It was the same Gavin, who went to the authorities, that presumably forced Satoshi to go underground.Did Satoshi differ from Gavin on this step? Was he mad about this? Was he scared or threatend? .....Did he find out something, we all did not know? ...... Nobody except Gavin know, and he is not saying much. He has the key to the kingdom, and nobody is really asking questions on how he got there... Gavin has been a very loyal supporter of Bitcoin, nobody can dispute that... but his latest actions puts a dark smudge on everything he did. Nobody is bigger than the community  It's not something that we know for certain although the evidence does point towards it influencing Satoshi's decision to leave. Satoshi was already mostly inactive on the forums by late 2010 so it's likely that he was planning to disappear long before Gavin announced he was giving a presentation to the CIA (in June 2011). I don't understand his great efford to force this 20MB fork. Is there something, that depends on this big blocksize other than just transactions without fee getting stuck? Why not strenthen peoples will to pay a 0.0001 BTC fee instead?
how adding more fee will help?if 10 ten people want to do a transaction at the same time only 3-4, will go through no matter the fee, the fee will just prioritize who has the higher ones Enforcing a higher fee would probably reduce the number of spammy transactions though - i.e. so that instead of having 10 people wanting to make a transaction, you might find that only 5 people want to make a transaction. |
|
|
|
|
Because from what I've read, this definitely seems to be the case.
Are there any other online wallet services that offer users the ability to control their own private keys? If not, then why not? To me it seems quite obvious that this is the main reason why Blockchain.info is so popular and why it's not recommended to keep your coins online UNLESS that online wallet happens to be Blockchain.info. In fact, there is a popular saying that "if you don't have the private keys, then you don't own any bitcoins".
That isn't to say that there aren't other security issues that need to be taken into consideration even when using Blockchain.info (such as the risk of phishing attacks, for example). Nevertheless, having users control their own private keys means that even if the site shut down, your coins would still be safe and that's the biggest danger when it comes to storing your coins online.
So what other online wallets are there which offer this feature?
|
|
|
|
My husband passed away last June and I'm unable to log into his wallet. I have not come across the seed nor the password for the wallet. Is there a way that I can get in touch with Electrum to access his wallet and reset info? Any information would be helpful.
Electrum is software installed on a computer. It is not an organization with information about your husband's or any one else's wallets. If you have neither the seed nor the password there isn't much that we can do. Even the wallet recovery people need some idea of what the password is before they can attempt a bruteforce of the wallet encryption. You should search for the seed. He may have written it down somewhere. It consists of 12-13 random English words. This is true. However, if he passed away in June last year then the seed should be 12 words long since the 13 word seed wasn't implemented until version 2.0 which was released in February of this year. An example seed might look like this: constant forest adore false green weave stop guy fur freeze giggle clock If you cannot find the seed then the only other option would be to attempt to attempt to figure out the password (assuming that you still have access to the encrypted wallet). This won't be easy but in most cases, it should still be significantly easier than attempting to brute force the seed itself. If you know any of his other passwords (e.g. for email accounts, forum accounts, etc.) then you should definitely try them first. |
|
|
|
For a list of major Bitcoin heists, thefts, hacks, scams, and losses, these threads might be useful: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83794 (old thread) http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576337Others that could be added to the list: Altcoin Herald: Cryptocurrency news site. CryptoDouble: Ponzi game that collapsed earlier this year. Cryptomine.io: Failed cloud mining operation. Cryptory: Fake cloud mining operation. Dicebitco.in: Dice site that ended in suspicious circumstances. Dice.ninja: Dice site where the owner ran off with funds. Hashprofit: Failed cloud mining operation. Lunamine: Failed cloud mining operation. ShareXcoin: Exchange where the owner ran off with funds. Also, Satoshi Dice ( link) was indeed sold but they are still operating today (although they are no longer the most popular gambling site): http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Satoshi_Dice |
|
|
|
Counterparty's proof-of-burn method of distribution could be used to distribute a PoS coin without the "scammy" associations of an IPO. Tl;dr
Check out Clamcoin for a beautiful way of distributing PoS coins.
