...
certainly don't deny people to use crypto for micro stuff, but maybe the bitcoin chain isn't the right place for that. Reddcoin or dogecoin comes to mind ...
...
So basically if I want to use bitcoin ("use" not just "hold") I'd need to use DOGE as well. Then why would I need bitcoin at all? |
|
|
|
Everyone knows that annual inflation in 5 billion was added to keep the miners and our network was strong, but it didn't work. The next step was the merger of mining Litecoin and that's great, now we are confident in the safety and strength of our network. I think that now would be reasonable to refuse a permanent inflation 5 billion coins or make it less, for example 1.2 billion(100 million per month). This measure will make our Dogecoin more attractive!
Agree. I would be in favour of reducing the final block reward by half by introducing another halving. It shouldn't do much damage to the hashing power and could have some positive effect on the price. You could drop the block reward to 0 and let it spin on fees...  Litecoin miners pay $0 per year more in electricity mining DOGE either way. Any profit is better than no profit esp with LTC the price it is. I've been saying this for a year now and I honestly think it would be best for DOGE in the short, medium and long term. DOGE strength is in its users. The large mining pools should keep mining DOGE because the users will: A: Mine LTC. B: Tell their friends where to support DOGE. C: $0 a year anyways... Fucking mine that shit! Anyone who is trying to talk DOGE into a block reward is either: A: A marketing person trying to run the show. B: A Litecoin person trying to take more than they are worth. C: Someone who is full of shit. I really really hope DOGE drops it to 0. I'd love to fire up the ole Doge wallet. ^ Bumping this thought. Someone please! Block reward 0! Stop letting the LTC dumpage rape you good hearted DOGE folks! If you don't correct this ASAP it will be to late... it may already be, but damn it is worth a shot. Let them spin the network via fees. Fees are irrelevant atm. You're essentially asking for the DOGE to be 100% dependent on LTC network (merge mining) |
|
|
|
Exactly. If Gavin gets the top 4 exchanges on board and pools, user complaints won't matter (sadly it is like this, and the average Joe can't do anything).
Disagree. Gavin cannot do it if majority of users are against it. Every (official, registered) exchange will have to announce their decision beforehand (otherwise they could potentially be facing legal actions). Same with cloudmining businesses and pools. So theoretically speaking, if pools/exchanges etc announce that they'll go with the new fork, then people, who want to stay on old one, could just move elsewhere. Therefore pools/exchanges probably will check for the average joes' opinions before making any decision. (worst case scenario) This brings even more concern, if Theymos does not support the changes and they get forced we will end up in a very bad situation. Everything will split and the fight for survival will start.
Why is Theymos that relevant in this case? |
|
|
|
I don't imagine we're anywhere near the point where people would completely abandon the legacy financial system, assuming that day ever comes at all.
...
Bitcoin is not going to ever replace current financial system (unless in some post-apocalyptic scenario) and I'm perfectly happy with that. I don't want it to become one 'world's official' currency, that would mean that people would be forced to use it and that's not the point. I'd rather see it as a fully functional, but optional, alternative. It would be ideal if it grows in size to the level of gold/silver markets. Then it would be significant enough to enforce positive changes in the whole monetary/financial system and yet remain as commodity/currency of choice. |
|
|
|
Nothing new here, in many banks, paying a small fee is normal practice to get an account, unless you keep a permanent minimum balance over say, €5,000. And I suppose you don't know the banks for the rich. There are banks which give free credit cards, and free drinks when you visit, but you must keep over €100,000 on your account...
Huh? I'm far from being rich, but I got free banking account (UK) without balance requirement, free credit card, no interest if you pay it off in the first month (pretty standard) and if you want to chat with your bank manager, they would usually offer you a free drink, that's called a good manners. |
|
|
|
So you're saying that some guys gonna meet up and talk to each other. That's some scary shit dude! |
|
|
|
This is one of the most idiotic statements I've read lately: But the policy remains controversial and some politicians, regulators and bankers have called for it to end, so banks don't try to squeeze profits from customers elsewhere. They say ending it would make charges more transparent and improve competition and levels of service.
Steve Davies, retail banking leader at PwC, said current accounts were not as free as they seemed.
"UK current accounts are not free at all and are paid for through overdraft charges, penalty fees and uncompetitive or zero rates of interest," said Davies.
