I always chuckle when I see butthurt altcoin boys. They secretly hate themselves for not buying into Bitcoin when it was cheap and then hope to undo their mistake by buying into scammy ICOs.
And they'll hate themselves even more this time next year for not buying in now. Interesting article, but full of so much bad reporting that I don't trust any of it. - implication aim of BU is to create a second chain (rather all be on one chain with user-set blocksize) - implication aim of BU is to increase the 21M emission limit (ummm... no) Just another poorly-written advocacy piece. |
|
|
|
Your question was clearly and concisely answered in about the third reply, but you seem to have missed it - perhaps due to your excessive bloviation. Whatever M-Pesa balance you have can be manipulated by others. Whatever bitcoin you own is yours and yours alone. Nobody can take it from you if do do not reveal the private key behind the address. If you cannot understand the fundamental difference based upon this, then you are beyond hope. But it didn't end there and continued with "For example, how would you explain Bitcoin to the millions of M-pesa users in Tanzania and Kenya. "It is a lot like M-Pesa, but offers the benefit of not being able to be rolled back or controlled by a central party". They might not immediately see the benefit of the latter, and I don't particularly care to force the issue. Adoption -- at least lacking some catalyzing crisis -- does not subsume from the center. It occurs at the margins. Patience, grasshopper. In what way would switching to Bitcoin better their situation, bearing in mind: a) the fact that many people do not have regular or reliable access to electricity and charge old mobile phones (held together with duct tape) from a central source, b) the cost of 'mining' bitcoin, and c) the fact that these people (and billions like them) will never, ever be able to afford to 'mine' so much as a single bitcoin?"
None of that shit matters to an end user. My above point is enough. The purpose of my question was to determine whether Bitcoin offers sufficient benefits to persuade M-pesa users to switch to Bitcoin instead. No one has answered this question. What I'm trying to understand is why M-pesa has gained 20 millions users in just two countries in the space of nine years, whereas Bitcoin has been around for seven years and doesn't come close to this figure even on a global scale. Why?
Because M-Pesa was right place right time with a distribution network that was already in place with a captive customer base, and an advertising budget. |
|
|
|
This is not an answer to my question though. What motivation is there for an M-pesa user to switch to Bitcoin?
Your question was clearly and concisely answered in about the third reply, but you seem to have missed it - perhaps due to your excessive bloviation. Whatever M-Pesa balance you have can be manipulated by others. Whatever bitcoin you own is yours and yours alone. Nobody can take it from you if do do not reveal the private key behind the address. If you cannot understand the fundamental difference based upon this, then you are beyond hope. |
|
|
|
You don't actually believe the Crap coin know as BTC is worth over $700 ?
Why yes. Yes I do. Perhaps you have a fundamental misapprehension about the value of currency. As long as I can quickly and easily surrender 1 of my BTC, and receive $700 USD for it, then $700 is what it is worth. On a website devoted to magic internet money as a topic, I wouldn't think I would need to explain this. |
|
|
|
Good that you feel violated, you should realise that Bitcoin is close to its headshot.
Why there's two categories at all? Its all about crypto, some alts maybe better in the meantime.
You BTC cowboys got to be shot off your high horse already and get your shit in order.
You're standing in the way of development and evolution, your pissing all over the place.
You've lost it already. You got nothing to do with the BTC market anymore, anyway, thats Chinese, 99%, the rest will follow and then you can start out like every other alt and you can name it Bitcoin Unlimited or whatever and see how far you'll make it with your outdated pile of crap.
Comedy Gold. Butthurt much? Sorry your preferred crypto is but a pimple on Bitcoin's ass. |
|
|
|
and the number of Segwit nodes is also quite high (29%).
While it may just be variance, last 1000 blocks says SegWit support is under 19%. To expand on this Wind_FURY, look at the article that I've just read. They find 3 *bug* to list in a post to make it seem like BU team is competent and whatnot, while they are actually still running on a code base that is very far behind. Well, no. It is not 'very far behind'. It is bereft of the cruft that core has added that the BU community does not accept. Spin it whatever way you want, you epically missed the point of the post. |
|
|
|
a consensus needs 95% to switch
No. Kiklo spouts a lot of nonsense, presenting merely possible conclusions as matters of settled fact. But he or she is indeed correct that any group in collusion holding greater than half of the mining power can rewrite the blockchain*. The '95% consensus' is merely a self-imposed threshold. *Of course, game theory points out that they stand to lose their vast investment in hashing machines, as users abandon a broken system. Further, they still have not clarified what the heck they are spouting about by saying "it was the Chinese mining pools that blocked the proposed updates". But again, I've kind of lost interest in that particular discussion. |
|
|
|
Most millionaires are not stupid
While that is likely true, it is also likely true that most millionaires are absolutely ignorant about cryptocurrency. Heck, they are even probably mostly ignorant about the nature of our current partial reserve fiat monetary system. |
|
|
|
Craig Wright have more than 1 million BTC for dump so do not worry.
