|
Unfortunately Core are not particularly willing to compromise. Their stubbornness is really not helping us move forward, they just need to make some meaningless promises and then even if mining monopolies don't budge, huge numbers of supporters will flock to Core so that there doesn't need to be a fork, and that'll be enough to force those monopolies to eventually move over and let Bitcoin move on.
|
|
|
|
|
It's important that the bot has a lot of manual controls and is very adaptable. Bots that try to fully automate themselves will never be as good as bots which allow you to choose what you're trading and, to some extent, at what levels to buy and sell (like Gunbot and C.A.T).
|
|
|
|
|
He's pretty obnoxious and his twitter is an obvious sign of that. He has posts talking about how "interesting" and "fresh" a perspective is when it's blatantly just his confirmation bias finding articles telling him a new reason not to like Core.
It's annoying that he has any power. Even if he supported SegWit he'd still be annoying.
|
|
|
|
|
They're really messing with everyone now. If they actually start signalling for it it'll completely turn around the debate though - as soon as SegWit is over half most people will know that it's the solution to go with and its popularity will go way up. Maybe it would even stop some of the annoying FUD and Ethereum peddling.
|
|
|
|
Hi all..
i read a lot of thread like "my account was compromised"..
maybe password stolen or something like that...
i read somewhere, who if a have a message signed, theymos or some of bitcointalk admin, can restore the account.
can someone, write down a simple how-to, with a few steps, for know what to do, to ensure my account???
thank you all
Have you checked out: The one thread to link them all https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1217042.0 or Stake your Bitcoin address here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.0 or even The BCT PGP/GPG Public Key Database: Stake Your PGP Key Here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159946.0 links? PS, notice how they glow green underline, that's your clue they are genuine links in BCT. But from what i notice often(or maybe always), they don't get their account back. So what is the use of it?  To verify your ownership of the account. Say for example that you post a signed message from a Bitcoin address and someone else quotes it so that it can't be deleted. Then if your account gets hacked, you can say that it was, sign a message from the new account and show an admin the message on your old account, at which point they should give your account back as you have verified your ownership of it (and even if they don't give you your account back it'll be flagged which will remove most uses for the hacker). |
|
|
|
|
I don't think that this makes them a scam, it just shows their logic. From their perspective even if you weren't in the team anymore you might still have close ties to them and bet differently (it's not very different you being on the team vs. you just having insider information).
If you talk reasonably to their support, don't insult them and preferably help them to understand your situation, you'll probably at least be able to get your Bitcoin out of there to a site that won't bother you so much.
|
|
|
|
those exchanges will also be required to conduct employee training programs and submit to annual audits.
So in other words, they need to be heavily linked to the state to provide their service. On the surface these laws look like a big step forward for Bitcoin in Japan, but maybe they're also a power grab from the state to regulate Bitcoin more heavily as China has started to do with their exchanges. At least they're giving Bitcoin some legitimacy, I suppose. |
|
|
|
|
If BU ever happens, mining it would be much the same as mining BTC. Plus you'd be able to do both, so as a miner supporting Core you could just continue to mine BTC despite the hashrate of BTU (and BTC would still most likely be valuable enough for mining not to be completely unprofitable).
Pools would be the same as well if you were mining BTU, although the difficulty might be different between the two coins so what the most profitable choice would be will still vary.
Not that I expect BU to actually happen anyway.
|
|
|
|
In the future，BITCCOIN Will also continue in the position of the virtual currency system Ranked first?
bitcoin is not a "virtual" currency it is a real currency. it doesn't get any more real than that. and so far bitcoin has been and still is the onlycrypto currency that exists. all the rest are trading toys called altcoin which are falsely using the word coin or currency in their description. Although most of the virtual currency acquired from BTC the original design, but the virtual currency would significantly more than BTC development.
i don't understand this sentence  The intelligence of the ETH contract, for example, the DASH of pos node development are far more than BTC
if you really think that, and if you are really ok with a centralized coin and a coin with a significant amount of premine, and a coin that has whales controlling the price and pump and dump it 50%-200% then go ahead and use them nobody is preventing you  And BTC is now facing a simple Blockchain congestion problem
the only problem that bitcoin is facing is the spam attack and nothing else. In the future, all kinds of virtual currencies rise, BTC will in no. 1?
