I honestly wonder - if the creator of BTC became multi-billionaire, how could we justify BTC as a legit currency ? One who made the currency gets rich because others bought his currency that is made out of thin air.
Would someone please explain to me satisfactorily ? I could be ignorant on this matter, but I am not trying to be a troll. When Satoshi wrote the paper and developed the software, bitcoins were worthless and there was very little reason to think that Bitcoin might actually succeed. Even now, there is a good chance that Bitcoin will fail and fade into obscurity. But none of that matters. Bitcoin is legitimate because it is exactly what it purports to be, it is 100% transparent, and it stands on its own merits. |
|
|
|
Until someone more knowledgeable comes and explains it better than me. The wallets obviously don't keep any coins, all they store are private keys with which you can access you coins on the blockchain (i.e. send them to someone). The same key would apparently give you access to coins on both blockchains, so if the underlying protocol for creating transactions doesn't change (it shouldn't), your transaction should appear on both blockchains. If this is not what you want, I guess you should wait until the hardware wallet manufacturer updates the firmware which would allow you to choose what specific blockchain to use
That is correct except that a hardware wallet doesn't create a transaction, it just signs it. So, it is up to the software accessing the hardware wallet (Mycelium and Electrum, in my case) to be able to create a transaction that is valid on one chain but not on the other. |
|
|
|
Why is my bitcoin address constantly changing?
It's changing to protect your account that it should not be hack by some poor act by hacker in a globe network. Bitcoin is 100% secured network. Which is providing crypto currency in the name of bitcoin which is 100% secured therefore your address changing constantly. To protect your address 24 hours thank you. Good explanation about this change. I also wondered why online wallets changes the adresses and I got my answer. I wish parity eth wallet to do the same as well like bitcoin. Ethereum works differently. |
|
|
|
|
Don't use a stop-loss. Stop-loss means to sell after the price drops. Don't traders realize that a stop-loss is literally buy high, sell low?
Stop-loss is generally used by traders for loss protection. They mistakenly believe that a stop-loss will get them out quickly if there is a crash. It will not.
In case you weren't aware, some flash crashes are not accidents. You can make money in a flash crash by picking up coins sold due to margin calls and stop-losses.
|
|
|
|
my question is, how much coins you keep in wallet and how much on exchanges?
Is it like 50/50 or more like 90/10?
I can think of only one benefit of storing your coins on an exchange over storing them in your own wallet: Many people believe that storing them on an exchange is more convenient than storing them in your own wallet, but that is not true. Just try a wallet like airbitz and see for yourself. If you aren't trading, then storing your bitcoins on an exchange is a bad idea. There are no advantages and many disadvantages. |
|
|
|
|
There are two reasons for your troubles:
1 Exchanges are just following the rules imposed on them by governments. They are required by law to spy on their customers.
2. It is very easy to commit fraud using the current payment processing and banking systems. Exchanges must protect themselves.
|
|
|
|
I too am wondering how a hardware wallet will just automagically know to split your coins into equal holdings in two coins if there is a split.
Coins that exist before the fork are available to spend on both forks because both forks include the same chain before the fork. Nothing happens to your coins until you spend them. Now, the tricky part is spending them after the fork. If you spent the coins normally after the fork, you will spend them on both forks and the receiver will get both. But, if you create a transaction that is valid on only one of the forks, then you can later create another transaction that spends them again on the other fork. If a fork occurs, I'm sure that someone will provide software that will allow you to do that. ... I have 90% of my coins in coinbase and the other 10% on an exchange for occasional trades. Was thinking about getting a hardware wallet. Generally I'm fine trusting coinbase ...
Because you don't hold the coins yourself, you have no control over how they are spent after the fork. For example, if you tell Coinbase to send 1 BTC to someone, they could send 1 BTC on both forks, or they could even send 1 BTC on one fork and keep the 1 BTC on the other fork for themselves. For that reason, you should move your coins to a wallet you control if there is going to be a fork. |
|
|
|
|
To have $1 billion worth of bitcoins you would need 400,000 BTC. Other than Satoshi, there might be a few other people with that many.