sure he does. i have 1 million too but i got bored of them so smoked the private keys. More fun facts. CSW was claiming that he owned one of the world's largest supercomputers. Indeed, in my mind, this was a strong piece of evidence supporting his claim. It was even listed on the Top 500 list at # 17: 17 Tulip Trading Australia C01N - SGI ICE X/SuperBlade SBI-7127RG-E, Intel Xeon E5-2695v2 12C 2.4GHz, Infiniband FDR, NDIVA M2090/Intel Xeon Phi 7120P Supermicro 265,440 3,521.0 4,470.4 4,500 As late as May 4 of this year, it was listed: https://web.archive.org/web/20160504043035/http://www.top500.org/list/2015/11However, the next update of 2016 May 07 dropped the listing: https://web.archive.org/web/20160507054451/http://www.top500.org/list/2015/11/?I've not yet gotten the backstory on this. Of course, I just started looking -- as a background activity -- a couple of days ago. In the meantime, it is just one more piece of evidence against his claim. 'Tis a shame. I thought he'd make an about ideal Satoshi. Would have been a great legend. About what we deserve.  |
|
|
|
Perhaps "Epic" for 1500+ and "OneOfTheAges" for 2000+.
Pointless titles are pointless. Don't tell me you factor poster's title into your analysis of the post? |
|
|
|
Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?
I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation. If you want to make a counter statement, go for it. I am curious to know how a rage quit from Hearn and Gavin's competing technology are not hurting Bitcoin. To go public and telling people Bitcoin is a failed experiment, is definitely not my idea of someone trying to support the technology. OK, let's address each one, shall we? First, what is 'Gavin's competing technology' and in what manner is it 'hurting Bitcoin'? In what way does such 'hurt' rise to the level of 'sabotage'? Second, do you believe that Hearn has some sort of responsibility to work on things other than what he desires? Further, what value do you think the term 'rage quit' brings to the discussion? Assuming he legitimately arrived at a personal determination that the weakly-defined governance model -- or any other characteristic -- rendered Bitcoin to be destined for failure, what would you expect him to do - lie to the world at large about what he believes that prospects are? In what way are his comments 'sabotage'? If your idea of 'sabotage' is synonymous with your definition of 'not supporting', you might expect that others find your communiques puzzling at best. First, I will pause by noting that you failed to answer even one of my direct questions. Whatevs. That said.... Cmon, Do not tell me you cannot see that XT and Classic were introduced to create confusion and to divide the community?
I don't believe for a minute that the purpose behind XT and Classic was to "create confusion and to divide the community". What utter twaddle. Gavin had been speaking for years about the need to increase the block size. These were merely an attempt to do so. What evidence can you point to to support your assertion that the purpose behind XT and/or Classic was to "create confusion and to divide the community"? Gavin jumped from the one to the other...
When his initial attempt was unsuccessful, he tried another approach that he likely beleived would have greater chance of success. What would you expect a rational person to do in such a circumstance? ...when he found no place to make money.
Make money? In what way would his capacity to make money have changed if things had gone differently? Mike already had a exit plan with R3 ... so he jumped ship,
I really don't know at what time Mike had started talking to R3. I'm guessing you also have no idea, and you are just talking out of your ass. Put up or shut up. and left a bomb to sink it...
'A bomb'? You sound like a frightened schoolgirl. He merely stated his thoughts on the matter. That's not 'sabotage' as you claim. That is just making one's thoughts known. You can disagree with him if you desire (indeed, I disagree on his point that the failure to increase blocksize is a _fatal_ problem). But holding him responsible for 'sabotage' on this point is beyond the pale. |
|
|
|
What if you're trade altcoins against btc but never sell the btc. Do you pay taxes even if you haven't sold,
No. The taxable event is the selling of some asset for governmentally-recognized money - such as USD. and how do you base the value of the btc.
You have to track the value of each trade, allocating the percentage of source value to trade value, tracing the eventual sale back to the original purchase price. Again, IANAL, nor a CPA... |
|
|
|
my quantity of BTC bought remains 1 to 2%, or even a bit more, greater than the amount sold.