Why treat customers as a bunch of retards, instead of letting them choose whether they prefer free account with less interest, or more interest + monthly charge? Let everyone decide what's best for them. Maybe better idea would be to enforce banks to be more transparent with their fees, or even force them to suggest better deals, prevent them from mis-selling and closing/freezing accounts without giving any reasons etc? If you force bankers to charge a fee, what would prevent them from 'trying to squeeze profits from customers elsewhere' anyway? There will be no direct impact on Bitcoin. People won't be able to switch to bitcoin instead of using banks. Bitcoin is not there yet and you pretty much have to have a bank account (practically impossible to live without one for any adult, working person). The only impact I can see is that things like that add up to the general disappointment with financial institutions, which pushes people to explore the alternatives, such as Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Gold does not have to be backed by a commodity, because it is a commodity.
I don't agree that it's useless.
I don't agree that perception is reality. Reality is what is is. regardless of what people believe it is.
So what will happen to gold price when suddenly everyone stop perceiving it as valuable? What if no one buys it as an investment or store of value and the price is solely dictated only by its practical usage (such as electronic and aerospace components)? Will it remain 10% of its current value? The fact is that most of the gold's price is created by the general agreement that it is precious and valuable, so the 90% (out of the ass estimate) is backed only by perception. So everyone over night stops seeing a pretty thing as pretty? That would need a cultural revolution the world over Few substances have the color of gold with tarnish-resistence. https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/Gold's inate properties make it desirable amongst a periodic table of silvery and dull metal colored elements. That perception of worth is very difficult to remove, unlike the perceived value of e.g. Tulip bulbs, where many people in the day were commenting "but why does it carry such worth when the Rose has much more beauty and variety?" You missed my point. No, gold won't lose 90% overnight for no reason. Point was that huge part of its high value is created by perception, and that part of value is backed by nothing else but that perception. |
|
|
|
exclusive not inclusive
like it or not, bitcoin is becoming the last thing we wanted more and more everyday
check my posts going back a longtime. you won't hear this from me, I'm not trolling. simply speaking the truth
good alts offer me what I want in crypto. btc is simply a way of getting them for me
Thanks, that's very insightful post, and your arguments are hard to refute. Keep them coming. |
|
|
|
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-elite-meet-secret-island-bilderberg-style-retreat/ such elitist, wow ↑ An unnamed Caribbean island is set to serve as the venue for a secretive, closed-door gathering of elite bitcoin CEOs and luminaries this weekend.
Satoshi Roundtable, to be held from 6th to 8th February, is suggestive of the famed Bilderberg conference, the annual meeting at which more than 100 finance experts gather in relative secret to the delight of global conspiracy theorists.
Organized by Bruce Fenton of the Bitcoin Association and Atlantic Financial, participants in the first annual Satoshi Roundtable include top executives from companies such as Blockchain, BitGo, BitPesa, Chain, ChangeTip, Coinapult and MegaBigPower, as well as noted VCs in the space such as Erik Voorhees and Roger Ver. Hateful comments in 3, 2, 1 :
|
|
|
|
Promise? Give us a heads up before losing so we can invest some more  |
|
|
|
So what's the perfect scenario in your opinion? Are you in favour of leaving the block size as it is at 1mb, hoping that more transaction will fill up the blocks to the max and cause the tx fees to increase accordingly?
Yes, at the very least for now. It should be seen as an advantage that the solutions built on top of this would end up being actually much more consumer-friendly than insisting on everyone using the blockchain directly. Bitcoin's potential to disrupt financial institutions lies in its ability to actually push the bankrupt ones into bankruptcy, and allow actual transparency. Not in letting Joe and Jane play the banker. But for many, including myself, being able to be your own bank is very (if not most) important feature of bitcoin. Why would you want to take that away from anyone? I do agree that bitcoin is not well design for buying coffee at starbucks and that there is uncertainty whether the future tx fees will be sufficient to secure the network. But it makes way more sense to increase the block size (not necessarily as proposed by gavin), hoping that number of tx (and therefore fees) will be steadily growing. And if that's not the case, some other, progressive fee structure could be implemented (I'm not tech-savvy, but assume it's possible). While leaving 1mb limit could be very destructive. What if there are no practical and trusted off-chain payment solutions when 1mb proves to be not enough? And what if such solutions are developed (ie trusted 3rd party, some "Bitcoin PayPal" system) and become too popular, to the extent that no one sends on blockchain unless they really have to? You still have issue of insufficient fees, maybe even worse than in the first case. ...
one of the unique and beneficial attributes of btc is you can send someone a 50 cent tip or a million dollars for almost nothing in transaction fees
i think it would be a big mistake to put higher fees on higher tx amounts and i would vote against it ,raise the block size if necessary and prune the blockchain is a better idea imo
...
