Hello,
From Expedia said that they will only accept BTC for the offers for Hotels . Also they will hold BTC for up to 24 Hours and then exchange it to USD. This is a big step, but they are still scared of the investment and dont want to hold BTC for the moment. May be it will be better if they hold for more time. BTW can I book with BTC for offers for hotels from my country ( I am from Bulgaria)? Are they putting higher price then the original?
BR
they don't hold it because they have nothing they can do with it. They need to use the majority of their money from bookings to pay the hotel. |
|
|
|
See what I mean about ASICs becoming obsolete so quickly? The Antminers have gone from S1 to S2 to S3 in a matter of months! Who thinks anyone will be beating down your door to buy your mere months-old S1 or S2 now? Huh? See? See? See? I told you so!!!!!  The only people getting rich off ASICs are the people selling them! It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't have a constant supply they were "burning in" It's kind of like selling you gold rich land and then processing most of the material on it before you can arrive. That is exactly what happens when you preorder machines and the manufacturer uses the machines they build for you to mine for themselves. |
|
|
|
26% of the hash rate is unknown and 32% is Ghash.IO. Their hash rate dropped the exact percentage that unknown increased. I'm sure happy that one evil actor doesn't have control of most of the mining power. I feel much better now. https://blockchain.info/poolsBitfury pulled a large portion of their mining capacity. They said they were going to redirect to other pools, however they likely started to solo-mine. |
|
|
|
The 200k is just the deposit. You still have to pay the full bid amount (likely close to the market price for 3,000 btc
Wouldn't it be the final bid amount + auction fees minus the 200k deposit? Where is a million dollar lottery ticket when you need it! Is there a min buy in? Folks, the btx group bid off -- we won't be able to get the necessary operations in place, in time. Are you still going to charge everyone $100 for depositing their money with you since you were not able to get everything in place in time? |
|
|
|
IMHO, passing keys around from an installation on one computer to another, or one wallet to another, is always more precarious than sending coins from one wallet to another via the blockchain. I would never import a key except for disaster recovery. It's too inexpensive to send balances over the blockchain, and much less fraught with potential problems. A little paid in transaction fees goes a long way toward peace of mind.
What about a person who actually needs to potentially spend his bitcoin from two (or more computers) but has no real way of knowing in advance when they would need this. An example of this would be someone who owns a small business and could have to send coins from home or from the office at any given time. It would be cheap to send coins from one address to another one time but this cost would add up if this had to be repeated every day 2 (or more times per day). |
|
|
|
isn't it funny that the U.S. is run by billionaires and corporations, while china is run by its totalitarian government? completely different approaches.
The Chinese feed their people misinformation and fear. Just like they do in this article. China has huge ghost towns built just to increase their economy. They have replicas of cities like Paris and other famous places that nobody lives in. How strange. They also exist in my head too whenever I go to sleep. Truespeak: The main reason why the Tianducheng tourist resort (aka Chinese Ghost Paris) does not contain visitors is that it is not finished yet. They have towns that can hold hundreds of thousands of people but only about 30,000 people live in them, or they're just empty. It was a documentary in vice, it was pretty weird. I think they do this to stimulate their economy. They build things that would never be used to their capacity to provide jobs to their people. These people who work on these projects spend money thinking that they are better off then they really are. |
|
|
|
They follow the money and see what he did with it. If he'd mixed it at SR for example, that would be good because it could've been lost. They say he dissipated the assets. They say, you are in contempt until you come up with $X. In short: She whores around. She gets to get f&$@ed by some other guy,, he gets to get f$&@ed all over again by her in court. in all seriousness -
how could they?
i like his plan.
