Arbitrage is always more difficult, more risky, and less profitable than it seems. Cashaa may find that the cost and difficulty of converting to pounds (or dollars) and then getting their money out of India and Nigeria may account for the discrepancies in prices between those two countries and UK.

Perhaps something in contract saying that the receipt of NNN bitcoins at address 1XXX indicates a completed payment. Then once you have sent the bitcoins, if there is any dispute about payment, you can prove payment by referring to the transaction in the block chain.

IANAL

It's not clear to me what additional answers you are looking for, but given the size of your transaction, a $4 fee is not unexpected.

One of the drawbacks of the 1 MB limit, and the rise in transaction fees that it has caused, is that a large number of people have bitcoins that are now effectively unspendable.

When looking at your transaction, I see several outputs whose values are less than the cost to spend them. You paid 85 s/B, so each input cost you 0.000126 BTC (0.00000085 x 148 bytes).

You aren't really arguing that AsicBoost itself is necessary. You are arguing that a level playing field is necessary.

I totally agree with that, but a level playing field without AsicBoost is preferable because it interferes with potential improvements to the protocol.

The article talks about "massive selloffs" before the announcement, but the charts before the announcement look like normal trading to me.

There are plenty of options. I recommend using Airbitz for mobile, or Electrum for PC.

Gentlemen, please don your tinfoil hats!

The Core wallet is not an HD wallet, so you can't. I guess I am way behind the times ...

Why do you believe that lower M means lower V? If PQ is constant, then V rises with lower M.

"Centrally controlled by the world" is an oxymoron.

Anyway, one reason I don't like your idea one is that there is no way to determine what the right amount of inflation is. Zero is just as good as anything else, and so the simplicity of zero makes it the best choice.

Well, becoming a millionaire from mining is not easy. If you spend $150000, you can buy 100 AntMiner S9s that will get you about 0.04% of the total hash power. 0.04% of the total hash power mines about 277 BTC (currently worth about $330000) per year. You will mine your $1 million in about 3 years.

Many people confuse money made by mining bitcoins with money made from holding bitcoins. Very few people have earned a $1 million from mining, but many miners have held onto their bitcoins, and they are now worth more than $1 million.

Profitability varies greatly. It is mostly determined by the cost of electricity. There are major factors other than profitability, such as heat and noise and your time. If you are in a situation where you can mine profitably, then you will need one of these at a minimum: https://shop.bitmain.com/market.htm?name=antminer_s9_asic_bitcoin_miner

I don't feel that either of these is accurate. The size of a mining operation is only tiny factor in the operation's profitability. The major factor is the cost of electricity. If your electricity is cheap, then you can mine profitably with just a single ASIC. If your electricity is expensive, then a warehouse of ASICs means more losses and not more profits.

The reason that you can no longer mine with a PC is that it is no longer powerful and efficient enough to compete with an ASIC.

The opportunity will be short-lived. The difficulty will continue to rise quickly, returning mining to normal profitability. It is risky for a person without cheap electricity to spend the money on an ASIC miner..

How can this not be a scam?

What is the range of IP's? If it is 192.168.---.---, 10.---.---.---, or even perhaps 127.0.0.1, then it is a scam for sure.

Regarding FLOPS vs. hashes/second, here is an analogy:

The Fletton brick company can produce 150 million bricks per year.
Gary Works has a capacity of 7.5 million tons of steel per year.

Both bricks and steel are building materials, so how do you compare the building material capacity of the two? In bricks or tons of steel or something else?


In computational capacity terms, how do you compare floating-point capacity to hash capacity?  They both measure computational capacity, but are not directly comparable.

Just reiterating what Carlton Banks wrote...

The Bitcoin network hash rate is not 45,988,115.27 petaflops. It is 3638726.32 terahashes/second. FLOPS (floating point operations per seconds) and hashes/second are different and are not directly comparable, especially since computing a hash involves no floating point operations.

A final balance of 0 just means that all of the bitcoins that the address has received so far have been spent. If your transaction  and the spending transaction have both been confirmed, then there can be no argument about whether or not your bitcoins have been received.

However, you might still need to prove that the address you are looking at is the address you were given and that the transaction you are looking at is yours.

It is hard to answer your questions because you have blacked out most of the useful information. All of that info is public. There isn't much of a reason to black it out.

If a block explorer shows that your transaction is confirmed, then the bitcoins have been received, but it is also possible that you are looking at the wrong transaction or that you sent the bitcoins to the wrong address.

You can safely ignore what luke-jr believes. Nobody takes him seriously, not even other developers on Core.

The problem with voting "Developers" is that miners can (and do) develop their own code.
The problem with voting "Code based algorithm" is that miners get to choose the algorithm.

Adding the choice "Nodes" would make the poll more interesting.

Also, it is easy to say that <insert entity here> should control some aspect of Bitcoin, but it is irrelevant unless it can be shown that <insert entity here> could control that aspect of Bitcoin. Saying that "the community" should decide is meaningless.