He didn't really do anything other than sit there and wait for the price to rise. That doesn't make him worth listening to.
Reminds me of this Simpsons episode where a fake boy fell down a well. "That boy is a hero!" "Why, what did he do?" "Well, he fell down a well and... can't get out". It's hilarious how some people just assume that everyone who got rich deserved it, while those people doing manual labour all their life don't. This guy's views on Bitcoin are no more intelligent than ours. |
|
|
|
|
Paper wallets are a form of cold storage, so it's hard to tell exactly what you're talking about.
It really depends on what you're trying to achieve. Personally, I would feel comfortable storing quite a significant amount in hardware wallets as long as I've secured them properly, and this way you can use them for everyday transactions as well.
Paper wallets are inconvenient in that you can't regularly spend from them like you can with hardware wallets.
I say treat paper wallets like a "savings account", and a hardware wallet like a "current account". If you're not absolutely rich, hardware wallets can be a "savings account" too, and can be hidden pretty easily.
|
|
|
|
Ethereum was unusable for a long time because of a single 150M dollars ICO.
Are you sure ETH would handle real world use?
You can ignore all the issues Bitcoin has had in the past all you want Johnny Bravo. The point is not that Bitcoin doesn't have problems. The point is that both have problems, and therefore ETH is not necessarily superior. It's also important to realise that if updates can be passed too easily, it usually means the coin is centralised (if it's quite large like ETH). Bitcoin is currently quite a fringe movement for free money, and ETH compromises this, which is why it's usually not accepted by merchants - because BTC is the free money, and ETH not only is centralised but isn't even much better anyway! It doesn't matter what speculators seem to the price of Ether to be. Once LN is implemented, I regard it to only be useful for smart contracts, and I see that as unrelated to BTC/not in competition.
In the future some cryptocurrencies could well be better than BTC, but this doesn't mean that all of them have to be adopted by merchants. |
|
|
|
Well.
I am from Sth Korea, and there are only two huge market where you can purchase BTC.
I realize today there is a still big gap between Korean market and foreign market.
In Korea they sell 1BTC for 3,413,000 KRW but in preev.com it's 2,941,000.
So, Those of you who can buy bitcoin in USA or Europe, get someone who can speak Korean and sell it.
Well, let's say we got it in Usa and send Korean exchange's wallet. And we sold it out for a higher price in Korean exchange. How the hell will we withdraw our fiat money? This 99.999% won't be possible in your country. For returns s high as the premium on South Korean exchanges, I still think arbitrage between countries is feasible. However, you'd need someone trustworthy, but you also need to deal with a very large sum of money for it to work, so it gets extremely hard to find someone you can trust. There's also always the risk of something going wrong with the exchange or in the transfer. There's also the buy/sell spread; exchange fees; fees of moving fiat; fees of moving BTC; the difficulty of splitting the profits between yourselves; the time spent resulting in you losing money from Bitcoin volatility... To be honest the more you think about it the more confusing it looks. |
|
|
|
I did say mono-citizens, sir. This dude should be serving life sentence without parole. Heck, I would prefer solitary confinement for life for these sort of people but that probably won't happen in a European country. Apparently that's human rights violation...
First let him check his mental state. From what I have heard, this guy seems to be having mental issues. But if it is found that he is in a sound mental health, then I don't support releasing him in to the public. That said, the western governments which engage in Islamic appeasement all the time should ask themselves whether they want more Breiviks in their nations. If you're an advocate of mental health facilities, do you also think that the Muslim attackers should be checked for mental health issues and helped accordingly as well? Especially considering that most of these attackers were born in the countries they attacked in? Or does that only apply to white people? Also, do you support the Conservative Party's gradual systematic destruction of mental health services? |
|
|
|
|
Lovely to see another ICO to fill the gap of cannabis-related coins. I was getting worried that PotCoin and MarijuanaCoin wouldn't be enough to satisfy all those merchants that sell weed and nothing else (almost none of them), and who love tiny coins with no liquidity or security (none of them).
