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? |
|
|
|
|
TL;DR: Ethereum is doomed to failure because a previous Vitalik start-up failed (badly).
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the feedback!
1.Does that mean, all Bitcoins sent to my former Bitcoin-addresse(s), Mycelium does automatically transfer them to my actual Bitcoin-address?
2.And what, if in the meantime my Bitcoin address did change 30 times. Does that still work?
"my Bitcoin address" -- That's not the right way to think about it. You don't have a bitcoin address. You have a bitcoin wallet. It can contain/manage an unlimited number of bitcoin addresses. My Mycelium wallet is up to over 200 addresses now, each one generated automatically when the previous one was used. |
|
|
|
But I have to ask, why not just send the bitcoin to your new address? Is it a smallish amount, or are the fees looking too daunting?
Because you can't send bitcoins with a paper wallet. It's just a piece of paper. If you have say a desktop wallet with some coins and you also have some coins on a paper wallet, can you sweep those coins on the paper wallet to the desktop wallet or will that replace your whole wallet and balance on the desktop wallet?
People that write "wallet address" are probably unaware that wallet can contain more than one address. There is no danger of losing bitcoins by importing or sweeping a private key. Some wallets let you import a private key. In that case, the wallet assumes control of the private key and its address. Many wallets don't have that capability because they don't store private keys. These wallets may offer the ability to sweep your private key, rather than import it. The difference is that when a wallet sweeps a private key, it creates a transaction that sends the bitcoins from the swept address to itself and then forgets the swept private key. Sweeping a private key is generally safer because when you take the paper wallet out of protective storage, you increase the risk of exposing the private key to someone. Once the bitcoins are swept from the paper wallet, the swept private key no longer has any bitcoins. The downside to sweeping a private key is that the bitcoins have to be sent and that will cost money and time. |
|
|
|
The problem with Genesis ' ....[/b][/size][/color][/font][/u]
bla bla scam scam scam, the same argument over and over again. i invested in edgeless if i had kept as eth i would have made more money that argument works for loads of coins investments. i bought GM and have been clear about the costs and returns. yes i made money on referrals all of 3 usd dollars yesterday, you and others have signatures for coins etc, most likewise never actually used them just looking for a freebie. i actually use them and they work for me, people ask for advice so i post. it is the same type of people shouting the loudest going from thread to thread trying to force people to their viewpoint. i have never forced anyone, they can decide. maybe btc doesn't go up maybe it goes down, who knows, but to dictate what people should do because you don't want them to do something is bloody stupid. My understanding is GM has been going 3 years, why not spam polybious or proper ponzi schemes. I don't consider GM to be a scam because they are open and transparent. You are getting exactly what you pay for. Others might consider it a scam because the customers are being mislead -- you aren't getting what you think you are getting. However, I do believe it is a bad investment because you can do much better by buying the coins directly, rather than paying GM to mine them for you. The source of the confusion is caused by looking at the investment in dollars, rather than the currency that is actually being earned. It confuses the gains/losses from holding the currency with the gains/losses from mining the currency. |
|
|
|
|
I believe a flaw in the argument is that once Segwit is the consensus, reverting it would cause a fork because not spending a segwit transaction properly would be considered invalid by the rest of the network.
Forking the network would not be a viable attack because the attacking miners would be on an unsupported fork.
|
|
|
|
... Reaching ROI can be very much possible if you invest with a credit card and not with a crypto currency because at the time you end your contract bitcoin might be 2 times what it was back when you initially bought the contract.
The problem is that you will get more if you just buy the crypto instead of cloud mining, and you will have it immediately. |
|
|
|
|
You didn't say which wallet you are using. The instructions for using the wallet will tell you how to back it up. In general, if you are using a wallet that has a 12 or 24 word phrase, then that phrase is your back up.
|
|
|
|
As you can see, both are using the symbol "ARC", is this normal? And won't this affect some websites/exchanges/wallets ?
There are no official currency symbols for cryptocurrencies, so exchanges can use whatever symbols they want. If an exchange lists ArcticCoin and Arcade City, they will have to use a different symbol for one of them. |
|
|
|
i looked at the eth one and for me to get 100 m/h rate cost me over 3k usd plus electricity. they offer a 2 year one for 2799 (plus discount) so on paper that is better than my rig. some people don't want the hassle GM fills the gap.
A 100 MH/s contract costs $2799, or about 7.5 ETH. 100 MH/s currently mines 1.73 ETH per month, but the ETH difficulty is doubling every month, and at that rate of increase the most that 100 MH/s can ever mine is about 3.75 ETC. You are paying 7.5 ETH to mine at most 3.75 ETH. |
|
|
|
ive posted a few times on here with my experience, i have done well just over 2 dash in 3 months so for 475 dollars not bad.
