Have you not figured it out yet bro? That is because they have a financial gain in making suckers believe that. Bitcoin isn't all its cracked up to be. I have traded thousands of coins and spent countless hours studying. Its bullshit. Brg444 is the kinda retard that laps it up. Its not about real change but personal gain.
It is/was about real change but there was too much money in play and it drifted off its intended path. It's still possible that bitcoin could get back on track but its looking more and more likely that it will be superseded by a 2.0 successor. No bro it was about get rich quick, scarcity model bullshit... same thing that has been fucking over the masses for the last 6k years at least. Not a merit based system. |
|
|
|
...
You do know that likely the biggest mining company out there, BitFury, sells industrial mining gears to other miners... I know that KNC, one of the largest companies out there, is  <== click   A fraction of one of KNC's megafarms. if they can pump out so much bitcoins, isnt this a monopoly game in mining.. and its 1 sided to people who have those kind of institutional resources. That's exactly what it is and the main point of this thread. Somehow, that logic seems to elude a plethora of bitsheep and their perpetual bleating of trying to turn any events surrounding BTC into great news. - mtgox hacked, millions of $ lost: great news - centralization of mining: great news - BTC price crash: more cheap coins - rampant scamming in BTC: it's the victim's fault - government regulation: to da moon, best news ever - illicit marketplaces: drug dealers are like robin hoods of crypto Now I'm not saying that every news regarding btc is bad. It's just that some people here try to twist everything to look favourable for btc when it's obvious that isn't the case.Have you not figured it out yet bro? That is because they have a financial gain in making suckers believe that. Bitcoin isn't all its cracked up to be. I have traded thousands of coins and spent countless hours studying. Its bullshit. Brg444 is the kinda retard that laps it up. Its not about real change but personal gain. |
|
|
|
|
I want to get involved with a digital currency that can actually work to replace government issued fiat, does anyone know of one?
It would require a standard and a different method for creating them (other than POS/POW). I have lots of suggestions and would like be involved in something that can make a difference. I would be willing to run a node for free and promote.
Not looking for bitcoin zealots, but open mined individuals who realize bitcoin's days are numbered and its impact will be minuscule, at least in its current form.
I am not talking about a medium of exchange for dark markets I am talking about a new monetary system for the masses.
|
|
|
|
I bought 10btc at 470 dollars , are those 'dem cheap coinz' ?
Will I be a millionaire one day?
Kind regards.
I think we could hit $100,000 USD (in today's value) per BTC before the ball drops on 2019. Someone want to quote me?  I'm not sure if we'll hit a million, but the honey badger is definitely going to give the moon a shot (and maybe fly right by). If that goes down, I'd say it could happen in less than 7-8 years. And I think I'm being conservative with both of my projections. Retard |
|
|
|
|
Why else would they come out and say it is costing them significantly less than 400 to mine coins, they are trying to drive out competition by crashing the price. They are hoping to starve you boys out.
|
|
|
|
Really, no one can point out a (possibly-)fatal flaw or danger other than regulation?
There are so many reasons that add up to failure if you ask me, but success or failure is subjective. If success is having something to speculate on or having something to transact in a black market other than paper fiat, than bitcoin is a success. The reasons I see it as a failure is the following. 1. It works off the scarcity model. 2. It is easily manipulated and controlled. 3. The myth of decentralization is a lie. 4. The myth of a means to save money by avoiding excess fees is a lie. 5. Bitcoins value is depended on being denominated in USD or other national currencies 6. The ease of governments to tax, regulate, track and generally control bitcoin. 7. Massive energy cost to maintain and secure network. (massive mining cost) 8. Violates the regression theorem 9. Isnt a good store of value 10. Is an awful unit of account.. you cant denominate a mortgage in bitcoin 11. It doesn't solve any problems for the general population they dont want to protect their own money, thats why they use the bank. and many more, it wont have mass adoption and yes you are believing the hype. |
|
|
|
Maybe that is what a lot of people are thinking about gold and silver too. I say no, people don't give a shit about bitcoin or gold or silver they care about food and electricity,
Food and electricity are not medium of exchanges and people DO care about medium of exchanges. Says who?.. yeah kilowatt hours can be a medium of exchange and food has been once since the dawn of man. Get real bro. Bitcoin over food  I want my currency backed by a commodity basket standard, bitcoin doesn't have the only ideas for currency innovations and won't be the only consideration during a failure, I think people would much rather have an energy standard than a bitcoin standard. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe that is what a lot of people are thinking about gold and silver too. I say no, people don't give a shit about bitcoin or gold or silver they care about food and electricity,
|
|
|
|
This is how bitcoin slowly dies from here. What started as a chance for everyone to generate their own bitcoins and participate in the economy now turns to a few data centers producing bitcoins thus forcing new users to purchase new bitcoins from them. We've traded fiat currency controlled by a few central banks to bitcoin controlled by a few data centers.
