then all those Bitmain customers would be economically incentivized to employ it and to block both block size increases and @gmaxwell's overt BIP (which is supposed to block the covert form of asic boost but not the overt form). Or even some clever people might reverse engineer and design the upgrade from scratch and release it. The point is the customers of Bitmain wouldn't want to run the overt asic boost because they wouldn't want patent liability. And those customers would also not want block size increases because asic boost looses efficiency with larger block sizes.
So Bitmain can block any block size increases without it even being provable that they did obstruct it. It can be made to appear that Bitmain was the good guy and was supporting 2MB blocks, but in fact behind the scenes Bitmain has already told Blockstream the truth and Blockstream is realizing they are fucked and trying to find a way to fight back, but it is too late, they are already checkmated by Bitmain's very clever strategy.
Bitmain urges the community to make the patent licensing available to all (not their patent but the patents held by others on asicboost) so it appears Bitmain is the good guys. Yet in reality, Bitmain knows that the patent licensing won't be forthcoming because you can't organize such a thing given there are multiple patent holders in different jurisdictions. Thus Bitmain knows the covert upgrade is the poison pill that blocks any thing Blockstream would attempt to do. Blockstream is now frantic and desperate.
Given the Chinese now know they have us by the balls, they are always manipulating the LTC markets as well. Using all this to pump up and crash the LTC price at will and taking more BTC from all of us.
I am hating PoW even more. I want to make those ASICs irrelevant. I want to eliminate PoW. I am so tired of all this fighting and manipulation. Before I supported Bitcoin because I thought it was a stable and politics-free reserve currency of the altcoins which I could hold without losing my time on this shit. Now these fuckers have turned the Bitcoin into a fucking noise that makes it just not worth it.
I will kill this shit. I hope you guys understand what is really going on.
I don't take sides. Bitmain is attempting to maintain immutability. Blockstream is attempting to take control and gain mutability. And all the fuckers involved are gaming this shit and making it a huge fucking mess. So we need to destroy this shit and replace it with something that actually works properly without any possible politics.
Impossible? Maybe. But I love a challenging goal.
I also think that giving every asicboost for free means that no one will have the advantage, and so now one will stand to lose anything by going with bigger blocks.
Not everybody has Bitmain's hardware. Not everybody is willing to risk the liability of running a (potentially) patented thing covertly. It is just simple economics. Miners are forced to support what gives them an economic advantage. Why would Bitmain not want a larger max block size? Larger blocks will ultimately lead to additional total tx fees (and in turn higher overall block rewards), both of which will lead to greater profitability of those who run their equipment, which would theoretically lead to higher market prices for their equipment, and most importantly, more profits for them.
1. Because killing Blockstream and removing their ability to destroy Bitmain (and Bitcoin) by controlling the protocol is more important. 2. Because SegWit can be added on Litecoin where they can still earn all those fees, and Blockstream will be impotent. It all about removing the coup d'etat of Blockstream. In that way I like Bitmain, but as I said the Chinese are fucking with us and making it a fucking mess. I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible. Can there be a better way? Maybe not. Maybe yes. I have ideas I need to go work on. So are there are any objections to my analysis of this fucking mess?
I also think that giving every asicboost for free means that no one will have the advantage, and so now one will stand to lose anything by going with bigger blocks.
Not everybody has Bitmain's hardware. Not everybody is willing to risk the liability of running a (potentially) patented thing covertly. It is just simple economics. Miners are forced to support what gives them an economic advantage. but Bitmain said he would want to work with other patent holders to null and void the patents and make it available to everyone. his reasoning was, its better for bitcoin's security, to have an extra 20% hashpower over all, then drop hashing power by disabling his (potential) advantage. I already refuted that: Bitmain urges the community to make the patent licensing available to all (not their patent but the patents held by others on asicboost) so it appears Bitmain is the good guys. Yet in reality, Bitmain knows that the patent licensing won't be forthcoming because you can't organize such a thing given there are multiple patent holders in different jurisdictions. Thus Bitmain knows the covert upgrade is the poison pill that blocks any thing Blockstream would attempt to do. Blockstream is now frantic and desperate. Can anyone find a flaw in my analysis?
Can anyone find a flaw in my analysis?
not really. it rings a tad false to me, and seems highly speculative, but its a workable theory... If you can't come up with an alternative ECONOMICALLY plausible theory, then you'll know mine isn't speculative. You can't just believe what people say. You have to analyze if what they say makes any sense or not.
I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible.
+1 and your analysis makes sense to me Thank you. I am also tired of this. There are many explanations coming from both party but they dont speak about their flaws and only focused on the flaws of other groups. Both groups promises something but behind it they are the ones responsible in attacking the system. This trend has become a war between groups and the holders are now watching a war movie in the bitcoin network. |
|
|
|
found this on r/btc: "Bitmain signed the HK agreement and we support SegWit as long as there is a block size bump up hard fork. So it cannot claim that Bitmain is against SegWit.”
---
I now expect Core shills to complain about a HF. HF aren't bad if everyone agrees on the change...
guess what, the only people against 2mb/segwit is Core.
This is a very surprising turn of events and this kind of move by bitmain was a good move and will place the core on the edge. We dont know how the core will answer to this kind of movement but I guess they will not give a reply and continue to proceed on their original plan. Well let us just hope that everything will turn out well and that both groups will agree to something for the sake of bitcoin and the community. |
|
|
|
Today near Washington crashed American military aircraft. It turns out that the old planes are falling, and the purchase of new F-35 Tramp refused. Maybe this was agreed by Putin and his team Trump?