Can it be repeated though? Someone who knew about the CLAMs distribution method before its launch would have stood to make an enormous profit by manipulating the system by creating hundreds/thousands of non-empty addresses beforehand. I agree there are an awful lot of bullshit hype solutions, but it's a big mistake to write off everything that isn't pow based in some way becauseof that. Here's a white paper you may be Interested in. As far as scholarly goes, this is the best iv seen by a long shot. That's likely cos it's written by scholars and industry leaders (it's not hard to tell these guys are in another League). It's not a proper white paper so it's termed a technical reference. if it were. Written like a proper white paper the vast majority wouldn't be able to grasp anything in it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7wAe2jt1MMzYVJhUUFnMHQxZ1U/view?usp=sharingIf you understand the math, or know anyone that would. I'd be very interested to here a review of it. Also, I said it suggests that it's more secure. No different to saying it floods in India 10 times a year and hasn't flooded in Ireland in 5 years which suggests it rains more in India. Simply an observation and estimation of risk based on historic data. Based on that observation the odds are that it rains more in India than Ireland or that pos is more Secure. Doesn't mean it is, just that the odds are higher that that is the case It does not appear to be about Proof of Stake. It looks more as if, like Ripple, a whole different system of consensus was come up with, probably because they realised Proof of Stake was no good so tried to come up with something better. -MarkM- It's a modification/variant of proof-of-stake. Perhaps one that is so far different from other PoS variants that it belongs in a separate category but it is still fundamentally a modification of PoS nonetheless. With proof-of-importance, coin balance is just one of the factors taken into account that determine your staking weight whereas with PoS, it is typically the only factor that is taken into account (with a few caveats). |
|
|
|
it is not even 1 year since i have been introduced to bitcoin and i have already lost 1+ btc in gambling with not much profit, as whatever big or less profit i used to get i used to invest it again in gambling. hey guys you all here are old bitcoin studs,please suggest me how to resist the impulsive nature to not put my money on stake, and how you guys manage to stop at that point when you think that im done and i shouldnt stake much as i will lose everything.. how to feel that point that its enough for today..  Trading would be more apt for you. Although there is still risk involved. Just keep asking yourself before investing, can you afford to lose it, before you risk it. Cheers Most newbies who attempt trading will end up losing money. Trading isn't really that much different from skill-based gambling (in fact, I would categorize it as a subset of such). Come to think of it, it could be even worse depending on how much experience you have because someone who gambles on a dice site does so on a more even playing field and at least has a decent shot at making a profit (since there is only the house edge to worry about) whereas someone who goes into trading without any prior experience would be automatically disadvantaged against those who have far more experience than them. On the plus side, cryptos are a good way to learn about trading as well since there is a far lower barrier to entry and you can trade with amounts that would be impossible to trade with on non-crypto platforms (although the existence of practice accounts negates this benefit somewhat). In any case, anyone who is seriously interested in trading for profit should do a lot of research, pick up a few books about the subject, and get themselves acquainted with technical analysis methods beforehand. |
|
|
|
Well, title say all to be honest. How would you introduce them to Bitcoin? Let's say they don't exactly have the technical know-how. I've been with Bitcoin for a while, but still don't understand it fully either, so this will help me as well along the way.