You sound American? That's not the way it works. The selling of an asset is a taxable event. You figure out your net profit or loss based upon the price you paid for the assets sold. At the time of the taxable event. You don't get to figure out net based upon what it takes to replace that asset in the future. Sure, there are accounting details such as LIFO or FIFO and whatnot, but the fundamental calculus is what it is. IANAL, etc. |
|
|
|
A message or two(?) seems to be missing as well. How'd that happen?
edit: Ahh. 'deleted by a moderator'.
Happy to reply directly, but I don't know who you are, so I'm doing it here.
Was my post about segwit lockin failing deleted because you think that is unrelated to bitcoin price? Really?
I posted one that was moderated out of existence as well - it was a reply to T_JJG pointing out that segwit is not activated until it is. To me, the relation between the probability of this event and Bitcoin price should be obvious. But I guess not to our fearless (feckless?) moderator. Let's see how long this message stays up. |
|
|
|
Peter Todd mentioned that zcash protocol and zkSnarks is broken.
Why would you mention this in a thread not dedicated to Zcash? This is a Zcoin thread, not a Zcash thread. Incidentally, Peter Todd (as if he is any sort of authority on zk-SNARKS) did not say Zcash was broken. He said there is a greater chance that it may get broken in the future than would a coin based upon more widely understood cryptography. Unless I missed some new pronouncement. |
|
|
|
Well, I gotta hand it to you. The entire market cap of ZEIT went from 'smaller than enough to buy a typical house around here' to 'enough to buy a 65 percentile house around here'. If you was in, you got a three-banger. Kudos.
Still not a pimple on a real crypto's ass.
You converting your appreciation to XBT while you have a chance? You might want to think about it. Hard.
LOL,  Don't worry when ZEIT hits 1 penny, it will be ~$360 million dollars marketcap. When it hits only $1 , it will be ~$36 Billion dollars marketcap, ~ 3X what BTC current marketcap is.  By then you will have figured out which one you should have invested in. ...aaaaannnnd it's gone. 'Twas a nice five hours, I imagine. Oh well, it's crypto. You get used the the manic/depressive exhilaration/despondence rollercoaster. Best of luck for the future. You converting your appreciation to XBT while you have a chance? You might want to think about it. Hard. Oh... wait. No appreciation any longer. darn. |
|
|
|
...none of us can really know for sure when a price direction is going to reverse unless we happen to be a market maker, and that is largely not the case
Nyeeaaahh.. Whatever, doc  |
|
|
|
...
Well, I gotta hand it to you. The entire market cap of ZEIT went from 'smaller than enough to buy a typical house around here' to 'enough to buy a 65 percentile house around here'. If you was in, you got a three-banger. Kudos. Still not a pimple on a real crypto's ass. You converting your appreciation to XBT while you have a chance? You might want to think about it. Hard. |
|
|
|
Apple pay is a considerably more invasive system that just gets deeper into your information and privacy,
Well, no. You should probably read more. Apple Pay has an anonymizing layer. In contrast to credit or debit transactions without Apple Pay -- which provide the vendor with your name, number, pin, and backtracable to your address, credit history, SSN or other identifier, etc., and also allows the vendor to pull as much as desired from your account at any time now or in the future, Apple Pay provides to the vendor merely an anonymized inscrutable transaction ID, specifying that the invoice has been paid. Net: way more anonymous than current credit/debit transactions. Of course, it is arguable that Apple Pay is less anonymous than Bitcoin, but Apple Pay is not meant to provide an alternative to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
i have never heard of apple pay
Last month in Tokyo:  Hmm... interesting escalator handrail - what's that?  Suica? It appears to me that Japan's public transport runs on Suica. It's a kind of prepaid/debit NFC card system that operates the turnstiles. Over 5 million Suica transactions are processed daily, if memory serves. And what's that co-branded with Suica? Could it be ... Apple Pay? I think it is. Right here in Shinagawa station (daily traffic well in excess of 1/3 Million commuters): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinagawa_StationCo-branding even more prominent at the main gate:  Indeed, one can now use Apple Pay on an iPhone to cross the turnstiles on most public transport in the area. Incidentally, Apple Pay is now the fifth largest payments platform. http://1reddrop.com/2016/11/11/apple-pay-now-5th-largest-payments-platform/I would never claim 'Apple Pay is better than Bitcoin'. In fact, the two serve radically different use cases. But Bitcoin or no, Apple Pay is an important innovation. To speak to dreamer's inquiry... Bitcoin is safe in the face of Apple Pay, as Apple Pay is merely a better payments channel than other payment channels over which fiat flows. While way better than alternatives in many respects, Apple Pay is still not a non-inflationary currency/commodity and store of value untainted by the financial elite - as is Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