But how many dash did the $475 contract cost? I bet it was more than 2. Three months ago dash was $50-$100, so did your 2 dash cost you 4.75 -9.5 dash? it cost 0.39 btc, but there was so much volatility at the time i wanted a hedge. it is not GMs fault that profitability drops or btc went up. like i said they payout on time, respond to my email and fulfilled so far the service i wanted, and because i am not the at best trading i prefer mining. So you paid 7 DASH in order to mine 2 DASH. That is typical with cloud mining, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
ive posted a few times on here with my experience, i have done well just over 2 dash in 3 months so for 475 dollars not bad.
But how many dash did the $475 contract cost? I bet it was more than 2. Three months ago dash was $50-$100, so did your 2 dash cost you 4.75 -9.5 dash? |
|
|
|
|
I have bought gold with Bitcoin.
I have paid an electrician with Bitcoin.
I have bought dinner with Bitcoin.
I have bought video games with Bitcoin.
I have bought computer parts with Bitcoin.
I have bought many things from Amazon with Bitcoin through Purse.io.
And yes, I have bought coffee with Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know much about Hashflare specifically, but most cloud mining sites are scams, and the rest are generally money-losers. Overall, the business model doesn't make much sense. Why rent out mining equipment for less than it mines, when you can keep all it mines instead?
|
|
|
|
Please could someone explain the concept of hard fork, soft fork and segwit.
What is the background? why is it happening? and what are the potential implications?
It's about compatibility. A fork occurs when nodes disagree on what blocks are valid. A "hard" fork will occur when nodes start using software that now considers blocks valid that are considered invalid by current node software. If most nodes switch to the new software then old nodes will left behind. A "soft" fork will occur when nodes start using software that changes functionality without the old software considering the new functionality to be invalid. Old nodes continue to function, but they are oblivious to the new functionality. The segwit soft fork is achieved by hiding its functionality in an "anyone-can-spend" type of transaction. |
|
|
|
|
Yes. If you are in it for just the money, then you should definitely dump all your BTC and buy into the ETH bubble. Bitcoin will do better with fewer speculators.
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rates will slowly climb over the next year or two, and then people will not be able to afford the houses and the bubble will pop. It happened in 2008. It will happen again.
|
|
|
|
Hello and thank you for your replies. I am not looking to make money just to transfer funds.
So the next step once I have the coins in my wallet is to transfer to an exchange like poloniex or kraken and sell them there and withdraw to a bank account in the US.
Is this the way to go?
fiat held at exchanges like poloniex or kraken can be withdrawn to a US bank account only or any account in the world?
That is correct. 1. Buy BTC with VND. 2. Send it to a U.S. exchange. 3. Sell it for USD. 4. Withdraw to a U.S. bank account. |
|
|
|
I just accidentally sent some LTC from GDAXX to my Electrum BTC Wallet. Transfer ID is 2615b987-10b5-4a73-9b65-e835e7a43fd0
Any way to recover that?! Thank you!!
Some coins have compatible addresses, and if you have two coins, X and Y, it is possible to send X coins to a Y coin address. The solution is simply to import the private key for the Y coin address into an X coin wallet. |
|
|
|
That's a common myth. The halving does not decrease the supply. The supply is always increasing until it reaches 21 million. You assume that the demand will continue to increase, but that is not guaranteed.
It is not a myth, it is just you nitpicking Or rather deliberately misinterpreting the meaning of the term in the given context. Obviously, people mean the supply of new coins to the market which is evidently diminishing after the halving, as it is meant by the law of supply and demand (I wouldn't call that law a myth either), which people implicitly refer to here. What you mean is total supply of coins in circulation, but the distinction can be easily drawn from the context, and in this case specifically your comment is totally out of place and beside the point You are correct to a certain extent. I am, but only because I'm too lazy to post a full explanation every time this misconception is stated as if it were a fact. TL;DR: The halving does not reduce the supply. Instead, it reduces the influence by miners (as a group) on the market. First some distinctions are important. There are two meanings of the word "supply". There is the money supply. It is the total number of available coins. It is a number, though its value might vary depending on what is meant by "available". Then there is the market supply. That is what is meant by "supply and demand". It is a curve. One axis is is price and the other is the number of coins that can be bought at that price. All coins in the money supply, including "new"coins, are represented somewhere in the market supply. people mean the supply of new coins to the market
First, there is no difference between "new" coins and "old" coins. When people write about "new" coins and they call it supply, they really mean production. Those are two fundamentally different concepts. There is no such thing as "production and demand". Second, stating that the halving reduces the supply implies that the number of coins in the market is now less than it used to be because the subsidy is 1/4 of what it used to be, and it implies that when the subsidy falls to 0, there will be no more coins for sale. Of course, that is nonsense. Coins are not consumed. The coins in the market consist of "new" coins plus "old" coins, and the number of "old" coins available for sale is constantly increasing. So in summary, when people write that "the halving reduces the supply", they are wrong on a few counts. The money supply is always increasing, and the market supply is always shifting to the right. Neither supply is ever reduced by the halving. Instead, the halving reduces the number of coins held by miners, so it reduces the effect by miners (as a group) on the market. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