Thank you
My parents didn't really understand Bitcoin at all until they read an article in the local newspaper about it. That helped them understand the basic idea behind it, but they still didn't quite understand how the whole thing worked. Then I showed them this awesome analogy which helped to clear things up quite a bit: http://jrruethe.github.io/blog/2015/04/26/bitcoin-analogy/ |
|
|
|
Asssuming that I had to spend it all on cryptos rather than fiat, I'd probably put most of it in Bitcoin, with a large chunk of the rest in NXT and Litecoin (only because LTC tends to spike more than BTC during a rally). I'd also put small amounts in other promising coins and platforms such as BitShares, Counterparty, NEM, DASH, Ethereum, Monero, Ripple, Dogecoin, Peercoin, and a few others. short litecoin
Is this even possible? I know that it's possible to short BTC on platforms such as Bitfinex but I've never heard of it being possible to short altcoins before. |
|
|
|
In 2010 the average computer was calculating at 100 billion calculations per second, which is more computational power than we had in the entire US Space programme in the 60's and 70's. In 2023, eight years from now, the average thousand dollar computer that you will go down to the store and purchase is calculating at 10 to the 16 cycles per second. That's just a number unless you speak to a neurophysiologist who tells you it's the rate at which your visual and auditory cortex does pattern recognition. So what happens when a thousand bucks buys you the computational power of the human brain? 25 years later a thousand dollar computer will buy you the computational power of the whole human race. Speaking as a long-term transhumanist, it's unknown whether or not progress in computing (i.e. Moore's law) will follow the same trend after 5-10 years from now. We are rapidly approaching the limits of conventional silicon-based technologies which have formed the basis of our exponential trend since the 1950's. Kurzweil argues that once we reach this wall, another paradigm will simply take over in the same way ICs replaced transistors which replaced discrete transistors which in turn replaced vacuum tubes but the alternatives that we've got so far seem to be far away from commercialization. That isn't to say that it will never be achievable. I'm sure it will happen eventually. The very existence of our brain is proof that the barriers won't be insurmountable. |
|
|
|
and the post must i Specifiednumber of symbols
Some signature campaigns enforce a minimum character requirement. That just means that posts which have fewer characters than the limit won't be counted. I know Bitmixer.io has a 75 character limit and so does mine (Coinomat) but I'm not aware of any others that have one. Yours (777coin) for example doesn't. It's possible that a short post can be constructive. And while perhaps a bit more rare, it's also possible for a longer post to be unconstructive. But generally speaking, unconstructive posts tend to be shorter in length than constructive posts and enforcing a minimum character requirement tends to improve the quality of posts. |
|
|
|
People said that the price wasn't moving back when the BTC price was $600 or so in June last year and were proven wrong after the price suddenly tumbled a few months later. Then people said that the price wasn't moving when it was at $450 for a couple of months as well before it tumbled again. Example: One of the distinguishing characteristics of Bitcoin is that it is extremely volatile. This has always been the case until the past few weeks when the price seems to have stabilized in the 400-600 USD region. Of course such a wide range would still be considered extremely volatile if Bitcoin was compared to fiat currencies but do you think that Bitcoin is in the beginning stages of finally converging onto a stable price? Or do you think that there will be more bubbles and crashes in the future?
Link: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=621909Then it was in the $300's in late last year and the same thing happened... And now it's been hovering in the $200's range... I think 2012 was the best year for Bitcoin. The big crash of 2011 from $33 to $3 drove all the speculators away which resulted in the price increasing in a gradual way from $5 to $13 as opposed to a series of spikes and crashes. Development was still very active, services were being developed, and new people were still entering the BTC community. I used to think that 2013 was the best year for Bitcoin because the price exploded so much in that year but in retrospect, for such a huge price increase to happen so early on in its development was far too premature and I would have preferred a gradual price increase like the one we saw in 2012 instead. An earlier post of mine that's kinda related: I blame the bubbles. What would have worked well is for Bitcoin to have gradually gained interest and mainstream adoption. Then the price would reflect this growing demand and the market cap would increase at a steadily rate that would have made the inflation irrelevant. Look at what happened in 2012 as an example. Bitcoin slowly appreciated in price in a sensible manner. Instead what we got were a series of bubbles, bear markets, and butthurt "investors". Bitcoin isn't the problem. We are.
Link: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=921887.msg10125646#msg10125646 |
|
|
|
Well, I like LocalBitcoin and if I am really desperate, I would use a exchange.
The problem with using the exchange is all the KYC and AML regulations you have to jump through to get registered and validated, before you can do transactions.
It's so much easier to trade with someone local, if you find them on LocalBitcoin. {A bit more risky, but it works very well, if you find a reliable person}
Start with small amounts, until you form a good relation and trust, and do this in a public setting.
This, except I sell on LocalBitcoins for the same reasons why I buy the majority of my coins there as well. I'm a New Zealander and while we have a few exchanges over here, our country lacks any major ones and those exchanges that do exist have markups that don't differ that much from buying from LocalBitcoins. Using overseas exchanges is a bit of a hassle once fees are taken into account and most have minimum deposit/withdrawal limits which far exceed the small amounts which I typically deal with when buying and selling. I've been very happy with buying and selling on LocalBitcoins so far, and since I only trade with those who have a good trading history and lots of positive feedback, my experience has been very positive. Fees aren't a huge problem. Last month, I sold about $50 USD worth of BTC via LBC. The difference was between the actual price and the price I sold the coins for was probably less than $3 USD. Not to mention selling on LBC typically requires no proof of ID since the buyer assumes no risk in the transaction. EDIT: Probably should have mentioned that all of my trades so far have been either online or done via cash deposit at a bank. The latter is also a good way to buy bitcoins without ID requirements. |
|
|
|
Hi can you describe the details of digital currency such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin and NXT? Which is more secure?
