All - I apologize the second "MIA". This was totally unavoidable and I cannot got into details at this time, for several reasons. I will post something more detailed by Wednesday at the latest. Today's BTX action shows it will not go away. I have too much time and money invested in BTX for it to go away.
More in a follow up.
MCDev
Waiting...  BTX is far from over IMO if MCDev truly reappears with a follow up message ! Niceee... I just saw MCDev created 25+ BTC volume on C-Cex that day to save BTX from getting delisted ! Well done Sir ! MCDev if that's true that you put through 25 BTC of BTX trades on C-Cex then that's great. Thank you for coming back in and moving things along and showing there's commitment to continue. There was a good feel to what was happening here. The ideas and offers being put forward by people like CryptoVote are indicative that there's a community here that wants to see BTX continue and further develop. I'm looking forward to seeing more activity and announcements. Thanks  |
|
|
|
Cheap coins, thanks  Ethers are not coins. Read the white paper before investing in anything. Ether is 'fuel'... If nobody is using this specific vehicle for everyday business, why would you need this specific fuel? For amusement? becoin I detect a nasty streak of pissedoffedness in your interactions on here. You've fallen into that classic trap of poking people in the eye because they use terminology that, while perfectly adequate given the overall context of the discussion at hand, mat not be 100% accurate. And in your need to highlight this one could believe you're trying to uphold accuracy about Etherium because of your respect for it but no....there's no respect for it because in the very next breath you're bagging it and making sarcastic commentary. So this Etherium's really got to you hasn't it! It's gone in there and is pulling your chain isn't it! You may not like it, you may think it's wrong/stupid/bad/irrelevant or you may just be annoyed you didn't buy in early enough. Whatever it is have you considered just how blatant is your obvious annoyance and almost seething tone? Perhaps you could do us all a favour and consider constructive criticism rather than just I-don't-like-it-cause-I-just-don't-like-it criticism.  |
|
|
|
Just a thought, BTC was made with a small budget by one or a few peeps as an experiment... experiment was to test lots of things..it passed almost all tests..but had some major flaws discovered after a few years of BTC launch satoshi has to choose, keep patching up early code, but this will make things worse long term, and he has a bigger vision , he realises BTC cant do it and he needs a bigger fund. so he decides to create a new coin...but cant use the satoshi name as it will have a very bad effect on BTC price. How many devs have made more than 1coin and been succesful with them both? dev making new coin pisses off old coin community. (if cobbles made a new coin , ltc would die , if evan made a new coin dash would die) what if satoshi is directly involved with eth.... pump btc price to ath at same time do a first ever crypto ico...no need to touch btc premine then theres the main man... Nick, The last known public communication from Nick Szabo was in November 2013 ( same time as btc ath ), leaving many to wonder whether he would ever post again. The seven months silence seems to have followed increasing attention on Nick Szabo after numerous suggestions that he might be Satoshi. In April 2014, researches from Aston University’s Centre for Forensic Linguistics claimed that forensic analysis of Bitcoin’s White Paper suggests that Nick Szabo was the author of the paper.... https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-founder-satoshi-nakamoto-breaks-silence-tweet/ETH launches and Nick comes back ... https://twitter.com/nickszabo4?lang=en-gb/ Nick Szabo @NickSzabo4 Mar 2 Nick Szabo Retweeted George Hallam Why has Ethereum been headed towards the moon? It's computer science, not rocket science: He makes an extremly rare appearance only for ETH... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y3fWXA6d5k - DEVCON1: History of the Blockchain - Nick Szabo coincidentally at around same time btc weaknesses become increasing exploited. Im begining to think we got satoshi with us That's more than "just a thought". That's a Hollywood blockbuster starring Leo DiCaprio (Wolf of BlockChain)! |
|
|
|
wow imagine if augur price rises like ethereum, Well it clearly already has if it's trading in the $13 to $16 region. |
|
|
|
Is this a pump and if yes it is over? I want to invest in it a little bit.
