So the latest thing I ran into was that I wanted an app for my phone via Google Play. I could not find any way to pay with Bitcoin. I realized I still have money in my PayPal account so I used that. I usually like to e-mail companies when I run into something I want to buy that I can't pay for. After searching for the person that would be in charge of such matters I found Ariel Bardin was the one to contact. I shot off an e-mail to ariel.bardin@gmail.com to see if that's the right guy. One ship to APO company replied to my e-mail and said they were "keeping an eye" on Bitcoin for now. I just don't understand what they would be waiting for. Like something big will change where they need to jump on board. I'm still trying to figure out how to get an Amazon fire stick shipped to me. Yeah I guess it's "good luck" if you want to buy an Apple product? I guess you can buy iTunes codes with Bitcoin https://www.gyft.com/buy-gift-cards/itunes-code/Looks like I didn't search enough for Google Play http://www.yottaelectronics.com/products/google-play-gift-card |
|
|
|
IIRC during the 2 last downtimes the BTC price went slightly up. Assuming the price movement can be any indicator of whether BTC is/isn't doing fine, then it seems that this forum doesn't have much impact on Bitcoin.
Yes, it's great to have a dedicated forum with such large number of registered accounts. But if it ever goes down for good, plenty of other forums will pop up to fill the void.
This. Every time I have seen bitcointalk go down the price goes up. No idea why, maybe the signature campaign people are not cashing out their money. I haven't seen any price increase when the forum went down the other day. It's actually lower now but I am guessing that has to do with Gavin's announcement. Before it went down price was $235. Then when it came back up: Traded up to the 240's and then back down 236 this morning. And not a single rocket gif. Seems bitcoin can function fine without us....  |
|
|
|
If only 10% of miners are mining on "Blockchain B" then they will still have the same difficulty resulting in each block being found on average every 100 minutes for about 2 weeks.
Who will still be using a blockchain where the block discovery slows by 10X?
Bitcoin's difficulty changes after a certain amount of blocks found (2016 blocks), not after a certain amount of time passed. It just happens to normally take about 2 weeks. It would take much, much longer if blocks were 100 minutes apart. I imagine merged mining would be possible if there were 2 coexisting forks of Bitcoin (but I'm not certain of that). In that case, both chains could be mined by 100% of the existing miners. The only thing that determines whether or not a coin (or fork) continues to exist is supply and demand. I did not think of that. So without merged mining there would be 5 months of 1 hour, 40 minute blocks. I doubt that chain would succeed. And most likely other miners would bail to the point that it could be years of multiple hour blocks. |
|
|
|
IIRC during the 2 last downtimes the BTC price went slightly up. Assuming the price movement can be any indicator of whether BTC is/isn't doing fine, then it seems that this forum doesn't have much impact on Bitcoin.
Yes, it's great to have a dedicated forum with such large number of registered accounts. But if it ever goes down for good, plenty of other forums will pop up to fill the void.
This. Every time I have seen bitcointalk go down the price goes up. No idea why, maybe the signature campaign people are not cashing out their money. |
|
|
|
|
Updated my takeaway.com review after using it a second time.
Has anyone else used this service and had something you put in the "remarks" box ignored? It might be a German thing or just based on each restaurant's system.
|
|
|
|
|
If only 10% of miners are mining on "Blockchain B" then they will still have the same difficulty resulting in each block being found on average every 100 minutes for about 2 weeks.
Who will still be using a blockchain where the block discovery slows by 10X?
|
|
|
|
So the latest thing I ran into was that I wanted an app for my phone via Google Play. I could not find any way to pay with Bitcoin. I realized I still have money in my PayPal account so I used that. I usually like to e-mail companies when I run into something I want to buy that I can't pay for. After searching for the person that would be in charge of such matters I found Ariel Bardin was the one to contact. I shot off an e-mail to ariel.bardin@gmail.com to see if that's the right guy. One ship to APO company replied to my e-mail and said they were "keeping an eye" on Bitcoin for now. I just don't understand what they would be waiting for. Like something big will change where they need to jump on board. I'm still trying to figure out how to get an Amazon fire stick shipped to me. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see much reason to have a Bitcoin business in the US unless you are a business that goes back and forth between Bitcoin and fiat.
|
|
|
|
|
My job will just change to programming the machines to do peoples' jobs.
|
|
|
|
Hey Elwar you've been around here long enough to ignore all the FUD rubbish. The bitcoin price isn't remotely affected by these shills/socks/trolls/peasants  I don't know why they bother mate, the success or failure of bitcoins future will be decided by many things. FUD on this forum is not one of them. The best thing to do is use macsga's ever growing 'LIST' of trolls to put on ignore. Give it a look if you get 5 minutes, it might make your experience here a happier one - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1019752.0Yep, I am using his list for a while, quite handy. Just seems like quite the uptick in trolls since the hack. So instead of a bunch of 0 post trolls there are 60, 100, etc... The ignore list keeps growing and growing. Edit: as for price, I really don't care...I get paid Friday so I like the low price but I know it'll be back up by then anyway so no big deal |
|
|
|
|
A Bitcoin bank could provide currency conversion services so you can have a debit card, direct deposit, write checks, etc.
You write a check for dollars, it gets cashed and bitcoins in your account are converted to whatever currency the check was made for. Same for debit cards, etc.
|
|
|
|
coincidence? If only there was a Bitcoin Forum where only bitcoin users were allowed to post. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like the more centralized/scammish a coin gets, the faster the transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
I just bought 2 pizzas tonight with bitcoins so...
rumors of Bitcoin's death are highly exageratted
|
|
|
|
I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads. Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board: What do other people think?
If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.
I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.
Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.
But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.
--
--
Gavin Andresen |
|
|
|
I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads. Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board: What do other people think?
If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.
I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.
Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.
But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.
--
--
Gavin Andresen |
|
|
|
I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads. Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board: What do other people think?
If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.
I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.
Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.
But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.
--
--
Gavin Andresen |
|
|
|
I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads. Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board: What do other people think?
If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.
I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.
Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.
But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.
--
--
Gavin Andresen |
|
|
|
I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads. Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board: What do other people think?
If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.
I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.
Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.
But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.
--
--
Gavin Andresen |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