duplicate of your first question! Yes, BTC is indeed a pioneer, but 1 MB Blockchain, bring me a lot of trouble, but also accelerate the confirmation fee is higher and higher
it is not the 1MB block size that "brings you a lot of trouble" it is the spam attack and there is a big difference. makes me have to choose other virtual currency for transfer of property  what other altcoin did you use to transfer! and who even accepts them in the world! nobody that's who  I don't think that Ethereum is going to destroy Bitcoin or anything but you're just completely in denial about how Bitcoin is doing and how it will continue to do. Today, I sent a normal transaction of a fairly small amount of Bitcoin and to get it confirmed within an hour I had to pay a fee of more than 2mBTC. It's really bad, and no matter how much people meaninglessly scream "shitcoin" it's not going to stop Ethereum having more than a quarter of Bitcoin's market cap, which it does. It's not just an attack on the network either. Bitcoin's transaction volume has been steadily going up with its price for a long time and its usage has just objectively reached its limit. I expected to look at Ethereum's transaction volume and conclude that the price rise is just a pump, but its transaction volume is about the same fraction of Bitcoin's as its market cap, which is very surprising to me. It really is getting somewhere and we need to stop shouting at people who admit that (or trying to shut them up). |
|
|
|
There is a lot of misinformation out there (i.e. part of BU as being a closed source, which they actually stated that they will PREVENT such thing), so one has to do his own research.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of it, but I'm probably the only one who doesn't see any problem with miners taking over.
Most people are clueless on how economy works (Andreas included).
Vertical monopoly (as opposed to horizontal monopoly) is actually a good thing,
which would probably lead to a lower fees, so it would benefit both the miners and the users.
(Think of buying a cellphone. The cellular manufacturer forces you to also buy the camera, which if you had bought them separately it would cost you more.)
Users could have BU *and* LN so they could choose the best path for them which means more options to the user. What's wrong with that?
The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.
Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.
Decentralisation can mean a lot of different things. Bitcoin is decentralised - we don't need hundreds of Bitcoin rip offs doing the same thing on another pointless network (or worse, the cryptocurrencies that are quite centralised). There's no point going on a website and deciding whether to pay with Bitcoin, Ethereum, DASH etc when even the more original ones like Monero only make petty modifications to the network which Bitcoin should be able to make if needed anyway through the fact that it's open source. I do agree that it's good for miners to have the choice - but they don't really, because they know that if there's a hard fork and other people don't support it they'll be mining nothing. In reality, the economic majority makes the decision as to whether the changes will go through and miners will rightfully be influenced by that majority (which is why, despite Bitmain and others' attempt to manipulate that economic majority with their mining monopolies, Core will continue running Bitcoin). Why are you guys so emotional about Bitcoin? doing the same thing on another pointless network
You know better than that... Does ETH a pointless network? ETH is sort of an exception, but even then not fully. Bitcoin is supposed to capable of change and adapting to different situations. If everyone ran off every time there was a problem (which they don't, fortunately), then everyone would have to convert all their earnings to a new currency every few weeks and potentially lose all of their money in the process. Even though ETH makes some useful contributions to the blockchain technology which Bitcoin is likely to not use, with most cryptocurrencies it's strange that they result in people arguing for the cryptocurrency itself rather than for any of those changes to be made to the supposedly adaptable Bitcoin network. |
|
|
|
There is a lot of misinformation out there (i.e. part of BU as being a closed source, which they actually stated that they will PREVENT such thing), so one has to do his own research.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of it, but I'm probably the only one who doesn't see any problem with miners taking over.
Most people are clueless on how economy works (Andreas included).
Vertical monopoly (as opposed to horizontal monopoly) is actually a good thing,
which would probably lead to a lower fees, so it would benefit both the miners and the users.
(Think of buying a cellphone. The cellular manufacturer forces you to also buy the camera, which if you had bought them separately it would cost you more.)
Users could have BU *and* LN so they could choose the best path for them which means more options to the user. What's wrong with that?
The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.
Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.
