|
Through today, Recent update:
30 Day Estimate:
3.84%
60 Day Estimate:
2.97%
|
|
|
|
I do not understand any shit about this and I am still a noob in this forum. Anyhow, 2mb is better than 1mb and we can solve the transactions issues. I want 2mb and segwit right now
750kb is superior to all. 1mb is better than 2mb. Decentralization is superior to centralization. |
|
|
|
|
THREATS OF CHANGE IN BITCOIN PROTOCOL
Does the community here read things and are blind to the fact that most 'changes'/'implementations' to bitcoin protocol are trojan horses to put Bitcoin to death?
Bitcoin is the best working decentralized global store of value that can be simply easily transmitted across the world. In its current form: It is superior to Stocks, Gold, and Real Estate.
Why do you think banks/competitors are looking to change bitcoin?
If you let banksters and the ignorant change the code, you will witness the writing of history of bitcoins demise...
|
|
|
|
silbert is still a blockstreamist. its all just drama. untill there is code that people can review i find it funny how billy wants to point fingers at the jihan 16% but keeps ignoring the 50% other objectors/abstainers/nayseyer. anyway billy loves images and graphs.. so  Does the community here read things and are blind to the fact that most 'changes'/'implementations' to bitcoin protocol are trojan horses to put Bitcoin to death? Bitcoin is the best working decentralized global store of value that can be simply easily transmitted across the world. It is superior to Stocks, Gold, and Real Estate. If you let banksters and the ignorant change the code, you will witness the writing of history of bitcoins demise... |
|
|
|
What are your thoughts of Bitcoin and how it fits in the larger picture of global fiat base (liquidity)? An excerpt:  https://macromon.wordpress.com/2017/04/26/the-chart-that-floats-overvaluation/
"We have estimated a global liquidity concept called the “global monetary base” which is simply the sum of the U.S. monetary base and the world’s official foreign exchange reserves. Since most of the official FX reserves — about 65 percent — are held in dollars most of the global monetary base is in the U.S. financial system." |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin is "too big" for coffee, I wonder how people feel about paying for a coffee with a card. If we look at it, maybe Visa is a bit overkill for coffee too  The difference is that there are no fees involved in using a visa (well a little bit for the merchant, but none for the consumer), where Bitcoin is slow; and the fees that it charges could double the price of your coffee. How much of a transaction fee do you pay buying/selling a house? How much of a fee for selling/buying gold? With bitcoin, if you sell your bitcoin you EARN a fee for selling in the market (through p2p exchanges or marketplaces) |
|
|
|
https://localbitcoins.comYou may have to break it up to multiple trades but you as seller can charge nice premiums and earn more due to demand in the market.
|
|
|
|
IMHO it's also important - the capitalization of Bitcoin - is only 30.000.000.000 $. There are a lot of powerful funds or some companies, how have much more money. So if they want - they can push / pump/ hold / sell. They have enough power to destroy Bitcoin.
They can destroy bitcoin. If they want to make it obvious they oppose innovation and progress which benefit civilization & make themselves look guilty. They usually prefer to be described as philanthropists who donate money to charity and have a net positive effect on society, rather than the opposite. I'm not certain they want to paint themselves as being villains with mass discontent on the horizon. There exists a great separation of powers by the users, developers, mining network in this decentralized framework of Bitcoin. Destruction of Bitcoin need not be public nor make an organization villainous, they just need to introduce a proposal to be adopted to tilt this power structure involving change to Bitcoin's protocol (code). A slight change of this control, and this is all about CONTROL, will open the doorway to begin the destruction of bitcoin. Even if no change is made to code....another attack potential: central banks can sponsor (lend to "startups"/"entrepreneurs") organizations that'll cause a huge bouts of volatile events to keep away broad-mass-user-base: they would bid up prices like crazy to hold a signification portion of coins, and then unload the coins on the market either all at one time (huge drop in 1 week) or slowly to control volume over-time (ie 3 years of lower prices). |
|
|
|
|
Great read. Looks like the Bitcoin prediction doesn't seem so outrageous as $1,900 hit earlier in trading today, May 18th,
|
|
|
|
I am not bashing bitcoin, I remember buying them for as little as $40-60. I sold all of them some time ago, and still wish I had some of course and would buy more if this bubble bursts. But I am more curious about the very long term. Eventually, especially if the bitcoin is valued at many thousands/tens of thousands of dollars a coin it will reach a threshold where it will threaten the most powerful entities in the world (corporations, wealthy families, governments, etc...) considering the fact that if the bitcoin reached a certain price it would create a wild re-distribution in the worlds wealth. I just feel that if it got to that point, these entities would find a way to destroy bitcoin. It has happened before, the federal reserve did this to the greenbacks because it threatened the worlds most powerful entities, and they would never allow that kind of wealth re-distribution.
