I wonder why you want to sell your bitcoin fund? if you don't believe in cryptocurrencies so why you invest your money in it from beginning?
Are you aware that you will eventually want to do something with you bitcoins and that nowadays that means converting to fiat? Unless hodling beyond the grave is your plan. Exactly, paxmao, maybe he does not think of it as of the moment. What is your thoughts about this, my friend? Two quick things: Crypto friendly countries: Germany and I think also Holland. On the first one if you are resident in certain regions you don't pay tax for crypto gains. Crypto cards: I hodl and hope to have soon the product of FuzeX, so I can spend crypto directly in any place where visa and the like are accepted. |
|
|
|
Metcalf's law has proven to be false repeatedly. It's just a quack theory to overprice tech stocks.
Any evidence? Because all the mobile phone industry growth proves you wrong, so you are going to need something more than that. I think you are confusing number of connections can be created "between users" with number of "Actual users". If there are 4 users (A,B,C and D) then number of connections that can be made 6 (assuming connection is bi directional) (A<=>B, A<=>C,A<=>D, B<=>C,B<=>D,C<=>D ) If user E join this network ,now only 1 new user added but number of connection that can be made now will be 10 (increase of 4 connection). (A<=>B, A<=>C,A<=>D , A<=>E, B<=>C,B<=>D, B<=>E, C<=>D, C<=>E, , D<=>E ) So in simple words I will say if "X" new user adopt bitcoin (with "Y" existing user base) then bitcoin adoption is increased only by "X" people only but number of connection (i.e transaction that can happen between user wallets,(assuming each user has 1 wallet) is increased by [(X+Y)*(X+Y-1)/2] -[X*(X-1)/2] = XY+Y 2/2-Y/2. If you are assuming mobile industry growth with number of connections available then you are right but if you are equate with revenue/profit generation then you are in wrong side. I am saying that the value of the network increases exponentially with new users. It is true for comms networks and that is also true for Bitcoin, as a network and there is no mistake nor confusion. Now, it is true that not all users are of equal value. For example, there is a limited number of people that need to transact with me, but there are many that want to transact with Amazon. So Metcalf's Law can be made a bit more complex and a bit more accurate by saying that "big players" bring more value to the network. |
|
|
|
Lo que yo no comprendo es que beneficio tiene este sistema llevandose a cabo con criptomonedas, en vez de simplemente hacerlo con las ya existentes
El sistema con criptodivisas permite contratos auditables y que no requieren confianza entre las partes. Eso en muchos sectores, como la publicidad en internet es ya de por si suficiente ventaja. En lo que explica electrobit hay un problema y es que el Blockchain necesita de oráculos para interactuar con el resto del mundo y ahí es donde esa no necesidad de confiaza puede perder fuelle. |
|
|
|
Nueva York esta teniendo muchas iniciativas y desea tomar las riendas del camino con el Blockchain, con solo decir que el presidente dijo que no hay ninguna ciudad en el mundo que esté mejor posicionada para liderar el camino en blockchain.
Está pensando en hacer saber a la gente como funciona el Blockchain, crear nuevas empresas y tratar el tema de la regulación, reuniendo a los actores del gobierno, y gente de la industria.
Quiere crear talleres para empleados gubernamentales sobre blockchain, y muy importante; talleres educativos gratuitos para el público!
Creo que Nueva York tiene un "pequeño" problema y es que forma parte de los Estados Unidos, uno de los paises con una legislación impositiva más complicada y una de las agencias más agresivas hacia cualquier cosa que no sea lo de siempre. Me da a mi que casi cualquier otro hub tecnologíco es mejor en este caso. |
|
|
|
|
CERRADO GRACIAS
A ver, para alegrar un poco la sección de ALTs en Español y porque doy ya bastante merito a los mismos usuarios que contribuyen con calidad rutinariamente, quiero proponer que comentéis en este hilo hasta 2 ICOs por usuario. Aunque no garantizo el dar méritos, si voy a leer todas las respuestas y tengo intención de repartir hasta 100 méritos que tengo en la nevera. Se valorará precisión de la información, calidad del comentario y calidad de la ICO. Como pista: para mi es importante el equipo y la competencia en el sector.