Investing now is really high risk. If you have small investment to do i suggest find some fresh investments such Prism or lisk. You can find both of them in the ANN section. Yep, most coins that enter this phase (the second big spike, after IPO) don't continue to rise for more than 1-2 months. It has been approx. 2 months since the rise started so. . . I think you'll find this is substantially different this time. The key difference is this most coins
This is not just another Alt with superior characteristics to Bitcoin. What's been created is something pretty unique and up on a higher level than the notion around "coins". The level of interest being shown by mainstream corporations and large businesses is on an entirely different basis to what happened both with Bitcoin and the many Alt-coin derivatives. Mainstream business previously looked at Bitcoin in an "interesting, but full of fringe libertarian loonies - we'll just use the distributed ledger technology thanks" style of thinking. Now they're embracing Etherium in a way that all those previous "coin" developments can only dream about. I'd like to think the initial bubble will subside now and we can all buy back in over the next 12 months at half the cost (or considerably less) but I don't think that's likely. This thing's on the edge and likely to take off at any moment as it dawns on so many more people what an astounding development distributed applications really are against the backdrop of what we're currently dealing with on the regular Internet (i.e. poor security, constant DDoS issues, Big Brother snooping, etc). Something's happening here that's as dramatic as the launch of Bitcoin itself (and potentially much more so). |
|
|
|
i'm trying to understand what those dapp are, are they some sort of contract that you can purchase on the ethereum platform?
Are you talking about my post (the mining of ethereum)? I think it's a general question on the nature of DAPPS (what they are, what they're for). Here's a great tutorial site that explains things pretty well. https://dappsforbeginners.wordpress.com/Of particular interest within the context of the original poster's message, are these few paragraphs: The basics
Ethereum enables the decentralised web, referred to as ‘web 3’. What makes it different from web 2 is that on Ethereum, there are no web servers, and therefore no middlemen to take commissions, steal your data or offer it to the NSA, and of course nothing to DDoS.
A Dapp (‘decentralized app’) consists of two parts: a frontend, written in HTML, and a backend (think of it as the ‘database’ for your frontend).
Good news: if you like bootstrap, or any other framework, you can continue using them, as the frontend of dapps have full network access, and CDNs are accessible. In fact, for all intent and purposes, developing a frontend for a Dapp written HTML is the exact same as developing a website, and converting from web 2 to web 3 is in many cases trivial.
Even better news: you get reactive programming baked in (which should please angular, meteor and derby fans), by simply using callback functions, and there’s no new framework to learn.
Even even better news: because Ethereum relies on cryptographic principles to function, every Dapp knows the pseudonymous identity of each user. That’s right, users won’t need to ‘create accounts’ or ‘log on’ to access your dapps, and you can think of this as open ID by default, everywhere.
There is no bad news, except maybe for the bad actors from the web 2 world, such as dishonest exchanges running with the money or gambling sites falsifying random number information to make a quick buck. On Ethereum, the backend operations are validated by all nodes on the network, meaning that a backend will always will do what its code says it does. This is why you might have heard people call Ethereum ‘trustless’ – there’s no need for users to trust into a central authority to ‘do the right thing’.
Hope this helps. Sure that help (even I have an idea about those). But mine was a question which have as aim to tell that his comment had nothing to do with my posts. But cannot tell this if were not sure that his post had to do with mine. that's the reason of my question. Anyhow thanks for the data. No problem. I don't know whether he was asking about your post re mining; I don't think so. My response was mostly to answer his question about DAPPS. |
|
|
|
i'm trying to understand what those dapp are, are they some sort of contract that you can purchase on the ethereum platform?
Are you talking about my post (the mining of ethereum)? I think it's a general question on the nature of DAPPS (what they are, what they're for). Here's a great tutorial site that explains things pretty well. https://dappsforbeginners.wordpress.com/Of particular interest within the context of the original poster's message, are these few paragraphs: The basics
Ethereum enables the decentralised web, referred to as ‘web 3’. What makes it different from web 2 is that on Ethereum, there are no web servers, and therefore no middlemen to take commissions, steal your data or offer it to the NSA, and of course nothing to DDoS.
A Dapp (‘decentralized app’) consists of two parts: a frontend, written in HTML, and a backend (think of it as the ‘database’ for your frontend).
Good news: if you like bootstrap, or any other framework, you can continue using them, as the frontend of dapps have full network access, and CDNs are accessible. In fact, for all intent and purposes, developing a frontend for a Dapp written HTML is the exact same as developing a website, and converting from web 2 to web 3 is in many cases trivial.
Even better news: you get reactive programming baked in (which should please angular, meteor and derby fans), by simply using callback functions, and there’s no new framework to learn.
Even even better news: because Ethereum relies on cryptographic principles to function, every Dapp knows the pseudonymous identity of each user. That’s right, users won’t need to ‘create accounts’ or ‘log on’ to access your dapps, and you can think of this as open ID by default, everywhere.
There is no bad news, except maybe for the bad actors from the web 2 world, such as dishonest exchanges running with the money or gambling sites falsifying random number information to make a quick buck. On Ethereum, the backend operations are validated by all nodes on the network, meaning that a backend will always will do what its code says it does. This is why you might have heard people call Ethereum ‘trustless’ – there’s no need for users to trust into a central authority to ‘do the right thing’.
Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
If what you're saying is true, then every time an ETH is bought or sold for BTC, the volume is attributed on both sides of the ledger (i.e. it's ETH volume and it's also BTC volume). That's not how it works. CoinMarketCap treats Bitcoin as the primary crypto currency
I'm not sure how CoinMarketCap is designed to works. What I described is the correct way of how volume should be accounted for in general. Volume doesn't care if it is a sell or buy transaction. All BTC transactions are accounted in BTC and all ETH tranactions are accounted for in ETH. It doesn't matter if they are sell or buy orders. Yes, true. But currently when volume is spoken of in this crypto realm (and in essence how CoinMarketCap is operating) BTC volume is only ever buy/sell against FIAT. However ETH, DASH, DOGE, LTC, etc volume is a combination of buy/sell against BTC and FIAT (and the corresponding BTC buy/sell that naturally occurs when buying or selling the Alt via BTC isn't then attributed to BTC's volume). |
|
|
|
ETH to BTC --> BTC
BTC to ETH --> ETH
simple.
That is wrong. Both should be reported as BTC volume and both should be reported as ETH volume. thank you! @becoin I don't think that's correct. If you look at the 24 hour volume rankings page on CoinMarketCap it never reports BTC volume as anything other than buying and selling of BTC in all the different FIAT pairs. When ETH is bought and sold for BTC, that volume is exclusively reported as ETH volume. If what you're saying is true, then every time an ETH is bought or sold for BTC, the volume is attributed on both sides of the ledger (i.e. it's ETH volume and it's also BTC volume). That's not how it works. CoinMarketCap treats Bitcoin as the primary crypto currency and when Alts are bought and sold, their volume of sales are reported under their respective identities and that volume is not then also attributed to BTC's volume. As I mentioned before, that's the current situation and if another crypto type were to end up with a greater market cap than BTC, CoinMarketCap will probably have to change the manner in which volume is calculated (and there'd be some complications with that when - if ETH was higher market cap - ETH/BTC buy/sells would have to be taken out of the measurement and only ETH/FIAT left in; as is the case currently with BTC). |
|
|
|
@renegademan: eth can be traded for fiat or btc. btc can be traded for fiat or eth. so why is the btc/eth or eth/btc volume only in the eth volume? i dont understand. and what happens if the eth volume and marked cap is higher that the btc volume and marked cap? then the eth/btc volume is only in the btc volume? maybe im really confused and i dont understand it...
I'm guessing (and someone please correct me if this is wrong) that upon the birth of the first Alt (which was LTC) the volume being reported for LTC was purely LTC/BTC. Then when the first exchange allowed direct purchase of LTC with USD or other FIAT currencies, that volume was added on to the reported LTC volume too. But the volume for an Alt trade is only ever reported within the Alt's volume stats, otherwise every time someone buys an Alt using BTC, that volume would have to also be added on to the BTC stats and that would be unworkable and misleading (as the BTC volume would be out of all proportion to what's really going on). Sooo....if (and it's a big IF) ETH was to overtake BTC and become the dominant crypto, CoinMarketCap may have to think about turning the tables and only reporting ETH/FIAT trades and then putting the ETH/BTC trades into BTC's volume figures. I hope that makes sense. ETH to BTC --> BTC BTC to ETH --> ETH simple. No, it's not "simple" because of the ability to also trade both into FIAT which alters how BTC is measured in comparison to how Alts are measured. |
|
|
|
Sooo....if (and it's a big IF) ETH was to overtake BTC and become the dominant crypto,
Crypto... what? Bitcoin is money. Ether is 'fuel'. You haven't even read the Ethereum white paper. How can you jump to such a conclusion when you don't know anything about me, who I am or what I've done. For the purposes of helping clarify the issues around CoinMarketCap reporting volume, calling ETH a "crypto" is perfectly valid. If I wanted to get into a whole other discussion about Etherium's properties and architecture I wouldn't be going there within this interaction. And I have read the white paper so put a sock it. |
|
|
|
@renegademan: eth can be traded for fiat or btc. btc can be traded for fiat or eth. so why is the btc/eth or eth/btc volume only in the eth volume? i dont understand. and what happens if the eth volume and marked cap is higher that the btc volume and marked cap? then the eth/btc volume is only in the btc volume? maybe im really confused and i dont understand it...