Decentralisation can mean a lot of different things. Bitcoin is decentralised - we don't need hundreds of Bitcoin rip offs doing the same thing on another pointless network (or worse, the cryptocurrencies that are quite centralised). There's no point going on a website and deciding whether to pay with Bitcoin, Ethereum, DASH etc when even the more original ones like Monero only make petty modifications to the network which Bitcoin should be able to make if needed anyway through the fact that it's open source. I do agree that it's good for miners to have the choice - but they don't really, because they know that if there's a hard fork and other people don't support it they'll be mining nothing. In reality, the economic majority makes the decision as to whether the changes will go through and miners will rightfully be influenced by that majority (which is why, despite Bitmain and others' attempt to manipulate that economic majority with their mining monopolies, Core will continue running Bitcoin). |
|
|
|
You're looking at it wrong. The hard fork will not happen until BU has a majority of the hash rate (which it hasn't got particularly close to yet), and it's unlikely to happen until that rate rises well above there. It's absolutely not too late, actually it's too early. You should only take your BTC out of exchanges if the hard fork looks close to happening based on reasonable indicators. |
|
|
|
According to a mining calculator, at current difficulty you would mining a block roughly every 47 days. At this rate, variance would still be very significant and you wouldn't want to live in the knowledge that you could have to keep living on the same block for a much longer time than expected at any point. For that reason, I would suggest using a pool. But since pools can take fees and even if they're low they can be annoying, plus the Bitcoin network needs some help decentralising into a collection of many different pools, the best solution shouldn't be to join a pool but to start a pool. With your hashrate you would already be bigger than some smaller pools yourself, so I would start your own pool with negligible fees (maybe 0.1-0.3%) and then advertise your pool for its low fees and soon enough miners will join to decrease the variance. You should also limit your pool so that it couldn't have more than 1% of the network's total hash rate, in the spirit of decentralisation. Even though with this setup you'd be generating a Bitcoin every ~4 days, you should still have a backup - at least have some skills that could be applicable to other jobs if the difficulty or state of the Bitcoin network changes and it becomes harder for you to earn. |
|
|
|
From the article: Transactions are slow to reach the needed amount of confirmations to be reliable They always have been fast enough in the past. This is not an indication that Satoshi made errors, it's just an indication that Bitcoin's role has changed since then, hence why Bitcoin's code is open source and there are different solutions being debated to fix the problem. By your logic we need a new currency every time there's a change. People see it more as speculative investment than a useful currency People see it as both. Nothing completely useless can just grow and grow for years and become a huge market - it takes time and legitimacy. Plenty of places online still accept Bitcoin as currency and as it grows more will continue to do so. Once again, you make this judgement based on a current situation rather than the nature of Bitcoin, which can change. Technically challenging to understand and use for the average citizen Download an app on your phone. Buy Bitcoin. Scan address and hit send. A baby could do it. The reason you think that it's technically challenging is because you assume that everyone needs to know. People don't understand the inner works of the banking system, but they don't need to know to spend their inflationary currency. Just because people who are into Bitcoin right now know a lot because of their demographic, doesn't mean that everyone else will have to. Mining is becoming centralized and is already out of the reach of most people or even businesses (mining doesn’t scale well) Okay, I agree with this one, but other cryptocurrencies don't propose viable solutions, and even though ETH can still be mined by GPUs its development itself is too centralised for a free currency. |
|
|
|
|
It was pretty obvious that the altcoin surges were just fads. I think that people saw that they were getting pumped and a lot of big money joined in to soar to the top and, now that they've reached it (consistently for several days), they've decided to start dropping out. I still think there are some naive newbies who think that DASH is going somewhere though (ETH probably is going somewhere but never as high as Bitcoin), but they'll drop out along with the people who just want to increase their stake in Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys.
Plz don't kill me for asking.
I see a lot of hype around alt-coins.
When asked, many will point out POS as a plus vs bitcoin.
I was wondering:
1. Can Bitcoin change to POS if wanted to by the community?
2. Is POS really an advantage (if it is - is it an advantage because it saves energy, or because it diffuses power)?
Thank you!
PoS doesn't diffuse power, with PoW you can buy things which earn you the Bitcoin whereas with PoS you buy Bitcoin to earn the Bitcoin, either way there will be some extent of centralisation and fights with the small people. It's also comparatively vulnerable. It needs time to develop. |
|
|
|