Bitcoin is there for people who can't use the banking system, are against it or a few other things. If marijuana is legal, the main appeal of Bitcoin will just be to people who already know about it or deal with other drugs using it.
|
|
|
|
Has anyone noticed the increase in service(transfer) charges as applied by the cryptocurrency exchangers(merchants) Just about 2 months ago Bittrex was charging 20000 Satoshis but today it is 100,000 Sats Approximately 400%, so many of them have just pushed their charges to the north.They are smiling to their blockchain at our sweat. I was thinking if we can take our destinies by own hand and float our own exchanger. can it be done? Was just thinking aloud !
I think everyone noticed increased fees on majority of exchanges. From major exchanges only Poloniex and Bitfinex still have low withdrawal fees, but there are no guarantees that they won't increase it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1975324.msg19662028#msg19662028People don't like these fees, but put yourself into exchange place - why they would need to send bitcoins cheaper than transaction costs. They are not charity organisation and they only want to have profit. 0.001 BTC is nothing close to transaction costs. Bittrex batch loads of transactions together, and even with high fees in satoshi/byte they end up taking very little. IMO the most fair way to charge fees would be to charge fees dynamically based on the inputs that you've added to the batch transaction - basically, your real share of the transaction costs. Since that won't happen, just give up and use the exchange that seems the most reliable (Bittrex). |
|
|
|
Sounds like you are projecting your biases on others. Slow down on your Black Power BS.
We are talking about ideas, not race.
No matter what you think of others, it does not change the fact that Islam is a mother lode of really bad ideas.
BTW, I studied the Bible, read Talmud and the Quran/Hadiths. All three are the most vile books ever written. Anybody who tells you otherwise either did not read them or is simply lying.
Any ideology/religion that says "us vs them" is fundamentally wrong. It can and will be used to teach hate.
Well, I have studied the texts of the Abrahamics as well, as I have studied the Key of Solomon, the Necromnicon. I have read translated codexs. I plainly disagree, they are all beautiful texts (the Abrahamics) that provide a framework for peace and compassion. Our father Abraham made sure of this. This is why his name is attributed to those works. Although this may mean little to you, it means a lot to me, and our difference of opinion is fine. It's what makes all this shit so beautiful, the fact that you and I are such different things in the same world. All ideologies, at their most extreme end of scale, engender an 'us vs them' attitude. It ties to esotericism, but you must reveal this truth to yourself. Hence esoteric  You are a nationalist, yes? Is this school of ideology not the literal definition of 'us vs them'? Do you feel that your views and opinions influences by said ideology are 'fundamentally wrong'? Provide a text that you believe is 'not vile'. Genuinely curious You are talking about race, not ideas. Be plain sir. We have had fellow humans perish for things that they had no say in, if that injustice doesn't strike you as a travesty, maybe you should reconsider your definition of vile. This is not an ad hominem. You want religion. Try Jainism. If you think those books are not vile, your moral compass is screwed up. Here is a thread on Bible I started a while ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154Chopping people's heads, hands, boiling children, slavery is vile IMHO. Anyway, it best is to stay away from the religious nonsense. It is nonsense no matter how loud you scream that is not. Humanism, secular thought, science is the only way forward for humanity. It is a historical record and a moral/ethical rubric with ritualistic observations of a higher power. I cannot apologize for the actions of those before me, as I had no input. History is indeed fucked up. And when I wake up every day and read the news, I see we may be due to repeat our mistakes. We apparently don't learn. That why you and I are talking right now Man is nothing without faith. You may have replaced my God with your Science, but we both need to understand that there is something greater than ourselves, lest our life have little meaning. The life of a bug has little meaning. Are you a bug, afnewbie? (Can't underscore, on a phone, don't know how at least LOL) Rational thought and faith are not mutually exclusive man. There is room in my world for you. Invite me to yours. And I'm not a Luddite, I believe in technology/medicine. But I believe in a higher power. We are obviously created things. Edit: used to ride the bus with a Jain and a Sikh. The Jain was a cute chick that was a grade above me, the Sikh a side a grade below me. Both cool as shit. I like meat a bit too much for Jainism, and I don't completely believe in overt pacifism. Never talked to Ramen about his faith, can't contribute. By inciting hatred against different religions and causing hatred he is causing: -Tensions between Christians and Muslims; -Tensions between atheists and Muslins; -Tensions between Christians and atheists. What af_newbie (underscore on phone is on the middle left under ?123 if you're using the same keyboard as me) doesn't understand is that their interpretations of the Qur'an and Bible do not matter. Only the interpretations of Christians and Muslims matter. Religion is more of a cultural phenomenon than an ideology. You'll notice that the majority of people who identify as Christian or Muslim do not abide by the violent side of their holy text - this is because their beliefs are individual and in reality they are not Christians or Muslims, just independent theists. The only real problem is the label that they incorrectly put on their beliefs because of their culture. The rest is affiliations that we have made up. |
