Would banks and governments actively work and implement countermeasures to undermine this process? Are the underestimating the potential of cryptocurrencies by investing in some of them?
Do you think there is a possibility of cryptocurrencies being banned in the future for the reason of being a threat to "normal" currencies?
Im not sure governments are going to happily accept bitcoin as a replacement for their fiat currencies. You have to ask yourself: why? what do they win doing that? Why would governments replace their currencies, which they control, for a currency that nobody controls? It makes no sense. I see bitcoin as a neutral asset like gold primarily, secondarily as a currency, and it will depend on the people using it or not. The big mistake is considering bitcoin before digital gold, because that's where big blockers ruin everything. |
|
|
|
|
Why are you surprised? Bittrex is famous for listing tons of random shitcoins, meanwhile legit coins have a lot of problems getting on there. But you can't blame them. If a coin brings a ton of traffic, that's money that they are making on transaction fees. DASH is an instamined scam too and it's on Poloniex and a ton of other exchanges too, but people want to speculate, so let them speculate.
What I hate about Bittrex and the reason im not using it, is that they ask for a ton of personal information even to trade between cryptocurrencies. I want to buy 0.5 BTC worth of a coin that is only listed on Bittrex, and they ask me all that information about me. Why?? All other exchanges including Poloniex, let you make small crypto investments without verifications.
I can't trust crypto exchanges, I don't know if they are going to get hacked and my information sold somewhere. I wish we already got decentralized exchanges so we don't have to deal with potential scammers just to invest on some altcoin.
|
|
|
|
Could be true....however....long term holder since 2013 ...at 100 btc (safety deposit boxes are dandy) ...so from a LONG TERM HOLDER point of view even if it dumped 50% that is 2K BTC it was 650 BTC last summer of 2016 thus...if you are a long term holder...it STILL beats the hell out of stocks or gold or silver I figure 1 in 5 chance you could be correct. I also figure a 1 in 5 chance it could go parabolic like in 2013 ...0ct 18th 150 usd per BTC by Thanksgiving around Nov 25th or so, over 1,000 Likely it will muddle, somewhere in between my guess?  as a stable price 'floor' is probably 3K at this point in time but it is bitcoin 'always drama' (myself glad I yanked my 8k out of my 401k (over 59 1/2 no taxes) and dumped it into BTC this year, when it was $1,100 bucks or so....looked like a better bet than the stock market with Trump elected.....that kinda worked just dandy... later You must be new. Kwukduck is our resident troll and he has been FUDding about Bitcoin since 2012. There are other trolls of similar nature that always announce "the big crash that's coming", meanwhile the price has only gone up since then. He may be right 1 out of 10 times because statistically you end up being right if you always predict the same thing, but this is no different than Alex Jones predicting the fall of the dollar for the past 30 years. |
|
|
|
|
I have been learning about ByteBall lately. The concept of the DAG is really amazing, it's the only coin that has caught my attention lately. I don't know if you could call this one "little know", but I do know it has amazing potential. The wallet is nice and simple, and the distribution is fair and everyone should have time to get some pretty much for free while the early adopters get the most reward as it should since the people that see it first should be compensated somehow.
Im waiting to see how the market reacts to the increased inflation tho.... until the coins are distributed, keeping an uptrend will be hard, but once most coins get distributed it will be allowed to grow.
|
|
|
|
Even if they pay, the hackers might release which would only worsen the situation. Thanks for informing us about this, crazy! Don't want to see another article in the future that's updating this though that tarnishes BTC's reputation and causes people to associate it with crime
Well, that is a given with ramsonwaring hackers. You are just assuming that they will be legit. It's a gamble where you are paying hoping to get what you want and then they stopping the treats. The hackers wouldn't have enough time to keep raising the money because it's only 3 days until the episode airs afaik. If they try to raise the price in 3 days they would look ridiculous and HBO wouldn't pay anymore. |
|
|
|
$4,000 very much in sight! Bitcoin is now global currency. In week to come we may be seeing $5,000 as many speculative Traders are becoming interested in this great investment angle. I join you to said "bitcoin is a blessing to us" after the breaking of $4000 there is going to be a little correction as most of the technical indicators are showing the sign of overbought! Then from there the price will head to the moon. May the god of bitcoin be with us.
