I see no reason why this won't be an amazingly successful ICO. The coin is exactly what people are looking for: guaranteed to make somebody wealthy, yet not overburdened with complicated and dubious technology.

The title of the thread is missing a crucial word. It should be

I curious why anyone would write an article about a tweet that is nearly a year old. I mean articles about tweets and reddit posts are worthless, but this article nine months late.

Oh, I see. The article is by J.P. Buntinx, probably the most prolific author (and yet the worst) in the crypto space.

No site holding bitcoins that existed in 2009 or even 2010 exists any longer. Whatever bitcoins you had stored on any site then are gone now. That is one reason for holding your own bitcoins.

That's the problem with Bitcoin right now. Everyone wants to invest, but nobody wants to actually use it.

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.

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.

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.

I can think of only one benefit of storing your coins on an exchange over storing them in your own wallet:

• Convenience for trading.

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.

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.


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.

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:


I think a better term is assumptions.


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 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.

So, you spent about 0.7 ETH. I look forward to seeing how much ETH you will earn in 6 months.

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.