|
|
|
Why aint we going up up
Were going down 🙄🙄🙄🙄
We're not going up or down, wee're going sideways. I'm grateful for that because rapid price swings over extended periods of time get too stressful. Relative to alts, we're going up significantly. Ether is down quite a bit over the last couple of days. It's clear that Ether has reached its peak, and now that people are realising SegWit activation is likely to be soon it seems pointless except for temporary ICO hype which is frankly embarrassing to blockchain technology considering how shit most of these projects are. I see the sideways movement as very positive, not neutral. Especially when it's rose so much over the last couple of months. |
|
|
|
I apologize if this question is in any way naive.. I'm not really any kind of economics expert. I was just wondering what might happen to the world economy since there are so many new people getting rich off these cryptocurrencies... Just based off speculation or holding the right coins a lot of people have gained in wealth in the past years. And it doesn't seem to be slowing down.
So, you have a lot of 'new money' propagating even 'newer money'... and so on and so on, until a lot of people are pretty rich. Does this mean that there is a huge depression ahead of us? Surely just making more and more money can't go on forever, can it?
I'm sure I'm not seeing the big picture here so please, could someone explain it to me?
In a world of 7.4bn people where you already have some 35 million millionaires I don't see why 100~500 even 1000 new ones would make a huge difference. Add to that the billionaires which even if they have huge chunks of money they can't really change the world (only rule part of it ) and you get the picture. There's just too much value created every day in every possible way to be consumed even by the richest. I different a bit. While a lot of people will likely squander their money on bullshit, there will be some that use the immense capital gain to start serious businesses. Like Coinbase or Kraken, these are pretty large, decent hiring, tax paying corps that are generating revenue for the Fed and State in a meaningful way. That job creation, tax revenue and promotion of widespread adoption are some seriously positive takeaways. Not the biggest chunk of Mammon in the world, but a nice one, at least. I'll be honest and say the majority of early adopter bitcoin will be used on Thai hookers and blow. But 1 or 2 people incentivized to use the value the right way, could effect a huge change. The problem is that if these people are "getting rich off crypto" instead of "investing in blockchain startups and technology", it means they're in it for fiat, and therefore what they do will not contribute to blockchain technology. However, it's false to pretend that rich people spending a lot of money on things doesn't help the economy. It brings all this money back into circulation, helps the businesses which they're buying things from and reduces inequality. |
|
|
|
Its probably not fair to ask them that question, unless they're involved with blockchain they likely have no knowledge or experience with decentralized systems.
Projects they have no experience with mean risk to them. So, I understand that they prefer a solution, which is closer to their traditional solution. But sometimes you, who see potential in decentralized systems, have an idea and would like to ask their support. In that case, you should find the common language with them somehow. Risk to them is not a problem. When new technologies like this arise, you first have a group of pioneers (e.g. Overstock, Microsoft), which begin to support the technology. Hype completely flows around these companies as they don't care about speculation and they're in it for more options to get fiat. Gradually smaller companies get involved because they learn by example and find dramatically easier ways to implement blockchain technology into their business. At first it's treated as a gimmick, but gradually it's seen as legitimate. You're talking about a permanent solution to a problem that's temporary anyway. Decentralised systems inherently can have lower transaction costs because trusted intermediaries are hard to come by. The point is a trustless system. |
|
|
|
It s called core.
What kind of core is not central?
One which openly allows people to contribute. There is a core team of devs within Bitcoin Core, but they don't create absolutely everything. The best way to make Bitcoin Core less centralised is to participate yourself.
