...
Eeek! Reading all of the above price predictions is triggering my "Sell BTC Now" fingers...! Not really, but when sentiment is SO BULLISH, ("It's different this time"), I get antsy. (Though I did predicate this thread with saying the SW / block size debate would get resolved, should it not, well.....)
But my *guess* would be $3000 - $5000 if everything goes well. Note that I am a LOUSY SPECULATOR, so makes that guess worth ZERO. I have profound doubts that ANYONE can predict the future, except for a very few who know something.
Nonetheless, I thank you all for you observations and thoughts. They are going into my hopper... Should we get lucky and reach, say, $3500 - $4500, I will sell another tranche of BTC for gold.
It's likely that a split (which is seeming increasingly likely now), would be confusing for most people and wouldn't be quite as smooth as we like. Personally, I'd expect a bullish sentiment leading up to the solution, and a dip in Ether, but when the split actually happens, far more bearish. Once the actual situation is behind Bitcoin for a week or two and transactions start getting back to normal on the majority chain, that's when we go for the moon. |
|
|
|
Welcome on board ChipMixer and it nice to have guys on here. But there something I don't really understand concerning the function of the ChipMixer and I want to know if I'm correct or not. Does ChipMixer work as a means to make bitcoin transaction invisible?
Thank you
If you want to keep your anonymity with being untraceable you need to use ChipMixer service. I guess you already know about bitcoin transaction tracking.Somebody who knows one of your recently used bitcoin address can track and check your transactions. For example: I send you BTC from address X to address Y. Blockchain shows output from my btc address (X) and input to your btc address (Y) When using mixer service you send your coins to mixing pool (Z= X+nX+....+Y+nY) "ChipMixer uses fixed amount "chips" of Bitcoin, that are funded before your deposit even arrives to process your withdraws, and lets you withdraw a private key, letting you pick the delay of time before you get the funds." You will got new fresh mixed chips: nXY  Now you have new address with private key which doesnt have any relation to "old" btc address. I know you are wearing their signature but shouldn't you address the concern which I raised? I know that I'm wearing the signature of a competitor, that is actually the only reason I'm here in the first place. Destroying this business and promote my own is my job as it is the rule of the market/business. You're not really working for Bitmixer though. Your signature campaign manager is Lauda, and Lauda is independent from Bitmixer. Lauda should be the only person checking through your posts, and no one should care whether or not you're promoting Bitmixer. Regardless, the point of a campaign isn't to be an arse to everyone, nor to promote the service in your signature directly. If everyone did that, there would be plenty more gambling addicts on here... They didn't include what I'm doing as a must in their campaign but since I'm getting paid hundreds of dollars every month if I let this slide then I might not be getting payments at all, so this isn't personal but rather business just being practical.
Once again, Bitmixer do not care if you specifically are getting paid, unless they think that the campaign is rampant with spammers.
The point is to prevent blockchain analysis by removing all ties to anyone except the mixer. You receive a wallet directly from the mixer instead of a payment from it, so it changes the mixing process. I suggest you guys to have a thread in Chinese and other language which their government implement KYC.
I can't see a lot of Bitcoin mixing service users scrambling to give their identity to the authorities... |
|
|
|
/r/btc, im not clicking on that cesspool.
I remember when I was brainwashed and close minded like this. Try to actually open your mind and look into the other sides views without rash judgement. You will likely discover the uncomfortable truth that the BlockstreamCore devs are and have been purposefully crippling bitcoin and causing tx backlogs to make way for Blockstreams profitable payment channels. Seriously, take a view from big blockers perspective. They turned out being the right ones while the rest were duped by Cores astroturfing, lies and censorship. Warning: Extreme cognitive dissonance may result There isn't anything there which can open one's mind. We already know everything about BU/Jihan BU/Roger Ver. You are the one who's brainwashed. "You're brainwashed!" "No you're brainwashed!" "No you're brainwashed!" "No you're brainwashed!" ...Am I really the only person here who thinks that everyone doesn't have to be brainwashed? 25hashcoin is here basically saying "why not open your mind and accept that this side is 100% right and everyone else is brainwashed", and mindrust has the same twisted mind. I really despair at what arguments on the Internet have come to. |
|
|
|
|
They need phone verification, which I just never give to Bitcoin related services unless they're heavily regulated (basically none).
It wouldn't prevent spam, it would just move people to verify their account with fake and/or paid phone numbers. I don't get why they bother.
|
|
|
|
Blockchain projects are crypto currency at the same time?
For example, when I develop a project using the blockchain infrastructure, I develop a new crypto currency?
as for whether there's a blockchain in real world use, the only truly widespread application is of course money such as bitcoin. There are many good potentially widespread applications for the blockchain. The problem is that money is very easy to have because it only needs agreement between two parties who regard the token to have value, whereas with most other blockchain applications, it requires a large company to give their trust to a new technology (which never happens, making it a speculative asset in the end). I'm sure that ETH and especially ETC will help to prompt more blockchain applications in the future and blockchain systems will have more widespread use. |
|
|
|
*i also refuse to click that jihan infested link either*
UASF has zero risks.