If the US army to world war 3 or they are planning to wage a war then they should purchase new high tech and powerful air weapons. But given the fact that Trump did not want to purchase new air battle crafts it simply means that Trump is not going to prepare for any war. But let us not insult Trump on this matter probably he has better plans for the army while lifting up the economy. |
|
|
|
+1 agree that it is not money. However, if it was a pure commodity then it would necessarily require some (even minimal) use value, beyond an exchange value. Right now bitcoins have a 0% use-value and a 100% exchange value (eg, if they could not be exchanged for something else, they would merely be taking up space on our harddrives and are inherently useless, like random chunks of data).
Money is a currency, not all currency is money. Bitcoin is not money but it is a currency . This is a clear explanation on the difference of bitcoin and money and it is very simple and I salute you on that. Making things simpler is much understandable rather than reading a long complicated line full of technical terminology which is a pain in the head. But even though bitcoin is a currency as long as it is backed up by money it has earned a value. |
|
|
|
People have been saying this every year for the last 40 years. There might be a correction, like what happens in market cycles every 30 or so years, but a full blown crash is very unlikely.
It is indeed true since the market is very unpredictable and very volatile. Again after migrating to ethereum there was another aspect of segwit that will run on LTC rather on bitcoin. Many are now going to transfer to LTC at this point of time and it was really fun yet disappointing. It is fun since even if how many people are shifting to LTC the price of bitcoin is still going up. |
|
|
|
|
Oh my I should have read this topic weeks before the actual pump on LTC has occurred. I have been regretting my decision on not buying ltc when it was just at 500k sats and actually purchased LTC on the last hour when it finally hits 1 million satoshi or 0.01 btc. But anyway I hope the LTC bubble will continue and I can get profit from it.
|
|
|
|
First round vote for the next French President: Who will win it and how many vote % will Marine Le Pen have?
Market for the next French President is one of the most popular ever at Fairlay, and it will be decided quite soon as the first round is scheduled for April 23, with the potential runoff at May 7. And though there were many changes at first, in the last couple of months Emmanuel Macron is keeping lead over Marine Le Pen, with Francoise Fillon staying behind. Next French President
Predict at Fairlay: https://fairlay.com/market/next-french-president-2/.And though Macron is the favorite to win the runoff, could he win the most votes in the First round as well? This week, a Le Monde/Cevipof opinion poll said that centrist French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right rival Marine Le Pen are tied on 25 percent of the first-round election vote. So, it is a tight race and you can use that at Fairlay. Next French President: First round winner
Predict at Fairlay: https://fairlay.com/market/next-french-president-first-round-winner/.Thus, at Fairay, Marine Le Pen is still given slightly bigger chance to win the first round but even if she wins it, with how many vote % will she win it? At the moment, 20% to 30% looks like a sure bet, but a lot of people think polls could once again be wrong. Could she go above 30%, or even 40%, or disappoint by staying above 20%? Well, make your opinion. Marine Le Pen 1st round vote %
Predict at Fairlay: https://fairlay.com/market/marine-le-pen-1st-round-vote/. Well we hope that the prediction on fairlay can actually occur and the Marine Le Pen can actually win the election so that new changes in France can occur. Aside from that if she win the election the price of LEPEN coins that is named based on her name will increase in value and many traders are already at watch on the election that would not only change the future of France but will also dictate the potential profit of the traders. |
|
|
|
|
I do agree with that since even by using simple logic if you compute all of the bitcoin nodes when their numbers combined we can get a result much more powerful and stronger than the supercomputers. But if you increase the numbers of supercomputers or the CIA will launch their Quantum computers which is a thousand times more powerful than supercomputers then probably it will defeat all the combined nodes not only in number but in power.
|
|
|
|
We cannot really understand the depths of their reasoning since we are not living in their country and have not experience the kind of life that they are in. In this regard the school may have a good a reason for suspending the students for 10 days and it is not really a big deal of a punishment. This is done by the school probably for the sake of the children and their beliefs. |
|
|
|
On March 8th, Cheollima Civil Defense(CCD) released a video on its website claiming:” Han Sol, the son of Kim Jong Nam, and two other family members were met quickly and relocated to safety. “ And they receive bitcoin for financial support. This is something nice to do. BUt what if bitcoin be used to support some bad organizations, even terrorists? Is this already happening?
That is feasible and possible. If US dollars can be used to buy our necessities it can also be used to finance terrorism. Bitcoin as a currency can also be used in buying our necessities if the local merchants will accept it and at the same time it can be also used to finance terrorism. What I mean is the use of any currency will depend on the intention of the holder. Whether it is bitcoin or dollar the government must secure that both will not be used to fund terrorism and cause many deaths. |
|
|
|
New cryptocurrency that is integrated with a biorecognition system, electronic banking system, the blockchain and the possibility of a small paid services, will be presented April 6 by the company Humaniq.
The company thus expects to launch bitcoin and Bank for the poor, the audience is 2 billion people. Moreover, emphasis will be placed on the residents of India.
In the future, the project Humaniq should give you an idea and predictions for the future of blockchain technology in the global financial industry.
The idea of the company is to integrate the already existing practices of digital financial technology and social experiments. The project will be to issue a cryptocurrency HMQ.
Transactions are not anonymous, access system will be provided with biorecognition user's facial geometry, and perspective and voice.
Users will be provided a start-up loan 500 HMQ and low-paid work in the framework of the entire concept. Users can earn $30-60 a month for the checking account of the operation of the site or Refine the geolocation.
The company's mission is Humaniq put providing fundamentally new services to the audience of 2 billion people, to work with bitcoin, the system will not.
Later in Humaniq are going to convert the cryptocurrency into the national.
HMQ or Humaniq is a great concept. If we are going to make bitcoin as an international currency then we need all countries to make their own national cryptocurrency. Just like we have a local fiat currency and there is the US dollar as the international currency we are going to follow that pattern but we are going to modify it by replacing US dollars by bitcoin and local currencies with local cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