Meet the new 1%. Slightly different to the old 1%, but they're still there.
Holy shit I thought I was the only one that noticed that. Nice to meet you I have been saying that for 10 months.  |
|
|
|
You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin? The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it. How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't. People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets. Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?
The users of cars don't know how engines work. The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work. The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work. The users of cows don't know how their DNA works. Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works? "How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't." If I can send from the wallet I am the owner. Am I missing something? if you can send from the wallet you are the owner of that wallet. I mean shit  |
|
|
|
Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?
The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs). tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug. tl;dr You don't know the first thing about Bitcoin, but want to pretend you do and encourage others to do things unsafe. You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin? |
|
|
|
I doubt the price would drop below $266 to be honest, but we'll see. If it does go below that, I'll be willing to pick up a few extra at that price point.
i thought the most recent low was 250 No it was somewhere around $275. 285 on btc-e.. lowest I have seen. 10 more likely than 1000 |
|
|
|
ofc it's impossible.. this thread is kind of dumb, y'know. usually people ask this kind of thing on the beginning of the year
I wanted to say for the year 2015 so yes its kind of dumb ! You can edit the title of your post. |
|
|
|
What happens to the btc community if their infrastructure fails in a few years? What effect would that have?
I dont think it will take years. One effect is the network will get much smaller and therefore less secure. |
|
|
|
You're definitely right guys but I personally think when merchants starts to accept Bitcoin through PayPal (they use PP now) it will be just even easier to move them from PP to Bitcoin itself.
Bitcoin is great for merchants to get paid for their services, but when merchants want to use it and decide to implemet it through BitPay and other craps (not directly their own wallet), it's in fact the same as if they would use PP. That's not the solution to centralization problem... BitPay = PayPal for Bitcoin.
That is because bitcoin is not currency but a way to send currency. Bitcoin does nothing to change the centrilization model. Bitcoin is centralized and the asic chip manufactures are the central authority. Could you put some references? Sounds interesting |
|
|
|
You're definitely right guys but I personally think when merchants starts to accept Bitcoin through PayPal (they use PP now) it will be just even easier to move them from PP to Bitcoin itself.
Bitcoin is great for merchants to get paid for their services, but when merchants want to use it and decide to implemet it through BitPay and other craps (not directly their own wallet), it's in fact the same as if they would use PP. That's not the solution to centralization problem... BitPay = PayPal for Bitcoin.
That is because bitcoin is not currency but a way to send currency. Bitcoin does nothing to change the centrilization model. Bitcoin is centralized and the asic chip manufactures are the central authority. |
|
|
|
No. The government can track bitcoin and in the future, they can tax it.
Darkcoin or other anonymous altcoins claim to be untraceable. Because of this, i cannot see how the US government would consider legalizing it instead of bitcoin.
How do you track bitcoin with tools like the darkwallet, coinjoin, and stealth addresses? By going to the exchanges and demanding accountability of frunds traded there. See no one gives a shit about a bitcoin but they care a lot about USD. When people trade they are not trading for coins they are trading for usd and what they are really trading for is what the USD can get them. They dont need to track every move just gains. |
|
|
|
|
No market based on bitcoin is gonna work the only reason illegal services are at all viable with bitcoin is because of artificially high demand. People are willing to go through all the stupid bullshit to get some bitcoin to buy some Oxycontin but not for printer ink.
The problems are structural with bitcoin mostly it is not a currency, it has no market price which violates the regression theorem which means its not money and you cant base a marketplace on it. It would be like basing a marketplace on rare paintings.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