That's exactly what I mean by "living in an echo chamber". You're trying to talk in absolutes. It is either going to get accepted or die silently. It is simple as that. If people are happy with the current situation, they don't need to do anything at all.
The way I understand it (I could be wrong): -If 51% or more of the hashrate signals for a soft fork by that point, it's safe (ish). -If less than that signal for it, there will be a chain split (which is the main function of UASF). At that point there will be some blocks mined on the new chain and some on the old chain. Unless most companies decide to accept payments on the new chain at the same time, there could be enough economic support for the old chain for miners to stick to their guns. They can trade the way they used to, they can hold, or whatever. Legacy chain won't disappear instantly. They can ignore anything ahead.
Err people can't just ignore what's going on if you want UASF to have "zero risks". |
|
|
|
/r/btc, im not clicking on that cesspool.
So you won't even read something because it doesn't confirm your preconceptions? It doesn't give r/btc ad revenue or anything, it doesn't support them in any way... so all that avoiding r/btc would be doing is trying to stay in an echo chamber. That's the same mentality that r/btc and r/bitcoin both have of staying in their respective echo chamber.
Jonald, I get your point. However, I think most people on here as well accept that UASF is risky. I would argue that if it has nearly universal business support (which it doesn't yet), the miners would move over. It all depends on what companies move over. In any case, if business support is mixed it would be a complicated split which could last for a while. The thing is that this means a compromise from SegWit doesn't have to be going far to pull a few businesses away from UASF, which would in turn make it very difficult to complete.
I think it's a good thing that Core devs recognise this though. It shows that they're not one giant evil organsation standing in their nuclear bunkers watching over us all like a halk. It doesn't mean that UASF has to be impossible - they're just not deluding themselves into thinking that it's completely safe. |
|
|
|
LocalBitcoins' built-in escrow is just LocalBitcoins holding the funds for you. It's exactly the same as anyone else holding your funds and LocalBitcoins could run off with a huge amount of funds. The difference between LocalBitcoins escrow and forum members' escrow is that it would be much easier for LocalBitcoins to selectively scam. If the escrows on here scammed a single person, that person would be all over the forum proving their PM conversations and that the escrow hadn't paid after the deal was completed. No one would use their service anymore. People have specifically trusted thousands and thousands of Bitcoin with these escrows. OGNasty has escrowed around 20,000 Bitcoin, including many very large transactions at once. |
|
|
|
I just want to play a little Devils Advocate here and question your donation payment option. Is this not one of those cases where you are pulled into a services with little or no fees and once you are hooked <you like the service> then they change the business model to a new higher fee structure. < Basically what Circle did to build their user base with Bitcoin users >
We are giving an option now - try it for free and if you like it, pay what you think it is worth. We are not denying that if this business model is wrong, we will change it. Would it be better to just close the service that everybody uses and likes, but not enough to pay for it? IMO it's basically impossible for Chipmixer to set really high fees anyway. Bitmixer only has fees of 0.5%, and some other trusted mixers have even lower fees than that. Considering the sort of volume that the biggest and most trusted mixers tend to get, it really doesn't have to be a lot of the mixed coins as a percentage. If Chipmixer, as a newer mixer, started setting high fees then they just wouldn't have many users. And the amount of donations they'll get in the early stages (before they reach that trusted point) will probably be just as much as the low fees that they would have to set. Especially considering the gambling feature. |
|
|
|
I sent bitcoin few days ago with $0.25 fee which is what was recommended by wallet and it still hasn't confirmed. Is it really that bad?
Are you sure your wallet didn't recommend a $2.5 fee? That would be pretty normal at current rates. Even the smallest transactions around have no chance of getting confirmed with that kind of fee. |
|
|
|
actually I am kind of glad this happened. because finally, either I will be proven wrong and I'll gladly accept it, or we see that I am right and maybe people start looking at other things than just price and marketcap when it comes to comparing an altcoin to bitcoin.
let ethereum become bigger, more used.
let the number of transaction on its network increase to near bitcoin's level.
let ethereum network be "stress tested" for 3 years, something that we have been experiencing in bitcoin with the same name but it is really spam attack.
let the transaction fees grow to $0.75 (currently there) and then $1 and then $2 and so on.
let the size of their blockchain get extremely big and centralizes the nodes
let the mining of it become big and let China get in on it and start their farms with new more efficient equipments.
let another DAO scam and another roll back hard fork and a chain split happen.
and lots more, and then lets see how they will do in real world not just on exchanges and on paper with some numbers showing bigger marketcap because they simply have 6 times more the supply of bitcoin but not even half its circulating supply or distribution.