Bitcoin = Gold Litecoin = Silver (biggest Alt after BTC) the rest is a scam. some people call Litecoin a scam. It is basically a copycat of BTC with some parameters modified, and the dev team is not really the most active we've seen around. I wouldn't call it a scam. It is more like a experiment to try to give everyone a chance to mine with their GPU. They didn't merely modify the perimeter. They had to implement the entire scrypt algorithm into the blockchain. Note that they had made an effort to counter ASICs (even though it wasn't successful). Litecoin wasn't actually that innovative given that Tenebrix had already solved the problem of integrating the scrypt algorithm into a cryptocurrency. What Litecoin did well was creating a fairly launched, well developed, and far less buggy product than the alternatives at the time. Also, Litecoin was originally designed to be resistant to GPUs back when Bitcoin mining was dominated by GPUs. The idea was that those without expensive GPU mining rigs could still mine on their ordinary PCs. Litecoin failed in this regard but managed to keep a step behind Bitcoin in terms of the transition from CPU to GPU to ASIC mining which insured that it always had a niche to fall back on. |
|
|
|
Can anyone show me where the cloudmining review thread is located? Search is temporarly disabled and i can't find it, don't even remember the subforum category.
thanks in advance
EDIT: Never mind, found it
May I know the link to the thread? I wanted a thread like that for a while now and I didn't even know one existed. I'm fairly sure (although not 100% certain) that he's talking about this thread: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=878387Wasn't cloud mining increasingly less profitable? I remember one of the main cloud mining service providers went bankrupt or something.
Many cloud mining services have collapsed. As notlist3d said, GAWMiners was one, but PBMining was another one which was very popular and eventually ended up collapsing. CEX.IO was the biggest one for a while. That one didn't go bankrupt or choose to scam but rather, they shut down* their mining operations since mining was no longer profitable given the low BTC price in 2015. They refocused their business towards being a Bitcoin exchange instead. *Technically, this isn't completely true since customers still had the option to re-enable mining but as I said, it was no longer profitable so it became pointless to do so. What kind of money would one be investing to make profits? Most offer an ROI of about 5 months at this stage and that's assuming that the difficulty will stay the same. After difficulty increases are taken account, I doubt any would be profitable. Wasn't cloud mining increasingly less profitable? I remember one of the main cloud mining service providers went bankrupt or something. What kind of money would one be investing to make profits?
Gaw I'm guessing is who you are thinking of. And I don't know if it's the profit they were just into lot's of scamy things. They didnt pay electricity bill, had paycoin flop, possible legal trouble becuse of paycoin. They are not bankrupt yet.... but they have headed down a bad path. This is why you need to go with someone reputable. And really put in some research into it. And it's not just cloud it's regular miners aswell. It just takes more time to ROI. The 3 month ROI is gone at this point. GAWMiners actually had a fairly good score on that thread compared to many of the other providers. AMHash had a perfect or near-perfect score and ended up in trouble too. Researching the options beforehand is certainly a good idea, but it's not an infallible strategy since even the most reputable businesses can end up being scams. |
|
|
|
Several months ago, I used a service called Indacoin which allows you to buy bitcoins using a credit/debit card. Price-wise, they were similar to LocalBitcoins so I've stuck to buying from trusted sellers on LocalBitcoins since then: http://indacoin.com/changeThe process was fairly easy. You register an account and input your card details. Then they send you a verification code directly to your bank account, which, once entered on their site, results in the bitcoins being deposited into your account. The whole process took me a couple of hours. The reason why such services have higher fees is because credit/debit cards support chargebacks while Bitcoin doesn't. Because of this, someone could offer to buy bitcoins using a credit/debit card and then once they got the coins, they could initiate a chargeback which would leave the seller out of pocket. In order to still make a profit, the seller adjusts their fees to take this risk into account. Hence the reason why services that do offer it as an option tend to implement strict maximum purchase limits and require proof of ID. |
|
|
|
I just don't think I can recall any ICO besides NXT that made people money. I wasn't really even discussing whether or not an ICO is a scam in itself because there are and have been Coins that have done ICO's which were not scams. My reasoning was that for whatever ICO is held, there would need to be atleast that amount or even double that in future funding in order to pay it off where ICO investors could make profit and the people buying on the market could also make profit.