Agree. It would be even better if instead of the standard 0.0001 fee there's 0.00001 fee etc. But the trick is to find the right balance in the bitcoin ecosystem. It must be cheap and convenient for the people to use it, but miners must also get incentive to keep the network secure. Right now the fees are not a significant part (due to block reward being quite high) but they will be crucial in the future. Sliding scale fees may not sound that great from the 'propaganda' point, but the idea is not that bad and definitely worth considering. +1000 on blockchain pruning, would love to see that even before the 20mb fork. |
|
|
|
It's kinda weird hearing people speak about the space scarcity in blocks as a 'limitation'.
The same way 21m had been presented as one since "not everyone will ever be able to have one full coin".
Direct access to the blockchain for everyone is not necessary for bitcoin to achieve disruption.
So what's the perfect scenario in your opinion? Are you in favour of leaving the block size as it is at 1mb, hoping that more transaction will fill up the blocks to the max and cause the tx fees to increase accordingly? Or would you prefer to introduce sliding scale fee structure (higher tx amount - higher fee)? |
|
|
|
I hope you're right.
But 4 days is unacceptable. It's unacceptable in any market. But particularly unacceptable in a time-sensitive trading environment.
Agree, 4 days is a very long time. But personally I'd just chase them after 12-24 hours if no reply, maybe it's just a case of mistake made by member of staff (marking you ticket as 'resolved' or not passing it to relevant person etc). |
|
|
|
the general public sentiment is of bitcoin being a ponzi pump dump scam and simultaneously capable of supporting terrorism hardcore drug trafficking and pedophilia ... is the reality of the people existing outside of the trollboxes and btcforum ... sorry to break the bad news to you ...
Why is that bad news? If Bitcoin got that far with such shitty general public's perception, then what will happen when people slowly start realising that it's actually not that scary. It would be more disturbing to discover that 99% of population have a positive sentiment, that would mean it will be very hard to grow/expand from where we are right now. |
|
|
|
You should risk some small affordable amount and hodl in a secure offline wallet. In 10 years you will either badly regret for not doing it or you will have lost some small affordable amount of money. Its a good time to buy in.
This. If you invest affordable amount the potential loss is capped at 100%, while potential profits are un-capped. Although, for the first-time buyers, I'd recommend to buy some small amount first to 'play' with (send/receive, import/export wallet etc) to get the basic knowledge of how it works, rather than to buy large amount straight away. |
|
|
|
Preface
Most of us are familiar with transparent decentralized public currencies and use them daily as our
preferred medium of exchange. While we might not understand all the details, we understand that the
money supplies are public and the protocols are documented and open source, regulated by public
oversight and cryptographic security. Here however we are concerned with another type of system:
corporate fiat currencies.
... Sounds like a good read, I'll save it for later. |
|
|
|
Sounded like a great news at first, but I've checked and it looks like the ePayments Systems Ltd is not on FCA register. Looked up by name and post code and it's not showing in results. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmMainSearch.doThe company was registered in 2012, its total share capital is £1. The latest annual accounts (July 2013) are abbreviated (small company exemption) and show net liabilities of £6,415. |
|
|
|
Gold does not have to be backed by a commodity, because it is a commodity.
I don't agree that it's useless.
I don't agree that perception is reality. Reality is what is is. regardless of what people believe it is.
So what will happen to gold price when suddenly everyone stop perceiving it as valuable? What if no one buys it as an investment or store of value and the price is solely dictated only by its practical usage (such as electronic and aerospace components)? Will it remain 10% of its current value? The fact is that most of the gold's price is created by the general agreement that it is precious and valuable, so the 90% (out of the ass estimate) is backed only by perception. |
|
|
|
No doubt you're right that one could sue them in theory. But it would not be worth it for $400. What remains is to let others know about their hefty withdrawal fees and strange customer service attitude. [I use the term "strange" because it is hard to understand why Bitstamp would be trying to prevent investigation of theft of customer funds by banks.]
Update: Their manager did offer me a month-long 10% rebate off of trading fees to compensate for this. That was a nice gesture, but kind of meaningless, since I would have to buy/sell almost 6000 bitcoins to recoup the loss.
If you're UK resident then you could just use the Small Claims process to get the overcharged amount back. It's not that expensive, and if you win, you can get all the costs back: fees, interest, or even cost of your time you've spent on making the claim. Not sure is that an option for non UK residents, but you can still write them a formal letter requesting either money back or proper breakdown of the fees they charged. If they don't reply, you can make a complain: https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-companyhttp://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/how-to-complain-to-a-company |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