I just woke up this morning to see a a nice $3818 peak on Bitstamp. Right now we are at $3700, with a low of $3590. So we have gone up $150+ since the wick bottomed. It's obvious that we are on a bull run. Im not going to fall for all of these dips. Just take a step back and realize how people have been saying "BTC is overbought, the graph looks too pumped" ever since it hit $2000, but these are still thinking linear graphs matter. We are headed towards $5000 if we can get past the segwit2x non sense. |
|
|
|
Hackers who stole data from HBO have leaked an email from a company executive showing negotiations over a ransom.
The HBO executive said the company would pay $250,000 in bitcoin as a "bug bounty payment."
Scripts from shows such as "Game of Thrones" were stolen last month. Read the full article here: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/hbo-hack-game-of-thrones-ransom.htmlI can't believe that they're actually willing to pay 250K in Bitcoin just to prevent the scripts from being released. Even if the scripts were released, I doubt they would lose any fans over it. It's not like that many people would even read it. Still sad that Bitcoin is being associated with crime again. I don't know why they would pay $250,000 in Bitcoin to pay ransom for some scripts that will likely be read a couple times to completion, published and talked about for 3 days, and then forgotten about until their actual episodes come out. At most, there will be spoilers that can come of it, but even that is doubtful and probably won't end up happening in any meaningful manner. People will still subscribe to their channel, they will watch the show, and then probably lose their minds after the series comes to an end, and the books probably won't even be finished before the author dies. Unless he starts to expedite the series and stops taking such a long time writing each novel. I understand it completely. Even 3 days of spoilers is enough to cause a ton of damage in the argumentative development of the series. It's just a shame (as they say in the series) that you are going to get spoiled because of some hackers. The GoT producers are a multi million dollar operation, they can easily pay $250,000, for them that's just peanuts. HBO can afford $250,000 and avoid the disaster of any leaks. |
|
|
|
Hackers who stole data from HBO have leaked an email from a company executive showing negotiations over a ransom.
The HBO executive said the company would pay $250,000 in bitcoin as a "bug bounty payment."
Scripts from shows such as "Game of Thrones" were stolen last month. Read the full article here: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/hbo-hack-game-of-thrones-ransom.htmlI can't believe that they're actually willing to pay 250K in Bitcoin just to prevent the scripts from being released. Even if the scripts were released, I doubt they would lose any fans over it. It's not like that many people would even read it. Still sad that Bitcoin is being associated with crime again. This is the type of news that bring a ton of mainstream attention into bitcoin. It's clear that bitcoin can be used for bad and for good, and paying ransomware is unfortunately a very common practice that im not very proud of. But if it wasn't for that feature, the positive side effect like people in Venezuela being able to feed their families in the middle of a dictatorship, wouldn't be possible as well, because fixing one kills the other use case. |
|
|
|
I see that some Hero/Legendary posters did not meet the minimum requirement of 20 posts per week.  Bitcointalk Name: Razick Rank: Hero Current Post Count (including this post): 1232 BTC wallet: 19Y8hTaXqwkoxpd4JQAxNFj9Zj2SpHV85X Will change signature and avatar when accepted. If you accept me, I promise to make at least 20 posts per week. Thank you, Razick Check the rules again, it's 2 weeks in a row. That was my first week, I joined mid term, so it's impossible that I made 20 posts without spamming and im not going to spam. This is my post 19 for current term and its still August 11, 2017, 10:36:50 PM forum time which I think is UTC so I still got time to reach 20. |
|
|
|
Long term only one chain will survive with meaningful value.
If everything works as planed with Segwit, Bitcoin Cash will Crash.
Any net search will lead to Bitcoin.
