Clams are a POS Crypto mainly used by Just Dice for betting. Their distribution is based on a snapshot of the BTC, LTC and Doge blockchains in May 2014 or so. If you have a private key from back then with a balance then you can claim 4.6 CLAM per key.
The fuck, can't believe I never heard of this until now. Free shitcoins for me, yay.  Yeah, and back in the day. Ripple gave a buncha XRP to anyone who asked. But that was then. |
|
|
|
Circle is an interesting addition too. I wonder whether they'd reenter.
Circle never left. They merely trimmed back on what they offer to the public. I imagine Allaire was taken thoroughly aback by the vehemence thrown his way upon a simple reshuffling of the priorities of a real company that just happened to be operating in the Bitcoin space. It was as if he owed something to each and every Bitcoiner, rather than a fiduciary duty to his investors. Such a sense of entitlement. I wonder what all the shit-slingers have done to advance the cause in comparison. |
|
|
|
|
Now I've caught up with the tip, and find nobody has chimed in as of yet...
Other than CLAMS, in the 'coins for free' category, BitCore looks interesting. You can thank me by pointing me to a primer on the easiest redemption mechanism. Byteball, too, I have been told.
|
|
|
|
5-19-17. Sell at 1890 and buy in a pullback to 1775. I lost about 2k in position on that. How can a guy ever make money besides hodl paying for advice like that.
Rule #3: Whatever price you pay for advice in regards to cryptocurrency trading, you're getting ripped off. Even if it's free of charge. |
|
|
|
 Australian TV last night. How odd to see this. I wonder when if and when it'll become the standard thing to throw in there. Gee, they're not showing altcoins. I wonder why?  Slowly but surely Bitcoin is thrusting itself into the mainstream worldwide. Geeks may quibble about altcoins, scalability, development politics etc. Meanwhile the masses are just beginning to learn about crypto and they know it as Bitcoin. At least Ethereum must be added, in my opinion. Ethereum is bitcoin number two right now. Until Ethereum declares a known emission schedule, it is useless as a commodity, currency, or any other asset class. |
|
|
|
I'm going to laugh my ass off when someday ETC catches up to and surpasses ETH. Lol. Continuing to prove how hard forks can go wrong.
How is it 'going wrong', when each side gets exactly what they bargained for? |
|
|
|
Needs to go up more. There's a new 2m personal jet that looks quite interesting. Hm....
Cirrus VisionJet in sight? |
|
|
|
Everyone here down with UASF?
Nope. But by all means, go ahead and fork off. |
|
|
|
As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’.
Mining and "full nodes" are two different things. Under newspeak, perhaps so. But according to Satoshi, nodes were miners. |
|
|
|
I am learning a lot and I will do my own due dilligence before I can reply which will take time.
Fair?
Fair. I just ask you to consider each position on the strength of its arguments, and not on the passions of the crowd. |
|
|
|
Lightning can hop through payment channels, you can pay anyone on the rest of the Network, infinitely, sometimes for free (if someone wants lots of BTC going through their channel)
The clue is in the word "Network", if you can only pay one person again and again, it's not really a Network. Lightning is a network, where you can pay anyone.
Sure you can -- if you can find a route. But if there is anyone on the entire planet that knows how trustless decentralized anonymous routing works, they've not been telling. |
|
|
|
Of course, I'm not a twit, so perhaps I am merely ignorant here. Is there some Tweet made on the part of Roger Ver which you are claiming has started the instances of people pointing out that non-mining entities have no actual power on the Bitcoin network? Because that is what it looks like you are claiming. Would you be a good sport and post a link to this alleged tweet that started it all? Thanks.
This is something I've been claiming for quite a while, I'm not aware of any tweets or anything, I just came, totally by myself, to that (rather obvious) conclusion by studying the system. Indeed. You may recall my first direct response to you was to thank you for stating the view that non-mining entities have no real power in the Bitcoin network - for the exact reasoning you state. I went on to explain that I had been tilting at that proverbial windmill for some months -- as a lone and ridiculed voice in the crowd. I had come to this conclusion pretty much as you state, after a loooong period of 'drinking the proverbial non-mining-but-validating-entities-guard-the-system koolaid'. Of course, you articulate the reasoning in a much clearer manner, which has helped to crystalize my thinking on the matter. But really, I was hoping Lauda would step up to the challenge of providing attribution for his/her claim that "it all started with Ver's tweet". For I believe this to be unmitigated bullshit. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. It looks like just another weak-minded aspersion-casting on the part of a party bereft of a logical argument. |
|
|
|
As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’.
It started with Ver's tweet... Of course, I'm not a twit, so perhaps I am merely ignorant here. Is there some Tweet made on the part of Roger Ver which you are claiming has started the instances of people pointing out that non-mining entities have no actual power on the Bitcoin network? Because that is what it looks like you are claiming. Would you be a good sport and post a link to this alleged tweet that started it all? Thanks. |
|
|
|
If you used the "proper" fee your tx would have confirmed by now.
Well, yes... but only by kicking someone else out of the line. Whose fee was 'proper' until you upped the ante. |
|
|
|
4 more days and we're finally done with 2013.
Well, until our stalwart chronicler dooglus turns the Top 20 50 into the Top 100. |
|
|
|
But think what will happen if that payment channel is between you and a "payment provider"... and that provider is being utilised by your local cafe, your local convenience store, the book shop down the street, a fast food chain that you frequently visit etc etc...
Yeah...just think... Your payment provider will sell the details of every last purchase you have made to your insurance company, so they can adjust your rates based upon your unhealthy lifestyle. Just like Facebook. I can't wait. It suddenly allows you to be able to make multiple "micro" transactions without the overhead of full "on chain" transactions... you don't need to stand in the store for 4 days while you wait for your transaction to confirm due to there being 150,000 unconfirmed transactions... and you don't have to pay $5 in transaction fees to purchase your $3.50 coffee with all your faucet dusT.
IOW, the same way bitcoin used to work, and would continue to work, we're it not for this stupid, centrally-planned production quota. Again...i can't wait!!!!!11!!!!1!1!1!!! |
|
|
|
Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how? Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how? Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility? I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain. ...but I was asking you. You see, when you call in the reinforcements, instead of answering in your own words, it leaves the impression that you may have not actually thought through your position, but are merely repeating a position you have heard advocated by others. You seem to be advocating that SegWit it would make bitcoin both more secure and more robust. Leaving the more complex questions aside for the moment, I would like you to explain to me first what these terms mean to you, and second how you believe SegWit accomplishes these goals. Fair? |
|
|
|
This isn't like a public company, where the market cap is approximately the price to buy the entire company. You cannot buy all the bitcoins.
Sure you can. Well, no. You can't Buy All The Bitcoins. For the price will go through the roof the more you buy. However, in this manner, it would be exactly like trying to buy an entire publicly traded company. Why anyone would think this not similar is mystifying. |
|
|
|
I do not have a position in any alts but I did run across an article on RSK which is a bitcoin sidechain the other day and the concept is interesting.
I am interested in the thoughts of others on this.
I know very little about RSK. It looks interesting. However, my understanding is that, without new script primitives, the only way they can maintain the peg between Bitcoin and the RSK token is via a central clearing house. This would seem to me to be a huge central point of failure. I'd be happy to be reasoned out of my impression. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