I'm guessing (and someone please correct me if this is wrong) that upon the birth of the first Alt (which was LTC) the volume being reported for LTC was purely LTC/BTC. Then when the first exchange allowed direct purchase of LTC with USD or other FIAT currencies, that volume was added on to the reported LTC volume too. But the volume for an Alt trade is only ever reported within the Alt's volume stats, otherwise every time someone buys an Alt using BTC, that volume would have to also be added on to the BTC stats and that would be unworkable and misleading (as the BTC volume would be out of all proportion to what's really going on). Sooo....if (and it's a big IF) ETH was to overtake BTC and become the dominant crypto, CoinMarketCap may have to think about turning the tables and only reporting ETH/FIAT trades and then putting the ETH/BTC trades into BTC's volume figures. I hope that makes sense. |
|
|
|
Am i the only one wondering about people compare 24h trading volume between btc and eth? if u look at coinmarketcap the btc trading volume is calculated only with btc/fiat pairs and eth trading volume is calculated with every pair. especially the eth/btc pair is only in the eth volume. so apples and pies??
ETH trading volume is more than a half as BTC volume. It would be 100 dollar/ETH this year. did you read my post or did you stop reading after my first sentence? Yes, because there is no BTC/BTC pair. In other words, BTC is a FIAT too.  What a confusing interaction with poorly worded sentences that are ambiguous. If people would spend just a few more seconds checking that what they've written makes sense there'd be less back and forth querying as to what each person means in their responses. Just to take your initial posting KLONE::Vader and try to understand what you're saying: Am i the only one wondering about people compare 24h trading volume between btc and eth? if u look at coinmarketcap the btc trading volume is calculated only with btc/fiat pairs and eth trading volume is calculated with every pair.
So you're querying whether you're the only one thinking about the aspect of the comparison between BTC and ETH that's failing to take into account ETH's volume being across BTC/ETH and ETH/FIAT pairs? So within the context of that question then, what do you mean by this? especially the eth/btc pair is only in the eth volume.
That appears to be contradicting your previous assertion "...eth trading volume is calculated with every pair." (or I'm misinterpreting your statement there). Then this: so apples and pies??
Again, ambiguity means I'm not sure what you're saying. The regular use of the expression when someone's pointing out that a comparison isn't valid because the two things being compared are fundamentally different is generally "apples and oranges". Is that what you're getting at with "apples and pies"? (or is the apple in the pie so it's something with nested levels of deeper complexity? Ha!) I'm not sure but I would expect CoinMarketCap treat each and every trade as part of the volume, but with the distinction that BTC only includes FIAT trades as it sits at the top. So trades in ETH/USD (or other FIAT) and trades in ETH/BTC all add up to make the volume for ETH. In BTC though, you can't trade for BTC (obviously), only FIAT so yes (of course) BTC volume only consists of BTC/FIAT trades. I don't think that means anything in particular in terms of ETH stats being overly different to BTC stats. A trade is a trade. When we look at BTC volume we don't go and get all the alt-coins' volume and add that onto BTC too; only the BTC/FIAT trade pairs are measured. |
|
|
|
Submitted a withdrawal request yesterday evening for btc. I think for larger withdrawals they manually approve them, and given it was a sunday evening I would assume admin staff would be less available.
Anyways, its now midday on a monday, and my Bitcoin withdrawal still hasnt been processed. I have emailed and tweeted to them - generally they are pretty quick to respond but havent heard a peep from them.
Anyone else having issues?
Did your withdrawal go through? How long did it take? What is your overall experience with btcmarkets.net (i.e. good/bad)? |
|
|
|
Glad he's "right" Care to explain what you think "Consolidate DCR! go UP later!" actually means? |
|
|
|
ccex is going to delist btx!
