I enjoy the conspiracy theories about Coinbase stealing the users' BCC.
The problem with these conspiracy theories is that the bitcoins held by Coinbase do not belong to the customers in the first place. They belong to Coinbase, who promises to send you bitcoins when you ask for them, up to the value listed in your account. If I owe someone a bitcoin, I don't feel that I also owe them a BCC, too. |
|
|
|
|
And so if I make my own fork and they don't support it, then that is also "plain robbery"?
|
|
|
|
Hello bitcoin talk. New member here. I've been researching crypto for a few weeks now and reading many posts on here in the last few days. I decided to invest and buy 1 BTC today. I am purchasing on bitstamp thru sin trex using my CC. I planned on moving to BTC .com wallet that is supposed to support BCC on the fork tomorrow.
I have some comments to make. I verified thru bitstamp and it took a day or so. Then I have to verify again on sintrex to make a purchase. The verification process seems very time consuming and a little bit frustrating as a consumer. I am not a programmer but I am a constant user of electronic equipment and this process of verification is almost painful enough to deter people from buying and using crypto.
Somebody needs to streamline this process to make it more user friendly if it is to become the new way of paying for things IMO.
Anyways, looking forward to doing more research and trying some trading on the crypto market.
Have a nice day!
Cementhead43
Unfortunately, it won't get better. The identification steps are necessary for two reasons: 1. The current financial system makes it very easy for a merchant accepting credit cards and electronic payments to get scammed. 2. Money services businesses with U.S. customers are required to monitor and report your activities to the U.S Government. |
|
|
|
|
If you don't know what is going on tomorrow, then you can safely assume that it will have no effect on you.
|
|
|
|
|
That would be quite a twist, but it it fantasy. He has done a lot to show that he is not Satoshi, despite his claims in the past.
|
|
|
|
I also supported the suggestion that you should learn JavaScript and Python programming languages. Personally I have started learning python online and it is a very interesting language and very easy to understand at the elementary level I am gradually catching up on the language using an application called sololearn downloaded from google playstore, I am imploring you to the same you will learn so much.
hello, thank you too. python was also my first guess and i'm doing online lessons for the past three days now and it's really fun and interesting to learn. may i ask which programs are used to actually code something like the bitcoin code? There are several implementations written in various languages. I recommend bcoin (written in javascript). You can download it here: https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin |
|
|
|
|
The address that an exchange (such as GDAX) shows you is a deposit address. When you send bitcoins to it, they credit your account and then do whatever with the bitcoins (generally either move them to a cold-storage address or fund another customer's withdrawal).
|
|
|
|
What's a good wallet for beginners?? Looking for a wallet on phone and computer
The best wallet for beginners on mobile is Airbitz. Also, Bread Wallet is a very basic wallet, and Mycelium is full-featured. I use all three. |
|
|
|
|
Language is secondary, but Javascript and Python are good.
|
|
|
|
I just think that a spam transaction attack can easily destroy Viabtc BCH chain. The reason is that this chain will have a very small hashrate, it need many days for the difficulty correction and until then their chain will be stuck.
A malicious person can begin to spam attack this chain and fill the mempool with a huge amount of transaction.
This will be a disaster cocktail and i dont think this small chain can handle the amount of work that need to clear the mempool.
A spam attack would only raise the transaction fees. It wouldn't prevent a transaction with a high enough fee from being confirmed. it is not about confirming transactions with high fees. it is about attacking the network. and effects of a spam attack is far more than just increasing the fees. and during the initial stage that there are a lot of transactions and a long time between each blocks spamming is easy. it can easily be increased to 200,000-500,000 unconfirmed transactions with very low cost. and how long before nodes stop functioning and how long before they implement the same fee policy as core (the same thing they were crying about)! A spam attack on the network will not affect me because I will ensure that each of my transactions will be confirmed in the next block or two by paying a sufficient fee. |
|
|
|
I just think that a spam transaction attack can easily destroy Viabtc BCH chain. The reason is that this chain will have a very small hashrate, it need many days for the difficulty correction and until then their chain will be stuck.