I've received some feedback on my project and I'm happy to provide answers for the whole community. - Poor quality of photos/texts/materials on the website.We're on beta version, it is clearly indicated on the website. While all necessary features present, some glitches are still possible. Do us a favor, let us know what we can improve, we'll be happy to get better. Bear with us, the launch day was yesterday! - How do I know this isn't just a complicated or elaborate Ponzi scheme?Easy - nobody holds any money. Let me explain how we work. A start-up needs money to develop its product, they need $1500 for incorporation, $10,000 for website and $15,000 to hire cool sales team. They're generous enough to give 5% for this money, $1,500+$10,000+$15,000=$26,500. We start fundraising at https://www.TipTopFund.com by selling shares, say, at 0.05 btc per share. Thus, to pass the 1st stage and incorporate the company we need to sell 30 shares. An investor buys 1 share and pays 0.05 etc to a multisig escrow account maintained by http://www.EscrowMyBits.com. Not TipTopFund, nor the start-up touch any money. If we don't sell 30 shares within a certain time period the stage has not completed and everyone takes their money back from the escrow. Well, minus 1%, this is what EscrowMyBits earns. If we do sell 30 shares the escrow releases the funds and the start-up initiates incorporation. The money is released either directly to a company that provides legal service or, if they don't accept bitcoin, we sell bitcoin and pay that company. Incorporation process is transparent as everyone may check status of the company online. TipTopFund acts as a trustee for all investors, it joins the board as a co founder and for $1500 we get 0.28% in the that company. Stage 1 completed. Stage 2 begins, now we raise $10,000. This time we have web developers who agree to do the job and take bitcoin as a payment. So when we successfully sell the next portion of shares to collect that amount the money goes directly to the web developers. Nobody else touches the money! And TipTopFund with investors increase their share in the business on 1.8% and now we own 2.08%. As the second stage is done we have a company and a website and now the business has more value than it had in the beginning. We may want to raise the price of its shares and now to get aboard new investors will pay 0.07 btc, not 0.05 btc. But again, we collect the money on the multisig escrow account maintained by EscrowMyBits.com and once collected it will be released directly to the developer/provider. In our case we will put that money on the bank account of the company and will pay the salary to the cool sales guys who will generate us revenue. We will control the bank account and all investors will see statements regularly. Once we start make sales the value of our business increases again which will reflect in the price of of shares we own. And so on. Thus, the money is always under control: in the beginning it is collected on a multisig escrow account, and once collected it gets released to a developer/provider who delivers services bringing value to our business.Actually it was me that gave that feedback, and I'm impressed with your response. Maybe I was a bit harsh. Will be watching this project. I still think you need to change your approach on some of this though (particularly, stop giving statistics about things that you don't know about or can't be consistent like a 90% success rate or on a comparison between "usual investments" and you). It doesn't come off as a professional or legitimate company, and I know you want to change that. Articles like this and reviews like these don't fill me with confidence about Escrow My Bits either, but I'm willing to be proven wrong on that. |
|
|
|
It seems Eth and maybe dash / Ripple  ? are fast catching up, btc is only 67% market now. The lack of dev consensus in BTC is killing it at an amazing rate.....at some point market share will be lost if this continues and why would people switch back. The big implication being if BTC can not even decide on this issue, what about all the other issues that are going to come up? I wonder when BTC community is going to see this? Before it is to late? Ripple is kind of irrelevant, they're some strange cryptocurrency gateway or something - I hardly understand it, but I know that they only want to supplement Bitcoin. DASH is also kind of irrelevant, just because their market cap is still well under a tenth of Bitcoin's. Ethereum is definitely getting somewhere but it's on its own path. Even if it's price became higher than Bitcoin, it wouldn't have taken Bitcoin's place - it's tiny centralised development team shows its separation from any communities associated with Bitcoin and Bitcoin wouldn't die. But Bitcoin could potentially die from itself (rather than the rise of altcoins). This would only happen if the debate went on for more than another ~8 months without a solution and the cost of transactions kept going way up. Even then I don't think it would ever die, just suffer. |
|
|
|
|
A bit late to be talking about the ETF, but true that there are two different ideologies at play.
I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. Bitcoin is still dominant among criminals on the dark web (with some use of Monero as well), and is arguably used for money laundering as well. But while it facilitates criminals, its deflation and convenience makes it ideal for ordinary use and investors as well. It's the broad use of Bitcoin that makes it so great, and it improves the privacy in society while having the ability to develop into the mainstream.
|
|
|
|
Surely a BTU altcoin would be the cleanest option. And I have already said in other threads that it may not be the worst for the Bitcoin Unlimited supporters. Above all if they base the initial distribution on recent Bitcoin balances, like the "Clams" altcoin did, and maximal coin supply and reward schedule are not changed.
They may not get an user network like BTC from the beginning, but they could demonstrate their technology works and doesn't lead to centralization. At the same time, they could continue to advocate for Emergent Consensus in the "true" Bitcoin, but without holding up the hard fork threat.
I know they want to change Bitcoin, but even that could work at the end: If their EC system works well in the wild (where I unfortunately have my doubts) they would have two "success options" that could make them profit from this strategy: 1) BTU becoming a strong cryptocurrency 2) their EC system having chances of being adopted in BTC, too (that would be difficult, but not impossible, as their opponents would lose a major argument if it works well).
BU already is Bitcoin. SegWit is a whole bag of new bullshit rules - imposed upon Bitcoin. SegWit is the alt.Look at you, you have big font so it must be true. SegWit represents new rules and the potential use of a far more convenient Lightning Network - it is a change to what Bitcoin currently is, but it would just be an update to the code which is entirely normal and wouldn't change anything about what Bitcoin actually does. BU would be a new coin - Bitcoin owners would automatically own it but it would still literally be a new coin. As CCN reasonably defines altcoins, it's any cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin - which it would be, it would be BTU, not BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