The NXT IPO was definitely the most successful IPO in history but there have been many other examples of successful IPOs. I wrote a thread several months ago asking if there were any failed IPOs: The NXT IPO created millionaires from those who invested 1 BTC. Those who had invested in the Qora IPO have seen a return of over ten times their initial investment. The Reddcoin IPO also turned out to be quite successful for its initial investors.
So, my question is, have there ever been any failed (not scam) IPOs? By "failed", I don't mean obvious scams like Stackcoin where the developer ran away with the IPO and never released a product. Rather, I mean situations where the price failed to rise after launch and those who invested in the IPO made a loss on their initial investment.
Link: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=885343Other than Qora and Reddcoin, there was also Mastercoin which made a 20 times return for its investors and those who sent coins to Counterparty's proof-of-burn address made fairly large profits as well. The way the ICO's are done are flawed as well because if it doesn't sell out then the remaining Coins are sent to an unspendable address and that gives it an inflated marketcap and fucks up the Block explorer.
That depends on the IPO. Some IPOs such as NXT distributed the coins as a proportion of the total invested. |
|
|
|
They do claim that they will be issuing payments every 2-3 days which should reduce the damage if they ever decide to stop honoring payments: All future participants should consider that a trusted escrow has not been assigned. I am making efforts to find a serious user who will host the funds for your security. If a trusted escrow is not decided in the near future, I will issue payouts every 2-3 days to all participants so there is absolutely no doubt that payouts will be issued without any problems and all who have nothing better to do than spam this thread and stir up confusion in this campaign will hopefully take their trash to other threads. Good luck to every participant and don't forget to add your affiliate link from: https://cloudthink.io/idevaffiliate/We offer a 5% commission from all sales made (in no more than 90 days) by investors who click your link and makes a purchase on our website. Link: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074144.msg11499572#msg11499572 |
|
|
|
Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
Can someone please show where Satoshi determined goofy Gavin as his successor?
Thanks in advance for providing that evidence!
The Bitcoin wiki seems to confirm that Satoshi did indeed appoint Gavin to be his successor: Nakamoto was active in making modifications to the Bitcoin software and posting technical information on the Bitcoin Forum until his contact with other Bitcoin developers and the community gradually began to fade in mid-2010. Until a few months before he left, almost all modifications to the source code were done by Satoshi -- he accepted contributions relatively rarely. Just before he left, he set up Gavin Andresen as his successor by giving him access to the Bitcoin SourceForge project and a copy of the alert key. Link: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#WorkHowever, it's also interesting to note that Gavin stepped down as Bitcoin's lead developer in 2014 and another person took his place: Bitcoin’s lead developer Gavin Andresen is stepping down, and handing the reins over to colleague Wladimir van der Laan, also a very experienced bitcoin core developer. Link: http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-steps-bitcoins-lead-developer/ |
|
|
|
Moving to the new fork does this mean the 21 million coins are raised?
I admit I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments but from what I've read during the past month or so, this shouldn't be the case. The fork is a change in the protocol that allows for bigger blocks than the current 1 MB limit. I don't believe that the total number of coins is planned to change. Perhaps you are confusing the concept of larger blocks (measured in megabytes) with larger block rewards (which won't be affected by the fork): Each transaction that occurs on the block chain takes up a little bit of space, and these transactions all get squished into a virtual box (a block). Bitcoin currently operates with a 1MB limit. What this means is that only so much information it can process in each block, this currently comes to roughly seven transactions per second.
The discussion recently in the Bitcoin ecosphere has been to increase the block size to 20MB, thereby allowing more transactions in each block, increasing the transactions per second...
...With Bitcoin-Xt, the plan is to go ahead with a big increase at first that will be followed by automatic incremental block size increases over time. Link: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-xt-pushing-ahead-bigger-blocks/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