There can easily be a different group of devs in the future, but if that's how you view centralisation then they will be just as "centralised" as Bitcoin Core is now. |
|
|
|
|
Recently blockchain.info have actually started having some level of dynamic fees. While their system is far from ideal, it's stopped making newbies sending transactions with 100-120 satoshi/byte and them all getting stuck.
The fees on these transactions were enough for them to get confirmed after a while. If you need them to be faster, the wallet allows you to customise the fees yourself.
While I think it's a great idea to move to a better wallet, blockchain.info is no longer that bad.
|
|
|
|
NOTE: The friendly folks over at #bitcoin informed me that a similar site already exists over at bitcoin.com ... which I didn't know about. I guess ... at least BitcoinVoice isn't bitcoin.com?  Bitcoin.com is owned by Roger Ver, who has a very large amount of coins and openly supports big blocks. It's possible that he signed with his own addresses, in which case the vote was void (because he owns more BTC than the amount used in the vote). It's essential to have a neutral site on this. The question is whether people would trust a smaller site to protect their privacy when they prove ownership of large quantities of Bitcoin. There's also the fact that the economy doesn't have to dictate everything, because that would favour richer people. |
|
|
|
|
This belongs more in Trading Discussion.
Most alts are measured and traded dominantly against BTC. This even applies to the biggest alts like ETH which have fiat pairs as well.
You'll find that the majority of people trading alts are in it for more BTC, and the majority of people trading BTC are in it for more fiat, especially when the price goes up loads like right now.
So it would be most important to measure it against BTC, because crypto profits are mostly to do with the amount of fiat you would have gained in value compared to the amount you would have gained from just holding Bitcoin. However, this is flexible and could be different in some cases.
|
|
|
|
|
The biggest red flag of all is what they claim to be - a silver backed token which is having an ICO.
People always invest in ICOs expecting to earn profit from a rise in value, but if the token was actually silver backed the value would stay almost pegged to the price of silver, so the ICO is no more an investment than just buying silver and it doesn't really make any sense...
Seems like anyone with a nice website can get millions from ICOs these days anyway, so it'll be a shame when people realise they've lost all their money.
|
|
|
|
10% is nothing it means nothing.
That's the problem with some people. They just speculate with no regard for fundamentals at all.
Previous dips recently have been brief lapses in this crazy bull market we're in, and have meant nothing even when being dips of >20%. However this time a significant majority of hashrate had started signalling for SegWit x 2 (well signalling that they will signal for it when they need to). This makes the promise of low transaction fees on Ethereum meaningless. It doesn't mean that Ether will crash because people are just ignoring any real events, but it does mean that Ether will become irrelevant from the perspective of a currency. Most cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin are in the red right now. I would have shorted major alts when SegWit x 2 started being signalled, but it's a bit late now to tell how far it'll go. Just sit tight and watch the market move. You'll probably find that Bitcoin goes up a lot in the next month or two. |
|
|
|
Nah, it's just a joke. Nothing in there to promote bitcoin. Actually it just seem to acknowledge the belief that bitcoins are mostly used for criminal activity online.
The joke isn't about Bitcoin. The joke is that students carry their lunch money into school to buy lunch, so this is just literally sending any random money over the Internet. It's also about how difficult it is to force people to send money online, because people would be separate from the bully. Bitcoin is just a surface-level joke that the Simpsons like having more often these days to appeal to people who don't actually get it. It's shocking that I have to explain this to people. The Simpsons is pretty deeply satirical anyway, I wouldn't take any joke of theirs as a direct insult so much as pointing out how stupid the entire situation of doing that would be. Well, The Simpsons are prophets. So they have the right to promote or make fun of these topics.
I'm really surprised how they predict Trump's position.