A malicious person can begin to spam attack this chain and fill the mempool with a huge amount of transaction.
This will be a disaster cocktail and i dont think this small chain can handle the amount of work that need to clear the mempool.
A spam attack would only raise the transaction fees. It wouldn't prevent a transaction with a high enough fee from being confirmed. |
|
|
|
Satoshi set the 1MB cap as a temporary measure, but he predicted that users would get "tyrannical" against raising it because of not being able to run nodes and so on.
I've seen no such statement of Satoshi's. Please provide a link. ...while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices. ...
Nice, but that statement was not a prediction. It was a hypothetical scenario used to show how one block chain is not necessarily suitable for all applications. |
|
|
|
well known scammer Roger Ver.
You're an idiot to believe the ridiculous things that people write on Reddit. Think for yourself. Don't be an idiot. |
|
|
|
I would accuse blockchain.info for the problem. I might be wrong but before they decide to make their new wallet(last year) that was forcing everyone to use 1000000s of different wallet address...
It seems like you don't have a full understanding of how addresses are used. Using multiple addresses has absolutely no impact on Bitcoin's performance or throughput. I'd agree with you, however how blockchain made it is when you send 1BTC but have 500 btc in your wallet, you are making a 500 btc transaction. it move 499 btc to a new wallet, and 1 btc to the destination wallet. The wallet which sent the 1BTC end up with 0 BTC while a new wallet have all balance. I am pretty sure 1+ million people sending high amount of bitcoin at some point will make difference. Whether the change is sent to the same address or a different address makes no difference. I suspect you don't understand how transactions work and what a change address is. Please read this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Change |
|
|
|
Again I'm not asking for support to raise the cap, I'm just pointing out it could be raised and that we should stop referring to it as some aspect of Bitcoin that is mathematically limited by fundamental laws of the Universe because its not, its consensus limited.
I feel like you are splitting hairs. It can be shown using math that under the current rules the number of bitcoins is limited to less than 21 million. On the other hand, it annoys me when somebody claims that something has been proven "mathematically", where "mathematically" is intended to mean that the evidence is very strong. |
|
|
|
|
So it looks like they are sending up a 3D-printed piece of plastic with a Bitcoin logo on it. Yawn.
|
|
|
|
I would have no issue changing the code to allow a 1 bitcoin reward for every block forever... to ensure a strong distributed mining community.
I don't believe that a 1 bitcoin per block subsidy forever is necessary to "ensure a strong distributed mining community". I guess you assume that blocks will remain small and transaction fees will remain close to 0 forever. I don't believe either of those. In what ways to you believe that the strength and distribution of mining depend on the amount of the block reward? In my view, the security of the network depends on the amount of the block reward. High block reward means high security, and vice versa. But I don't know how it could affect the distribution of mining. Finally, how did you arrive at 1 BTC? Maybe 10 BTC is needed to "ensure a strong distributed mining community". Maybe 0. |
|
|
|
I think it is better to be safe than sorry. So if i were you if have bitcoin ill convert it to USD first and wait for the result of august 1 because i think this is the safest way to ensure your assets. meanwhile if you have the guts to hold it through it all you can just hold it maybe btc's price will go up or down, nobody knows thats why imo converting to usd is the safest way
I agree. The most sincere and honest response at the moment is "I do not know." Any answer that does not include the phrase "I don't know" should be ignored. |
|
|
|
BTC will always be BTC, so nothing is going to change there.
That is not necessarily true if somebody else is holding your coins for you. They could say "We are following the BCC side of the fork. All BTC that we held before the fork is now BCC." |
|
|
|
My suggestion for you now is to buy more Minereums (MNE) while the exchange rate is low.
This is bad advice. Aside from Trading, please consider a newly released DeepONION crypto coin 2 weeks ago.
This advice is equally bad advice. I suspect pump-and-dump. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