Exactly. If Bitcoin Cash continues to decline in value over the exchanges, and provides poor innovation, then it will die soon. On the contrary, Bitcoin is the original chain and has managed to gather a wide audience, which has the longest standing reputation and support from its miners and node operators. As of now, mining Bitcoin is more profitable than doing so with Bitcoin Cash, so miners will stay with the original chain, unless it becomes profitable to mine in the BCH chain. Things aside, it's been a week since the launch of BCH, yet there hasn't been any innovation or active development. If it remains as is, then it will be just a pure speculative coin, and another altcoin which is cloned from Bitcoin's codebase. The original Bitcoin chain will grow and survive for many years to come. Exciting things like SegWit, block size increase, and the Lightning Network, will greatly boost its adoption and make a positive effect in its price. All that lies ahead is for SegWit2x to become fully complete (the block size increase part) and Bitcoin would've made a major milestone in history. Just my thoughts  Segwit2x will crash the price again, because nobody but idiots want to hardfork in 2 months in a incredibly stupid rushed way. Bitcoin Core 0.15 is going to ignore segwit2x blocks so if miners don't align their views with reality and reject NYA, I can see the price crashing again in 2 months all because corporate fiat whores like Barry Shillbert and Erik Voorhees think they are smarter than actual engineers making the code. They think because they made a lot of money investing here and there, know how to scale a network. If these idiots and the equally idiot miners don't listen to the more intelligent coders, the price will crash again in november during an all time high, and you will know who to blame. They will sell it to you as if it's "Core's fault", when they are doing the right thing. The one's blind and technologically incompetent are always the hardforkers. |
|
|
|
They are exaggerating the news regarding bitcoin. This is a good strategy for them since more and more people will be aware and since they have btc it is actually a good move. Especially people nowadays are gullible when it involves money. If you mention great profit, people will jump on without understanding what they are getting themselves into. All for the money, that's it all really is. Again, this mainstream media specially CNBC are just riding the popularity of bitcoin now. They even have a market analyst that tackles all about bitcoin and making exaggerated predictions about it. Well they have their every right to predict, but why now? Last year we never heard anything positive about the market and now they self proclaimed fortune tellers on where the movement of price of bitcoin will be. I guess publicity is good for us whether is positive or negative so just ride on. But you guys got to realize this: Back then, mainstream media was pumping BTC to $3000, and a lot of people said "that is ridiculous, it will never happen" or at least not anytime soon. And here we are at almost $3500 and growing. So the thing is, what appears now an impossible, can become possible, and it may seem a bit ridiculous specially in the words of mainstream media, but if you do the numbers, $10,000 to $50,000 is very doable in these timeframes. Just consider what's coming after segwit. We are looking at a potential trillion dollar marketcap after all that technology is deployed. |
|
|
|
Crypto is not only easy, it has a lot of benefits and can be applied in numerous projects. This is old news but crypto will undoubtedly be used for money laundring due to some protecting your anonymity. This is why i think money will come pooring in while it is a lot harder For them to put it in stocks or other things.
What do you think?
I also think eventually the cryptocurrency market will surpass Forex. Forex closes during weekends, crypto doesn't. Forex requires all sorts of annoying verification, crypto can provide you with worldwide trading with an email address only. Crypto is a growing market and is very addictive and there are real chances to get rich, contrary to Forex which I think it's way harder. With cryptocurrency there are a lot of young kids that aren't even adults yet getting into the trading game. A lot of people are learning about technical analysis thanks to bitcoin and altcoins. As the older generations I can see millennials becoming experts and putting their money into this market and it surpassing all other markets combined. |
|
|
|
It's just how it's supposed to be. You can't accept protocol-changing nodes trying to change consensus rules. Satoshi warned us about that: The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time. It would have been an explosion of special cases. The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates. The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.
The script is actually a predicate. It's just an equation that evaluates to true or false. Predicate is a long and unfamiliar word so I called it script.
The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script. Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address. Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.
The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc. If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we'll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.
satoshi as one man said it was hard for him to monitor, peer review and bug fix multiple versions. however if you actually check history. in satoshi's day there were atleast 12 different codebases. most notably, while satoshi was working on his codebase on a different platform, gavin was working on a codebase on github. and that same githb codebase of gavins evolved to be what is now core.. meaning core were and are not using satoshi's codebase.. secondly satoshi knew at that very point by saying those words that if he continued with that mindset he would become the leader/ruler/decider of bitcoin if there was only one codebase. which actually was his wakeup call to pull back and allow the community to diversify and keep bitcoin open with no controller. bitcoin has a mechanism that prevents an implementation just taking over, its called consensus.. meaning the majority of people running a certain rule win.. changes only occur when a certain ruleset is used by the majority. core try bypassing this by slipping in changes under the fense. which is where people get confused and afraid to actually use consensus and instead think consensus is bad. thus basically handing control over to one party because they think that is what satoshi wanted. to me its all just twisting the facts to make it sound like satoshi was advocating dominant control of bitcoin by the BScartel simple from bscartels fanboys thinking satoshi wanted just one implementation. when the actual context is that one man cannot monitor and maintain more than one implementation at a time without going nuts. bitcoins consensus/orphaning mechanism is there for a reason.. avoiding it and trying to slip code in without using it while also REKTing anything else that wants to actually use all of bitcoins features.. is the opposite of bitcoins ethos Everyone is free to make their own Bitcoin client. Bitcoin Knots has existed for a long time for example. As long as it doesn't change the network rules, it's ok (XT, Classic, segwit2x, Unlimited, Cash... changes the rules). You can hardfork into an altcoin Bitcoin Cash style, just don't pretend it's Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It's not only about trusting the software itself (BitcoinABC) but about trusting the exchange.