They didn't. That was around 2000, when Trump had mentioned considering running for President and it was a bit of a joke among people. /nerd |
|
|
|
Lol the logic:
All Western countries are destroying entire ME countries, killing dozens of thousands of innocents civilians, few terrorists kill maybe 200 Europeans -> They are monsters shame on them kill all Muslims
A guy decides to kill 10 Muslims without any reason -> Yeah but the Muslims saw that coming those bastards
THE LOGIC
You see I doubt that those kids in Manchester or those tourists in London bombed or killed anyone. Also doubt that this guy in the van looked at his actions in a wider perspective. I guess his logic was that muslims who living between us can go rabid any time and kill our loved ones, so we should take preventive measures. Perhaps he kept watching the Walking Dead too long. BTW sooner or later we'll have to kill them all otherwise they will kill us, while cooking their rice on fires made out of paintings of van Gogh and Rembrandt. The only good thing will be that they will clean out the multikulti leftist-liberal scum from Europe as well . , killing thousands of innocent civilians. Given no other choice because they're being screwed over by the West, some people turn to extremism. What happens after that is that the violence starts escalating because each group starts condoning terrorist attacks from their side. >Muslim person commits terrorist attack "They're horrible terrorists!" >Non-muslim person commits terrorist attack "Serves those bloody [innocent] Muslims right!" Some people's reasoning is seriously baffling. Learn your Islamic history before you speak on the subject. https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/As someone correctly points out in the comments section of the article: Hmm, 270 million “killed by jihad” (let’s close our ears and pretend it had nothing to do with the political and ethno-cultural tensions in any of the regions) and still less than the amount killed by the Catholic church, the Soviets and many political leaders, OTHER than Muhammad. Yet, no one mentions those statistics. And what about all the non-Christians killed in the “Christianizing” missions of Europeans? Were those the Crusades redux? By the same logic, then the British and French empires “Crusaders” as felt the “White Man’s Burden” in needing to modernize the ignorant Brown and Black men.
This website is a joke and a thinly-veiled Islamophobic rant (Christians were “martyred”, while other religionists were “killed”?). Good thing intellectuals and academics don’t listen to this kind of hogwash. You all can live in your closed little world thinking that you are important or that anyone really pays attention to your stupidity.
Currently, dramatically Muslims are being killed by terrorism in the Middle East than Christians, because ISIS and other terrorist groups hate anyone which doesn't agree with their mindset.Your victimisation complex and your support of terrorism from non-Muslims is insane. You have crazy confirmation biases and no self-awareness. Are you sure? "Their mindset?" ISIS is an Islamic State. They are the true Muslims. Please do not refer to them as a "mindset". They follow the Quran and the Hadiths. Just because you developed your own version of Islam by skipping the troublesome Quran verses does not mean others have to. They kill all non-believers. That includes those who oppose their Islamic State, it does not matter that the victims profess that they are 'Muslims'. If you are against a global Caliphate, you are the enemy. It does not matter what religion you think you follow. Just because you developed your own version of Islam by skipping the peaceful Qur'an verses does not mean others have to. As with the Bible (both religions are bullshit if you ask me), there are many direct contradictions in different sections of the Qur'an. Some argue for peace and some don't - the difference is that you're assuming that Muslims who look at one side of the Qur'an are "true" Muslims, while those who look at the other side of the Qur'an are not. By cherry picking information in this way, you are supporting terrorists by implying that all other Muslims should join them, and therefore implying that all Christians should become terrorists too in opposition to this. There are people on this thread literally calling for genocide ("we need to kill them all"), and that's not troubling for you? |
|
|
|
Would mixing my coins help me out with eliminating high transactions costs in the future?
No. If you think that transaction cost will get higher and higher, send all your funds into one address with one transaction. This is the cheapest solution but also the least private. I meant in the aspect of having a lot of dusty inputs, thus raising the total byte size of the transaction itself. For example, let's say I have 0.01BTC in my address that I accrued over 20 transactions at 0.0005 each. Essentially, if I were to mix the 0.01, wouldn't transactions in the future have a smaller transaction size than if I were to spend the 0.01 from my wallet without mixing the coins? It could, but a large point of Chipmixer is that you don't do it as simply as that and instead split it into chips with predefined values instead of just spending 0.01, receiving 0.01. Regardless, this is just speculation about future transaction costs. By doing this you have to assume that transaction costs in the future will be higher, because you're relying on all of the coins you could spend + the transactions you actually make with 1 input ending up costing less than just sending ordinary transactions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