So you're observing with time that global adoption has accelerated, the price is continually rising, the traditional banking system is under threat from loss of deposits and the global central banks will act to subvert this redistribution of power... ...Then ultimately, are you trying to ask how do we stop this attempt to destroy bitcoin? Maybe its education and instill skepticisim in the workers at telecoms, Bitcoin userbase, developer pool, and the mining conglomerates? |
|
|
|
|
I say by 2027 or earlier, I say Bitcoin will hit $8,000USD
|
|
|
|
guys remember
the segwit proposal doesnt cure blocksize simply due to activation.
it requires people to move funds and then after moving funds, continue to use funds on new keys to be 'leaner' to slip in more tx's per block.
issue is moving over to segwit keypairs will add more mempool bloat with everyone racing to try to move funds across for the HOPE that their voluntary attempt to move across to use segwit keys will be enough to help.
this however would only be achievable if EVERYONE moved over to segwit keys.. yes even the malicious spammers would need to move across
if not then the spammers will continue and people find that they are still waiting in a cesspit of mempool
i say this. because once people realise the empty gesture of segwit. genuine people stop using bitcoin and all thats left is the spammers and mixers
with less people withdrawing bitcoins from exchanges due to days waiting, the price will go down because people then find other assets/ways to get their funds out of an exchange.
Thank you Franky1. Spam will continue either in Segwit scenario or current status quo scenario. Makes no difference, the world, from Philippines to Spain to Japan to Russia to USA to India to Brazil to Nigeria to UK are clamoring to get a piece of Bitcoin. This honest financial asset is exploding: Its scarce, decentralized, secured, maintained integrity (including premine), and immutable. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin is "too big" for coffee, I wonder how people feel about paying for a coffee with a card. If we look at it, maybe Visa is a bit overkill for coffee too It's like paying for coffee with stock or grams of gold. Yeah it's stupid. Exactlly. Globally precious if you see the increasing trades in Philippines, Spain, Japan, Russia, USA, India, Brazil, Nigeria, UK. Buying a coffee, $1 fee lol
Buying a coffee with an international wire payment clearing system, lol.   KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!And what happens when the fees increase another 100x to 100$ per transaction? Are you guys still going to say its cheap and its how bitcoin is meant to be?
Let's see, $100USD minerfee to send any amount of Bitcoin when Bitcoin is valued above $30,000USD/BTC. Sending 0.0166BTC: Hmm, so if you need to liquidate & send $500USD across world fast using your holding of this precious financial asset when its valued at $30,000 an alternative would be to: Sell to any 3rd party the 0.0166BTC to get +$500 3rd party pays you PREMIUM 3% to get BTC asset: +$15 Assuming traditional banks still exist and in this time wire fee (only) doubled, transmit wire $500 and fee: ($500)+ ($60) = ($560) Net Fee using alternative1: ($560) + $500 + $15 = ($45) fee paid This will save you $55 vs paying the ($100)miner fee Localbitcoins premiums for cash deposits have been cheaper in USA where consistently between 3-7% premium past 3 years. Future should bring efficiency so only 3% used. Though we are probably 25 years out from a $30,000 BTC price and $100 txn fees. But we all are observing, increasingly so, since 2013 and every year through today, more and more of some of the smartest in Philippines, Spain, Japan, Russia, USA, India, Brazil, Nigeria, UK are trading to hold Bitcoin. No precious financial asset is as widely distributed and as easily accessible to offer such explosive returns due to its superior ability to hedge global monetary inflation. Bitcoin is not only store of value, but is the check and balance to the world's central banks. |
|
|
|
point 1:
...
point 2:
...
point 3:
...
Not sure if its a language divide thing but these posts are ignoring the points I made. The most probable reason why the developers wanted to make bitcoin more valuable is because they want to earn more from the fees. The higher the fees multiplied by the high value of bitcoin the result would be big profit.
Xester, isn't it miners who get fees? Code developers of Bitcoin do not get any of the bitcoin network-generated fees. Miners do. |
|
|
|
Many are saying the bitcoin community wants scaling to convert Bitcoin from a store-of-value asset (like ultimate global digital gold) into easily expendible, plentiful cash fiat. I think if we get together as a community we can influence the developers to make Bitcoin price to go back down to below $1,000.
