Gut das man Island als Beispiel genommen hat und nicht (wie meistens) China.

Danke hab angemacht. Weltspiegel. Bitcoins - das Geld der Zukunft?

ja aber  wenn 8888 Glück bringt, dann steig ich doch richitg ein, das wäre meine Logik, auch wenn ich nicht an 8888 oder 777 glaube

interessant, ist das so? warum sollte ich bei Glück verschnaufen? bringt doch Glück

Laut Financial Times geht BTC auf Null   

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5W65EC5NydYJ:https://www.ft.com/content/b5d66ed8-d1b3-11e6-b06b-680c49b4b4c0+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de

If you don't want rules and regulations, you've been using the wrong system. Bitcoin cannot operate without rules, enforcing scarcity or the property rights of the holders would be impossible without rules.

And while Bitcoin is peer 2 peer when sending transactions, it is the underlying rules that make that possible. Having multiple sets of rules would not create any kind of a stable system, and hence a currency with multiple sets of rules cannot have a stable market price.

And you clearly don't understand Austrian Economics either. You have a lot of reading to do.

lol solution to sighash scaling is simple.

limit how many sigops a tx can do. no single person needs to ever produce a tx with 80,000 sigops or 20,000 or even 1000..

afterall a LN tx is just a 2in 2out transaction, so thinking that the quadratic/linear doomsday impacts LN is false

also LN requires 2 signatures so one party would refuse to sign if they see another party is doing something funky to a tx. so a tx wont even be accepted with only one signature. so that keeps both parties in a 'mutually assured destruction/mutual agreement to benefit' paradigm to not have issues with malleability.

but core devs have forgot how to make code rules. and have put their banker hats on and decided 'market' rules are better.
such as
not making DDoS protection code for LN, but instead give penalty fee's to hub 'customers' if they dont do things a certain way.
not have the onchain tx fee reactive to actual demand of blockspace, but averaged biasedly in an ever increasing amount over x blocks.

Then why do all the brains in the heads of the development community disagree fundamentally with that approach? Because of the sighashing scaling problem, the solution to which is a part of the Segwit fork.

Bigger blocks using the present sighashing code can increase the time it takes to compute signature hashes by an unsustainable factor, even 1MB blocks with complex chains of transactions can take a worryingly long amount of time to validate. This presents an unacceptable network coherence risk without increasing the base blocksize.


And that's not even considering the threat to decentralisation of Bitcoin nodes. The current price spike has buoyed the node count, but it's not much of an improvement. The base size should be increased, but not before the trend in the node count is improving consistently. Confidence in the Bitcoin network depends in part on how widely distributed the nodes are. With the trends the way they are now, there is too much of a risk that the node count would slump, and that would harm confidence in the currency itself, i.e. the market price that everyone gets so excited about

Hard fork with larger blocksize can be done without segwit, segwit is not needed at all to go to a larger blocksize.
(That is the myth spread by BTC core.)

Segwit will allow LN, to run Offchain Transactions, with more control over onchain transactions placement.
Miners will not receive any transaction fees for Offchain Transactions.

LN with Segwit, will probably give LN the ability to actually choose which block their very few onchain transactions is included in,
meaning they would be able to cut the Chinese miners completely out of all fees from LN.
(LN onchain Transactions will be only included in one of their 30% controlled BTC miner's Blocks.)

LN without segwit will not have that capability, which leaves the Chinese Miners in control of which block includes a transaction.
Segwit is a Power Grab by BTC core to control the transaction fees, nothing more nothing less.

 

Der EUR übersteht doch eh Italien nicht, die werden die nächsten Monate schon im geheimen versuchen Notfallpläne auszuarbeiten. Der EUR geht schneller Richtung Atlantis als England was ja immer noch nicht auf den Atlantik getrieben ist trotz der ganzen Warnungen   Für mich ist der EUR schon abgehakt und nur noch zwangläufig zu benutzen weil oftmals nichts anderes geht.

I thought it was $3200 as decreed by that ancient oracle "adamstgBit" who has passed on to another realm.

So is it written. Verily it shall come to pass.

Die Art und Weise wie auf Bitstamp der Preis steigt ist aber ziemlich seltsam:

Staendig werden 0.56174 BTCs gekauft. Im Sekundentakt.

Mir solls recht sein. Aber trotzdem seltsam.

Frohes neues!

Was haltet ihr eigentlich von dem 50000$-Limit in China:

https://www.quora.com/I-understand-theres-a-USD-50-000-limit-per-year-on-Chinese-citizens-sending-money-abroad-or-have-I-got-it-wrong-My-wife-is-Chinese-and-wed-like-to-send-some-money-back-to-my-country-and-its-more-than-USD-50-000-How-do-we-do-it-legally

Wird bzw. kann das Auswirkungen haben auf den Kurs? Insbesondere, da ja nun einen neues Jahr beginnt. Und ich meine mich zu erinnern, dass das Limit jeweils vom 1.1. eines Jahres gilt. Lasse mich aber gerne berichtigen.