Think about it: You would be sending your entire Bitcoin savings into a single point of failure, which is linked to an exchange, which may or not have your personal data, including IP, real name, real address, picture of your ID if you want bigger withdraw limit...
Errrr why are you sending all your BTC to an exchange? The new BTC wallet can be any BTC wallet (ie. a software wallet on your PC, a hardware wallet, a paper wallet or an exchange etc)... where you send it is up to you. The point is to put your BTC on a different seed/keys, so that should the BCC wallet you choose to use be "Bad"™ and steal your seed/keys... the thief will only be able to access your BCC, as your BTC is already some place else. It doesn't matter if its BTC or BCC, the point is, you would be sending your entire Bitcoin savings (in whichever blockchain) and the exchange would know, because generally exchanges don't create more than 1 deposit address by account, which means, you would be telling them (I got all of these coins, all of these addresses are mine). Also with some simple blockchain inspection, they can see that you moved your coins from wallet A to wallet B after the split, so they can also find your BTC savings. Bitcoin's lack of fungibility: an huge problem. |
|
|
|
Well that is something you need weigh up... fees vs. time vs. privacy vs. security. You don't have to move your BTC if you trust BitcoinABC. You don't have to spend the time or the fees if you just move them all in one go.
It's not only about trusting the software itself (BitcoinABC) but about trusting the exchange. Think about it: You would be sending your entire Bitcoin savings into a single point of failure, which is linked to an exchange, which may or not have your personal data, including IP, real name, real address, picture of your ID if you want bigger withdraw limit... They would have everything they need to screw you up badly. And I don't trust exchanges. I have seen exchanges betray people, get inside jobs, hacks... I have been here since Mt Gox, and the more privacy and security measures you take the better. |
|
|
|
If your blockchain is synced to be past the fork point, then you should not copy the chainstate. If that is the case, then only copy the blocks folder and run ABC with -redinex-chainstate so that it builds its own correct chainstate.
If you are not synced past the fork point, then it is fine to copy both the blocks and chainstate folders.
Ok I get it. Unfortunately I opened my Bitcoin Core post-fork so I will need to generate the chainstate folder inside the BitcoinABC client. Any way to calculate how much time that takes given your CPU specifications? Also, should I send all of my coins to another wallet before copy-pasting the wallet.dat into the BitcoinABC folder? I heard this step improves security. But im going to be wasting a ton of money in fees? I have got a ton of small 20 dollar-ish payments across years and I dont want to link my entire wallet into a single transaction... this is an huge problem. It could take me ages to move everything independently to maintain privacy. |
|
|
|
|
If I want to set a BitcoinABC node in another computer in order to dump my BCash, can I just copy-paste the Bitcoin Core blockchain files into BitcoinABC's folder to speed up the syncing?
What precise files should I copy-paste? Im not sure if I should copy-paste the "blocks" folder, or both the "blocks" folder and the "chainstate" folders.
Any other files I should copy there?
|
|
|
|
After the hard fork on Aug 1, 2017 both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash had the same difficulty. Due to the EDA built in to the Bitcoin ABC client difficulty on the Bitcoin Cash chain quickly ramped down to 144323701657.02 or 17% of Bitcoin current difficulty. The value will be even less when Bitcoin difficulty adjusts up in a few days. Once difficulty on the Bitcoin Cash chain drops to less than 8% of Bitcoin difficulty miners will be incentivized to switch mining to the Bitcoin Cash chain. How can Bitcoin Core prevent miners from switching en masse to mining the Bitcoin Cash chain?
Miners follow price. That means, hashrate will follow the higher price, and the higher price will always be the real Bitcoin, not XT, not Classic, not Unlimited, not segwit2x, not ABC/Cash... and the list goes no and on. The price will always be higher on the real legacy chain, because the big whales will never support the forks. Miners that support other chains will find themselves in bankruptcy soon enough to realize their mistake and get forced to go back into the legacy chain. |
|
|
|
I would prefer Internet because these machines has higher fees as I heard.
With the internet you can get scammed unless you are doing it under a place that has a certain level of regulation, escrow and certain garauntees... otherwise aI feel much safer in real life, either by paying with cash to a person, or using an ATM machine. ATM machine probably is better, because a person can always scam you. But you can't even trust ATM machines... it's always a risk selling BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