those who think bitcoin is a "store of value" not a "currency" should seriously start reading bitcoin's original paper and see what Satoshi (creator of bitcoin) called bitcoin: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfPooya87 thank you - I hope to give you an interesting perspective to your response here: Wait, both you and Satoshi refer to word "CASH", right? Cash....ok we know cash, US dollar, Euro, Indian Rupee...all cash we know have same thing in common...it is continually issued by central banks, monetary inflation continues to occur. Every decade there is more USD, more Euro, more Rupees, right? BUT WAIT, the Bitcoin whitepaper contradicts this very common notion of cash with a fixed, scarce supply! Why do this? This is something that is very Un-cash-like isn't it? This is point 1. Point 2, why did Bitcoin emerge in 2009 right after the global financial crisis? Is there any special timing here? Electronic payments were already being acheived by things like Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Western Union, SWIFT, Square payments, right? Its timing: The global financial crisis 2007-2008 was followed by response from central banks to bailing out some giant corporate financial institutions at the expense of others via monetary inflation to which citizens and honest conservatively-run businesses had no way to block such responses/inflation that essentially devalued their cash-holdings. Control. Why does whitepaper introduce bitcoin with a trustless framework? Why not go with a private database? This secure trustless, distributed proof of work, database known as Bitcoin's blockchain peacefully destroys the centralized framework of monetary authorities' control. This decentralization of bitcoin strengthened it to be headless with no central points of shutdown and thus would help protect point 1 above, integrity of scarce supply. And gave participants protection not only from bank/government-sponsored inflation but also freedom from freezing of assets and confiscation of funds. Point 3 Does the whitepaper for Bitcoin indirectly indicate to us how cash (savings) should've always worked anyways? That is, that it is showing that systems of cash like USD, Euro, etc are broken (inflationary) and Bitcoin is new-way of defining cash by being deflationary? Deflationary being that even after widespread adoption of Bitcoin (we aren't close to being there), Bitcoin will still go up in value so as long as monetary inflation exists, ie central banks keep pumping liquidity such as USD, Euros, Rupees into the financial system. Conversely, the rare times when monetary deflation would occur, Bitcoin should go down in value. Thus, Bitcoin being secure, decentralized, immutable and scarce, has made it into deflationary cash that may be transmitted anywhere via a communications channel. Deflationary cash is so unique to this sick-central-banked world, that it has quickly turned Bitcoin into the ultimate store of value. Why mine ~1M bitcoin and not spend it for 8+ years? Integrity, value. also they have to check the news and see why bitcoin price is rising, hint it is NOT because Japan said bitcoin is a good "investment to store value".
I didn't think bitcoin's price movement was dependent on "news". What was the "news" for Bitcoin's price move from $1 to $10? How about from $10 to $100? What was the news for $100 to $500? |
|
|
|
The developers can't implement scaling on their own. Miners have to agree on scaling, so the arguments about scaling just show that the network is decentralised enough not to be controlled by one group.
You are right. And thank you for engaging in discussion here (much appreciated). Bitcoin instills a good system (though not perfect) of checks and balances. So then, may I ask, why are some users on this forum so bent on an agenda of begging developers to implement scaling/compromise/etc? Its spreading nonsense FUD in my humble opinion. Furthermore, scaling has no relation to fiat. The supply would still remain fixed. No one can just create Bitcoin like the Ethereum or Ripple devs can create their respective "cryptocurrencies".
Bitcoin is supposed to be an effective store of value as well as a currency. The two should be able to work together.
Would you agree that already as I type this there are many transactions being transmitted globally crossing geographical divides with Bitcoin? I was able to send a transaction recently pretty easily. So what exactly is this "scaling" that Bitcoin doesn't already do? To buy coffee and a box of matches for a million people at a time? I thought most Bitcoin exchanges already issue debit cards for spending to do this already? Also what incentive would there be to buy coffee using spend/sell a store of value asset (such as Bitcoin, gold, real estate) versus we spend expendible/plentiful cash fiat (or some worthless altcoin) to buy same coffee? Why wouldn't someone spend the coin that is worthless and hoard the things that are precious (worth-more)? Or are market-participants already doing this naturally? I don't understand your concerns at all.. You don't like bitcoin becoming valuable? Are you sure that you are not high? High prices are every bitcoin holder's dream. It is never too late. Next stop is 10k$, buy now or cry later!
Don't worry, I agree with you. Thanks for pitching in mindrust. Sorry if you didn't catch the sarcasm, I tried to bring up a few points/questions in my original post hopefully for readers to catch on to me. Sorry I should've been more clear. You wrote many words, but simple answer to that is they have conservative approach. Quality before quantity or risk, that is why bitcoin code is safe, stable and price CAN go constantly upward.