This is really sad news ! More importantly, I haven't heard from MCDev for some time and that really worries me. When I created the BTX project , it was a takeover from a takeover: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1039964.0 of an older coin called BT. The devs had scammed the investors and I was so angry I decided to create a new coin from the old and hoped to create a great crypto-currency. That was the 5th May 2015. In the following months, all this was achieved: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1140039. Then in September, I wasn't able to keep working on the project because of new responsibilities in my life and leadership was passed on to MCDev in September 2015. Cryptovote came as the BTX dev on board and brought some advancements to BTX. The 25th February 2016, I officially left the BTX team because I could simply not participate anymore. I haven't sold any BTX. But now, BTX seems to have lost MCDev. And it's going to be delisted from C-Cex. I am really worried I might have lost all the BTC, time, work and energy I put into BTX from May 2015 to September 2015. Cryptovote sent me a message on the 3rd March though. Maybe he will keep working on the coin after all that has happened. I hope he does. Although I am already out of the project, I felt it was important I informed you of what I knew. Thanks for checking back in TheAltTrader and letting us know what you know. It is sad but hardly surprising. There's been so little activity here on this thread and not too much BTX being traded on C-Cex either (and no doubt that is one of the key reasons they're delisting it). It would be nice to see the project continue. There needs to be some focus on the basics though. I've had trouble with my wallet on Windows not maintaining sync and PMed PrometheusX to ask for help. He responded once with the usual guidelines on what settings to have in the config file. When I pointed out that I'd already done all these things but my wallet was still continually getting stuck, he just went quiet and ignored my follow-up messages. I know that everyone is volunteering their time but it's hardly confidence-building when you can't even keep a wallet in sync and people that have been part of the team just ignore you if your issue is too hard. This coin still has potential and it would be great if you could step back in. All your work should not be in vain. And all the positive sentiment expressed in the past was reasonably genuine. I'd like to see the community regroup and get committed again. This is what I Know. As You can see in the user info, in the site, McDev was active in the site 1 moth ago. Cryptovote is still working on BTX, He found an xploit in the masternodes and is woking on it, this bug affect to dash coin too and all coins based in masternodes, He is fixing the bug but He need Help, even from another devs of coins bassed in masternodes, the fix will fix their coin too. Cryptovote is still working in the sync issues. For now my wallet is updated, I can put my wallet online and I can help to maintain the blockchain moving. I think that the coin has a very high potential. Lets to regroup and commit again. BTX is an anonymous and descentralized coin right? We can follow the same structure as Anonymous Group. We need an integrative and descentralized structure. Devs, Users also, and even any people with fresh ideas, even if She/He is not a crypto dev. Anybody can Help, creating a Facebook Group in their mother language, Twitter promoter. blog, giving ideas, etc. Cryptovote can be our Dev Leader, He is the active leader  . For Now I can Help moving the blockchain. My Wallet is Up to Date. .... All can Help in the project. Thanks for your post tech999. I know you're only one person but it's encouraging. It would be nice if others still holding BTX and interested in seeing it progress would post on here too. Let's at least get the thread active again. If your wallet is syncing properly and is up to date, can you please tell me what block it's at? |
|
|
|
ccex is going to delist btx!
This is really sad news ! More importantly, I haven't heard from MCDev for some time and that really worries me. When I created the BTX project , it was a takeover from a takeover: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1039964.0 of an older coin called BT. The devs had scammed the investors and I was so angry I decided to create a new coin from the old and hoped to create a great crypto-currency. That was the 5th May 2015. In the following months, all this was achieved: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1140039. Then in September, I wasn't able to keep working on the project because of new responsibilities in my life and leadership was passed on to MCDev in September 2015. Cryptovote came as the BTX dev on board and brought some advancements to BTX. The 25th February 2016, I officially left the BTX team because I could simply not participate anymore. I haven't sold any BTX. But now, BTX seems to have lost MCDev. And it's going to be delisted from C-Cex. I am really worried I might have lost all the BTC, time, work and energy I put into BTX from May 2015 to September 2015. Cryptovote sent me a message on the 3rd March though. Maybe he will keep working on the coin after all that has happened. I hope he does. Although I am already out of the project, I felt it was important I informed you of what I knew. Thanks for checking back in TheAltTrader and letting us know what you know. It is sad but hardly surprising. There's been so little activity here on this thread and not too much BTX being traded on C-Cex either (and no doubt that is one of the key reasons they're delisting it). It would be nice to see the project continue. There needs to be some focus on the basics though. I've had trouble with my wallet on Windows not maintaining sync and PMed PrometheusX to ask for help. He responded once with the usual guidelines on what settings to have in the config file. When I pointed out that I'd already done all these things but my wallet was still continually getting stuck, he just went quiet and ignored my follow-up messages. I know that everyone is volunteering their time but it's hardly confidence-building when you can't even keep a wallet in sync and people that have been part of the team just ignore you if your issue is too hard. This coin still has potential and it would be great if you could step back in. All your work should not be in vain. And all the positive sentiment expressed in the past was reasonably genuine. I'd like to see the community regroup and get committed again. |
|
|
|
Dear all,
Due to sudden new responsibilities in my life, I will not be able to stay active in the BTX team as of today.
I wish the best to the project and to the team.
Thanks for all your hard work and input TheAltTrader. Best wishes. |
|
|
|
DASH will go to zero and you will still be cheerleading for DASH  Really ? This is nearly a 2-year old project now. Check back this thread over a couple of years. You'll find clones of yourself littering it all the way back to January 2014. Find a more-modern-mantra-to-mumble Yes. We're supposed to all pack up and go home simply because one low-post forum buffoon comes on and blurts out some stupidity. This project's been progressing very well for a long time now. Just because we're currently subject to a price drop because of the BTC rally means nothing long-term. Give us a break DrkLvr_ and go find something more useful to apply yourself to. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