It is unlikely that anyone (other than Satoshi) would have mined that many simply because there have been too many other miners to compete with and many of the mined bitcoins would have been sold to pay operating costs.
People may have bought that many when they were much cheaper, but 400,000 would have been a lot to buy at any time in Bitcoin's history. The Winklevoss twins bought around 100,000 BTC when they were worth about $10.
Some early entrepreneurs could have that many -- Roger Ver, Eric Voorhees and Mircea Popescu are possibilities.
Finally, somebody stole 650,000 BTC from Mtgox.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't expect anything to happen on August 1.
Without more than 50% of the hash rate, I don't see how a UASF fork can succeed. The UASF fork will fall behind and miners will abandon it. The already low transaction capacity will drop further and users will abandon it. The lower the UASF hash rate is, the more quickly it will fall behind and the more quickly it will be abandoned.
On the other hand, if miners signal Segwit because they fear UASF, then the UASF goal will be achieved even if the fork itself fails.
|
|
|
|
|
The confusion is here: "my address". You don't have an address, you have a wallet, and the wallet generates addresses that are used to receive bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
i bought some more eth contract, 7 mhs sounds stupid but i struggle with my mining rig to get hash rate so this is like an add on.
So, you spent about 0.7 ETH. I look forward to seeing how much ETH you have earned in 6 months. this argument just doesntb work. i spent 10 eth on my own mining rig to mine 16 over the year, as do thousands of other people. anything can be argued in the format you use. Sorry, I messed up the grammar. I meant to write that I look forward to seeing how much ETH you will earn from your 0.7 ETH investment. |
|
|
|
I haven't finished reading it, but I have suggestions on what I have read so far: From now on, I will work with the following hypotheses:
I think a better term is assumptions. Therefore, using the Total Discounted Supply Theory of Money, the following expression holds true:
At this point, the TDSTM has not been stated -- only how it differs from QTM. It might be helpful to state it plainly beforehand so that the reader can see how the expression is true. But as I look more, I see that it is actually QTM in the relational form that you have developed. |
|
|
|
... I hold hashing rate worth $ 500. This is giving me around 4.2 TH/s of speed with which I am able to earn $3-$5 per day with different mining pools. This is not much but something is better than nothing. More important is that has flare is being genuine at this point.
I hate to be the one to give you the bad news, but if you paid 0.2 BTC for 4.2 TH/s, you will never break even. |
|
|
|
i bought some more eth contract, 7 mhs sounds stupid but i struggle with my mining rig to get hash rate so this is like an add on.
So, you spent about 0.7 ETH. I look forward to seeing how much ETH you will earn in 6 months. |
|
|
|
If you receive many transactions to the same address, if you then send money from that one address you'll pay higher fees. better to use multiple addresses. Thus if you are a merchant or need to receive money always to the same address, you'll basically fucked up...
You only pay unnecessary high fees if your inputs are small/dust amounts because the amount will not be enough to cover the fee for additional bytes. Otherwise, it is cheaper than sending from multiple address.
Both of these are incorrect. It doesn't matter if you are sending from two outputs at the same address or from two outputs at different addresses. The size of the transaction will be the same. |
|
|
|
|
I have multiple wallets for various reasons, and they all generates a new address for each transaction.
I don't even pay attention to the addresses. Why bother? I let the wallets worry about the addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
CoinTelegraph sucks because they will print anything. My 12-year-old son could have written a better article.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will run out if the miners will mined all the bitcoin that is available for the miners to mine and i'm sure after that maxed out bitcoins then the price will spike up because the only powerful in that time is the person who got a lot of bitcoin because he can dictate the price because of the amount of supply that he got but for sure it will take a lot of decades before we get to that point and it is not that easy for the miners to mine all the bitcoin because it needs strong computation.
No. |
|
|
|
Supply and demand, but there is heavy price manipulation by big players in the field
Sorry, I'm skeptical. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