Hay que dar como datos mínimos los siguientes:
a) de que negocio o sector se trata
b) qué hace esa ICO distinta de cosas que ya existan.
c) Indicar el nombre de tres destacables miembros del equipo y que es lo mejor de sus curricula
d) Indicar el nombre de uno o dos asesores y que es lo mejor que aportan.
e) Datos de la ICO: número de tokens, hardcap y softcap, plataforma, market cap prevista.
f) Datos de la venta: fechas, descuentos y y si se queman los tokens no vendidos.
g) Cuantos seguidores tiene en Telegram en este momento.
h) Otros datos de interés.
i) Que grado de confianza os da la ICO
Y poner un link a la web o hilo en Bitcointalk de la ICO.
|
|
|
|
|
Miles de Bitcoin... un sueño hecho realidad con ICE ROCK MINING II y Dias, el visionario que nos llevara a la luna.
|
|
|
|
|
Xmoneta tiene un gran equipo y eso es mucho más importante que cualquier otra cosa en tecnología. Los planes están trazados, adelante.
|
|
|
|
Metcalf's law has proven to be false repeatedly. It's just a quack theory to overprice tech stocks.
Any evidence? Because all the mobile phone industry growth proves you wrong, so you are going to need something more than that. |
|
|
|
|
Codes of good practice are indeed needed, but not just for exchanges, but also for ICOs, Bounties and the like. At the moment, users are abused daily.
|
|
|
|
Now that Bitcoin is being adopted by some of the major financial players, they are trying to apply some of their traditional concepts to it. Metcalf's law applies to the value of social networking and peer-to-peer communication networks, The Wikipedia article is here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_lawI don't really think it is applicable, but I'm not sure that I understand it completely. I'd be interested in some other opinions. For example, it seems to fail to take account of people like me who run two part time nodes, the different impact of miners, and users who have wallets with on-line services. So does it apply to Bitcoin in some way, or should I forget about trying to understand it? Yes of course it does. It is in fact a basic reason of why bitcoin maintains a good market price. I wrote an article with that a while ago. |
|
|
|
Securing your private key is quintessence here, but there are some issues pertaining to your private key security what if something happened to you? How can you hand it over if you are already dead, right? These topics are relevant on how to transfer digital assets to your next of kin. I have read about “Coinbase” having this custodial service, in which they will hold your private keys. If ever something happened to you or in case of any fortuitous event (leads to your death). They will protect your keys until such time your legal heir(s) can provide legal document, e.g. death certificate and/or your will to transfer your digital assets. I think it would not fit to what bitcoin is all about, for it is anonymity currency. Inheritance of digital assets remains a top topic today and securing your private key is the tailback.
Why would I trust Coinbase more than a bank´s safe? What I would do is divide the key in two or three parts and store each on a safe in different banks. For small amounts, just leave it to two people you trust or, for safety, leave copies to four people. |
|
|
|
I wonder why you want to sell your bitcoin fund? if you don't believe in cryptocurrencies so why you invest your money in it from beginning?
Are you aware that you will eventually want to do something with you bitcoins and that nowadays that means converting to fiat? Unless hodling beyond the grave is your plan. |
|
|
|
This forum attracts spam and shit posts due to the simple fact money is made from cryptocoins.
First suggestion is rename to cryptocointalk.org it may be for sale.
Frankly the alt coin = every coin but BTC is a limiting concept.
That is an historical thing on this forum, but I guess it does not matter that much. Many early bitcoiners are a morally hurt by the alts because they think that, for some reason I fail to understand, bitcoin is the only "true coin" and Alts hurt its value. I think it is exactly the opposite. Just think of it in terms of another category such as coins or airplanes: The only coin is USD and the rest are "Alt Cash" or the only true plane is the Wright Brothers plane and the "F16" is an Alt-Plane. You see, on the end the "sects" will be losing opportunities in the name of a strange "bitReligion" (ooohh... that´s it, I am launching an alt with that  ) |
|
|
|
It is unfortunate that the promotion that generated me the most money was in the on-line casino industry, and one signature on a porn webmaster board was earning £2,000-£3,000 per month.
That must have been a site worth seeing  One formula that does seem to work is to have an open section with a number of boards, and a closed section that is private and invitation only.
I kind of agree, there could be sections with requisites to entry, Ivory Tower and Serious Discussion are kind of that. Bitcoin Talk has a fairly difficult problem. It needs to be international, but it needs to have the main boards in English. Keeping the English boards clean can only be managed by active moderation in my opinion. It would also appear that it needs the traffic generated by the bounty hunters, and they seem to be very low level members in the main, and I believe that they should be contained in their own sub-section of boards.