the point is active DEV is taking place on ETH The difference is that if the ETH devs were inactive there would be no way out. Bitcoin has clear alternatives like Rootstock and BU, and whether or not people like them is another matter - the point is that Bitcoin has the opportunity to change, while ETH's development is so heavily centralised that its path seems fully dictated by Buterin. More tokens could be created in future versions for all we know, considering that they hard fork at a rate of fifty hard forks per second. ETH is like the evil genius of the crypto world, getting bigger and more evil as it goes on. |
|
|
|
it is great, isn't it. specially these days. but it takes a lot out of you. i am mostly day trading altcoins, or generally joining the pumps and jumping out of the train before it reaches the destination. but that also takes a lot of time and has lots of stress. i usually give it up but the profit and my greed brings me back  Unfortunately it looks like the blockchain tech surge is finally reaching its peak. To be honest it was just empty speculation - you could have literally picked any coin in existence and held it for a couple weeks and you would have more than doubled your money. Even the most obscure shitcoins in existence have got pumped, all at the same times. Christ, the Internet is weird. Anyway, good luck OP. Don't get caught up with all the high gains - they can't last forever. And make sure that a lot of your profit is realised, in case something bad happens. It's a risky game you're playing. Just make sure it's based on skill rather than luck. |
|
|
|
|
It's a slowly developing system. It's something which is made far more practical due to blockchain technology, but I would personally still give it a couple more years before I start throwing all my coins in their direction.
The low liquidity is just a side effect of the fact that they're new. I'm sure that'll change with time and with suspicious outages from Poloniex.
|
|
|
|
|
Signature campaigns are just private companies deciding to advertisement campaigns by getting users that they regard to be "trusted" (those with higher ranks) to post.
The way I see it, a "rating" system which changes people's rate of pay would increase the level of spam, because it would create the idea that signature campaigns are directly endorsed by the forum, when in fact they're just an accepted part of the free marketplace.
Furthermore, anyone who is suspected of being a spammer should be banned. Period. They shouldn't be given partial pay because they're a spammer... just kicked out.
|
|
|
|
|
ETH and LTC are both listed on Coinbase. For credit cards, that's probably the easiest choice as long as you don't mind verifying your identity.
|
|
|
|
|
A country doesn't "adopt" Bitcoin until a large number of people begin using it, regularly, as an alternative to fiat currency.
Allowing something to exist does not encourage it, and a few merchants accepting it in addition to fiat does not indicate adoption at all.
Any price rises which happen from this would just be empty speculation, not based on actual users.
|
|
|
|
Not really. Jaxx is good for someone who uses multiple coins on a regular basis, but if you want cold storage and long-term storage you'd be best off creating separate paper wallets for each coin. You could have the paper wallets in safes, bank deposit boxes or buried, to give some examples.
You could also try using a TREZOR with multiple passphrases including a decoy. Then you're quite safe from 5-dollar wrench attacks, hacking and nearly any other problems I can think of.
I'm pretty sure you can store Bitcoin and Ether in the same TREZOR, using MyEtherWallet as well as their regular one.
It all depends on the level of security you want. If you get Jaxx it will probably be okay, but you're susceptible to viruses and you might not know if something happens since you wouldn't be accessing it regularly.
Thanks for the reply. A little more info - my wallet platform is linux. I've installed Armory and EthereumWallet. I was just wondering if there was a simpler option than parallel software for both currencies. It would be convenient to just purchase one or the other and then convert some amount to the other, and also to manage both from a single wallet. Yep. For that kind of purpose, Jaxx would be ideal. You could also try depositing some Bitcoin that you bought into an altcoin exchange like Bittrex and then withdrawing from there into your wallet, which would avoid potentially high fees from Jaxx (I think their fees are 1% or something - integration with Shapeshift). |
|
|
|
|
No, you're basically right. Most of these coins are seldom used for anything other than speculation, and sometimes they die a quick death (or, let's say, drift into inactivity - real decentralised coins never die as such).
Sometimes their speculation is okay though - ETH is usually not used to buy anything, but due to the possibility that it could be used to help the creation of wider blockchain applications, its price has rose and is fairly unlikely to fall even though it's somewhat centralised.
|
|
|
|
|
-Cloud mining, excluding Hashnest, Genesis Mining (shady) and Hashflare.
-"UK registered" companies
-Online wallets which claim to provide anonymity
-Phishing for blockchain.info wallet users (and sometimes other users)
-Any Bitcoin mining software which is supposed to be for your PC
There are many more and the obvious Ponzi scams, but I'm basing this on the assumption that you're not an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
Wirex is automatically paying the appropriate fees for your transaction. They're not service fees (a small amount could be), but miner fees for Bitcoin transfers.
The fees are not about how much Bitcoin you're sending, they're about the size in bytes of your transaction. So if you sent larger payments, the fees relative to them would be much smaller.
Currently microtransactions are impractical with Bitcoin due to the clogged network, which is resulting in high fees. This will change if/when scaling is implemented, but until then sit tight and keep it to large transactions or deal with the high fees.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
