Don't be stupid. It is obviously a SCAM No legitimate investment could (or even be willing to) pay 3% per day return. |
|
|
|
|
I think that many people don't realize that every currency today is a "digital" currency. The difference is that the new digital currency will have no paper or coin equivalents.
Another important difference might be that the ledger will be maintained by the government, rather than the banks.
Governments and their finance industry puppets consider this to be a good thing. I disagree because it will allow to state to monitor and control each person's spending and finances, and it will lead to financial subjugation of the population by a ruling class.
|
|
|
|
If you look at it on the bright side, nosy governments have considerably helped to keep crime rates their people down.  FTFY |
|
|
|
Please elaborate how you plan to identify all these US transactions in real time? I'm not in the US, so please list every single address I've ever been associated with so that I'm not charged more. According to kiklo, it's really easy I don't know really. And that's the reason why I started this thread and openly asked about that in the OP. To be honest, the technical impossibility of such discrimination (based on IP, or wallet address, or anything else) is the only true reason why the Chinese miners might not raise the fees on a selective basis as an act of revenge even if Trump lives up to his promises and unleashes a trade war with China. All other arguments like irrationality of such actions, coercion by the government, lack of hashing power, etc are weak and can only somewhat limit the fee riot if things get serious. On the other hand, if things do get serious after all, the miners from China could still indiscriminately raise the fees for all... What consequences would such events have? A transaction is not associated with an IP address. There is no way to know where a transaction originates, but the Chinese government could identify transactions not originated in China. If Chinese miners whitelist transactions as kiklo suggests, then only transactions made between Chinese exchanges would be confirmed by Chinese miners. However, all the rest of the miners would still confirm all the rest of the transactions. If Chinese miners also reject blocks with non-whitelisted addresses, then Bitcoin will die and the Chinese miners and exchanges will go out of business because nobody (including the Chinese) will want to use a currency that is so limited. |
|
|
|
|
How would they determine where the transaction originates?
|
|
|
|
|
Cloudmining is almost always a scam, and in the few instances where it is not, you are better off just buying bitcoins.
Any "investment" that purports to pay 1%, or so, per day is a scam.
Onecoin is a scam.
Buying something from an anonymous person and paying with a cash deposit at a bank could be part of a scam where you and a bitcoin trader are the victims.
|
|
|
|
I presume that it is set by the developers, and because it is a serious change then they want to make sure that most of the network is going to change. If it was just 75% then there could be alot of miners who dont agree and we could end up with 2 bitcoins  Correct me if Im wrong but we only could end up with two bitcoins if we do a hard fork. A split/fork in two bitcoins cant happen with a soft fork, right? A fork is a fork, whether hard or soft. The difference is that, in a soft fork, a legacy node still considers a segwit transaction to be valid (though it doesn't interpret it as a segwit transaction). In a hard fork, a legacy node would consider a segwit transaction to be invalid. The reason that there is still a fork is that a legacy node disagrees with a segwit node on how the outputs of a segwit transaction can be spent. |
|
|
|
Casascius coins are not banned. His shutting down had nothing to do with "minting currencies". They decided that he was an unlicensed money transmitter, which is illegal. |
|
|
|
Yes, it is much more important but who is deciding it to increase the percentage and to make it harder to activate it?
It is very simple. The developers of Bitcoin Core decide on what goes into Bitcoin Core. I'm sure they discuss it a bit. Wladimir van der Laan is the lead developer, so he probably has to approve. |
|
|
|
... When the difficulty increases, the btc price increases also, it becomes more valuable...
The difficulty has no effect on the price. ... and the Price of bitcoins are increased due to decreased supply of bitcoins.
... The supply does not decrease. The supply increases with every block until it reaches about 21 million and then it goes no higher. |
|
|
|
|
As you can see by the other posts in this thread, TOR Wallet is a scam. Sorry for your loss. It's tough to learn first hand that sending money to an anonymous stranger on the internet is generally a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
I have a full running bitcoind node with more or less 100+ connections with 100% uptime and avialability. My question is how can I let the bitcoin network to recognize my server node to be a relay.
I assume you are referring to this: http://bitcoinfibre.org/public-network.html |
|
|
|
Whatever happened here, it doesn't change the fact that Roger has launched or backed 3 separate failed attempts to wrest control of Bitcoin away from the current project leaders.
That would make Roger a hero in my book. I hope you understand that a fundamental tenet of Bitcoin is that it is not controlled by anyone. If you want it to be controlled by the current project leaders, then doesn't that make you anti-bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Since the low in January 2015, the price of Bitcoin has been increasing at a very consistent rate of about 6% per month. As shown on the graph below, the price should hit $1000 in June 2017 (+/- 2 months or so) if it continues at this pace.  |
|
|
|
|
You could estimate the amount of energy used by mining to be the value of the block reward divided by the average cost of energy.
#3 is not feasible because the hash rate also depends on the value of the block reward.
|
|
|
|
Lost coins will be recovered in 10 years by quantum computers.
does that mean recovering private keys? if that's possible then they're gonna be recovering something completely and utterly worthless. Sometime in the next several years, Bitcoin will switch to quantum-resistant alternatives of SHA-256, RIPMD-160, and ECC. Then you simply have to move your bitcoins from the old addresses to the new addresses. Moved coins will be ok, but the rest (including lost coins) will be vulnerable. |
|
|
|
With Bitcoin Core, you can right click the transaction in the list and choose "Abandon transaction". Then send your Bitcoin again with a higher fee.
How do you know the new transaction will use the same inputs? If it doesn't use the same inputs then it isn't a double spend. |
|
|
|
|
I would add another decision: "Are convenience and ease of use important?"
I would not recommend Bitcoin Core or Armory if convenience and ease of use are important.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