I have been living and working in English speaking and non-speaking countries. Believe me, you actually need to promote more the local forums. There are billions of people that don´t read nor write English, nor are interested on learning it. If you don´t cater to their needs and legitimate desire for knowledge you are really missing more than half of the world that could be actively supporting Bitcoin and Alts. |
|
|
|
This is why I am opening this thread to ask if any of you have been forum members in other forums that have become very popular over the time and can share your views on this so we can compare.
I have taken part for years on a popular forum dedicated to mountaineering, climbing and trekking. On that forum I wanted to share routes, experiences, comments on tools and materials but inevitably, some of the answers came from brand promoters, etc... A norm was set so that those comments would be accepted as long as the people having interests in brands or shops identified themselves as such. My experience is that anything that engages and excites people creates commercial opportunities and marketers of all levels, including the spammers, will jump in the scene at any occasion possible. On Bitcointalk this is even more acute because Bitcoin and Alts involve a young market with plenty of growth and excitement. That is the modern internet, the old times were amazingly naive, and it would be extremely difficult to change it. However, you can promote a better forum with things like the merit system, the trust system and the Serious Talk and Ivory Tower sections. Some of the keys: a) You need really good and active forum moderation. You may need more section admins. b) There has to be a systematic application of rules. You can´t leave to campaign managers admin duties, they have no incentive. But anyway, it is an arduous task and there has to be a balance between commercial and non-commercial content, because it is good that new funds come to the arena and it is good that this forum can channel them. |
|
|
|
I think you all have valuable points, yet you might miss some of the problems and solutions in my first post.
Firstly, it doesn't matter much if the software is decentralised if the wealth is centralised and controlled by institutions in the end. No matter if Satoshi had 1 billion $ or 100 billion $, the fact remains that Bitcoin could never be an actual alternative in the real world with one person owning so much of a monetary supply. Would you ever shift fiat based capital into such a thing if you knew one person/entity had so much of the wealth? The other option is that the powers that be would, because they created bitcoin or see it playing out in big capitals interest and so they buy up major slots of bitcoin. This would still leave us with a situation in which these powers that be would reign supreme once again, gobbling up more and more of the wealth in the bitcoin chain.
Secondly, I never said we had to shut down the current bitcoin chains (obviously) so I don't see how my idea would impact assets people have on these chains in any way shape or form. That is, unless people validate my original point by investing massively into a satoshiless bitcoin alternative.
Lastly I just want to say, I never meant to imply in any way that the forks were minor or that the problems they solved were marginal. I understand how one would read this sentence as being disrespectful to the people working hard on these forks and the people behind them. All I meant to say was that back when I first learned of bitcoin, this seemed like the most obvious and least difficult problem to solve to me.
I really appreciate all of the comments, but I must say that I do implore you to come up with different problems than ''you can't restart a blockchain'', this is not my intention or ''satoshi deserves it''. Say, purely from a theoretical standpoint, that Satoshi is an internationally powerful network of pedophiles. No one says pedo's can't be smart, or that they can't contribute to society. All I am saying is, is it wise or even tenable to establish a new ''currency'' with this much of the distribution taking place anonymously?
Thanks for reading and greetings,
Auralea
Again, you CAN restart a chain, but the value of a chain is on the ecosystem: developers, hodlers, traders, exchanges, shops that accept bitcoin,... That is what you "can´t restart", and it does not matter if the main owners where a sect of fetuses eaters or fans of Woody Allen. |
|
|
|
"Estipular compañeros forzados", algo así.
En el slam, un "matchmaker" es aquel que provoca situaciones de encuentros entre dos personas, generalmente con el fin de que éstas se relacionen, incluso aunque no se lleven bien o no tengan nada en común.
Matchmaking tiene intrínseco ese concepto de "forzado", ya que viene de ese otro concepto. Posiblemente es "forzar a la gente a que haga "click" jajajaj.
Imposible traducirlo en una sola palabra, como suele pasar en el inglés. Tradutore traditore!!.
Creo que depende del contexto, no hay una equivalente para todo caso. |
|
|
|
Esa palabra probablemente venga de un texto totalmente en inglés. Tienes el texto completo?
Si claro, es de un WP que he traducido, el de Asuracoin. Se refiere a juntar a jugadores o equipos para jugar una partida. En otra ocasión lo tuve que traducir en el contexto de cruzar ordenes de mercado y use emparejar. Quizás cruzar hubiera sido mejor. |
|
|
|
|
Quedan 18 días para terminar la ICO. Es un momento bueno, con precios economicos y para poder ver resultados rapidos.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