Agree, Bitcoin is secure, scarce, globally distributed with many trades in places like Philippines, Spain, China, USA, Russia, India, Brazil, etc...Thank you Velkro. I don't understand why should we lower the price until lower than 1000$, it will attracted more people to invest in bitcoin if the price is expensive, lowering the price will cost people to abandon bitcoin, if bitcoin lower than 1000$ I think a lot of people will invest their coin into other alt coin, bitcoin is start from 1$, it is a long way until it can reach more than 1000$, it is absurd to asked people to agree for bitcoin to back to 1000$
Xuan, I agree, that is funny how human get drawn to things. Definitely yes, as Bitcoin continues to rocket higher as years pass on by, more and more people/organizations will HAVE to adopt bitcoin as a matter of survival (from monetary inflation). Thank you. |
|
|
|
To start a bank you need sufficient capital
If you have that, you can start a bank, as plain and simple as it gets. This is certainly not about "no one is allowed to start a bank". Apart from that, I don't see what it has to do with your point. Further, it is not my idea that big corporations can and do establish their own "pet" banks (I have provided you a link). In fact, many international or just large enough companies which started as pure production (or whatever) firms are now part of large financial groups which include banks to serve the interests of these groups. The fact that Facebook doesn't have a bank means that it is not a corporation (which it is not) or it doesn't need a bank, just as simple. I don't understand why you continue this futile argument
Gazprombank was founded in 1990. Its not a new bank. Russia being one of the few countries not run by international bankers, it is probably one of the few countries which would allow someone to start a relatively new bank. Can you name a bank that was recently founded by a large corporation as you claim? It is illegal to start a bank in most countries that are run by central banks. There's a reason why no one goes into the banking business despite the technology being used by most banks being old, obsolete and outdated. Russia is one of the oldest to be run by international bankers: The Central Bank of the Russian Federation also known as the Bank of Russia (Russian: Банк России Bank Rossii) is the central bank of the Russian Federation, founded in 1860. How else would profiteering from FINANCED wars involving Russia be so easy for international central banks to coordinate? |
|
|
|
America is in control of the worlds currency in the form of US dollars as the universal legal tender. If bitcoin will be adopted by the countries in the world then bitcoin could be the next legal tender leaving the US dollar weak and prone to economic devastation. This could be the fall of the economy of America thus they see it fit to destroy bitcoin using the quantum computers made by the CIA.
Considering the US Dollar basically has unlimited transaction capacity and backing of the American Government. Bitcoin can not even meet it current transaction requirements and no support from a Government. All they have to do is DDOS all of the mining pools or cut their electricity or internet, nothing more to stop Bitcoin. Bitcoin is resistant to attack from individuals and small countries, thinking that America or China or Russia don't have the resources to end BTC by physical means is fool hardy. first of all there is no reason for any country to do such thing and even if they decided to do this, bitcoin is not a centralized website to DDoS and make it go offline! the miners are spread throughout the world, and those you think are centralized in one place are actually having servers in different places that they connect to. and even if some miners are successfully put out of business, the hashrate will drop and then difficulty will drop and new miners on another side of the world will pop up with new servers and somewhere out of the reach of the attackers. Hah, thank you for your role in forum-post policing! That was amusing to read. |
|
|
|
Well, in their view it is not a big enough threat to attack and spend millions on gaining a majority of the hashing power. Once it is determined to be a threat it will be too large for them to buy their way in to control. Plus the second they gain control is when all of the money floods out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto. That is the beauty of it, we are not forced in to using the currency so attacking it results in wasted money as the users move out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto-currency.
The agencies would have an interest to make bitcoin big. They can use it for their own operations if needed and they can follow the trail of the money. Since everyone know that, for example the nsa, controls the internet traffic of whole countries. So it would be not really hard to fight terrorism and similar things like that. Well, pushing in bad code that is not found might be another nice gimmick but so far I think it was not successfull. Too many observe things closely. The idea of inserting "bad code" under the eyes of everyone is not new: This challenge appeared on an internal alias dedicated to C++. It was issued by Mike Vine, a developer here at Microsoft who agreed to let us share it with the mighty Visual C++ blog readers:
This challenge came from me thinking about a simple bug which could be turned into a security vulnerability, so I thought I’d give it a go and try to code a plausibly deniable piece of code which looks innocent but is actually dangerous. I managed to actually go further than that, and produced something, that whilst unlikely, could possibly have come from non-malicious but sloppy coding.
So your challenge is – if you choose to accept it – analyze the sample code file “main.c” (attached) and try to find the (fairly obvious) security faux pas and ‘accidental’ bug which causes the security faux pas to be exploitable. The 7th Underhanded C Contest is now open.
The goal of the contest is to write code that is as readable, clear, innocent and straightforward as possible, and yet it must fail to perform at its apparent function. To be more specific, it should do something subtly evil. Every year, we will propose a challenge to coders to solve a simple data processing problem, but with covert malicious behavior. Examples include miscounting votes, shaving money from financial transactions, or leaking information to an eavesdropper. The main goal, however, is to write source code that easily passes visual inspection by other programmers. Your posts and questions you pose to the community here are invaluable and hope to see more in the future. Unless if you are me, are you me? Then I guess I would need to post...Or are you Satoshi?  anyways thank you for finding my post and commenting, good to know old-timers are paying attention in the forums. (re my post: "Hacks Puppets and Forks: How to destory bitcoin") https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1834310.0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