What if he just said "I developed a gaming addiction and lost it all on a cryptocurrency gambling website" Which in reality is completely possible and unproveable in the courts eyes seeing as none of the crypto gambling sites are registered with a government authority. Does this mean any married man who loses significant portion of his assets could go to jail for life for not being able to prove the means of which he lost it? Would be surprised if this was the case TBH. If you cannot prove it and the judge is doubtful it will not stand in court The rules of evidence are very strange in divorce court. The person with the economic disadvantage almost always has an advantage in court Of course and it is why you need a pre-nup or to be the one with the economic disadvantage If written properly and executed properly a prenup can be very valuable. Most prenups have clauses that say the spouse that is "worse" off will get something in the event of a divorce. It is all about knowing what you are signing for and agreeing with it If you want to give half in case of divorce it's all good; time, effort and sacrifices need to be rewarded and it needs to be negotiated before hand I agree, but a prenup is generally not a free lunch. The other party would likely not sign the pre nup if they received nothing. The worse off is likely to apply emotional blackmail to get a better deal : "we shouldn't plan on divorcing so we shouldn't sign a prenup" is a classic sentence of someone thinking about getting a better deal in case things go wrong When one person is much better off then the other then this would likely not be something that would work as the reasons are too obvious that one spouse could potentially be getting married for money |
|
|
|
That must be why he had such a good consumer experience with them. You should always use common sense when sending bitcoin to mixers |
|
|
|
This sounds a lot like socialism.
If everyone had a guaranteed income then why would anyone work?
They would work since said income would be enough to survive living cheap, but not enough to live in relative luxury. A much better question is: Why cant people ever do their research on basic income before asking the same stupid questions as the 100.000 previous askers and calling socialism? Are you aware that Richard Nixon in his days wanted to implement basic income? He certainly was no socialist. The fact is that all research on basic income shows wery positive results. Reduction in mental and physical illness, better nutrition, less educational dropouts and economic growth due to a boom in small local businesses. BI is showing it self to be an extremely usefull tool for reducing powerty. http://www.globalincome.org/English/BI-worldwide.html Guaranteeing income is the best way to keep people from working. Take disability insurance for example. The vast majority of people who go on disability (via social security) will never return to the workforce. In order to qualify for disability you must have some issue that "prevents" you from working for at least 1 year. Once you qualify for disability you continue to receive it assuming you do not earn (via a job) income over a certain amount for live (until retirement age at which point you receive social security "retirement" income). Most disabilities that people use to get on disability are not really preventing a person from working, but rather the fact that the person does not want to work. Extended unemployment insurance is another good example. When a person has a guaranteed income while looking for a job (unemployment) then they will have less of an incentive to be serious about looking for work until this guaranteed income is about to stop. There is a very high percentage of people who would "look" for work for a year or two years while on unemployment, then once their benefits expire would find a job within weeks (or find a job very close to the end of the benefit) |
|
|
|
Socialism is a solution to poverty because everyone is poor, but nobody realizes it because everyone is the same.
If everyone is poor then everyone is worse off then they otherwise could be. |
|
|
|
I never heard of Google flights. They need to get on the ball like Expedia and accept my btc!
You should check it out. It's amazing. However they do not sell tickets. They do what Google does best, they just show where the best price is. https://www.google.com/flights/Wow, this is awesome. Thanks for sharing. This has a much better search and interface than any other similar service I have used. Thumbs up!  That will kill off a lot of airline and travel agency. I believe that these prices are if you were to buy directly from the airline. With a travel agency you buy from the agency who buys from the airline, and the airline may have special/different prices for travel agencies. |
|
|
|
Stay away from those "arbitrage" sites. All of them are scams that steal your bitcoins!
This. Also if a site could successfully execute arbitrage then they would simply use their own funds. you see this??? you just answered your own question that you ask in the quote down below here \/\/\/\/ (truncated)
Why wouldn't you pay someone who is successful in trading from teaching you?
These are two slightly different situations. The bottom is having someone teach you how to do a particular trade (no pun intended), while the top quote is someone actually doing the trade for you. Kind of like having someone who knows how to fish teach you how to fish verses giving someone fishing supplies and having them fish on your behalf. |
|
|
|
i don't agree with blacklisting any addresses, period.
Me either. It's funny how when Mike Hearn even mentioned "coin taint" these forums went nuts with hateful, crackpot retaliation. Now that the FBI has coins people are screaming for a central authority to block coins. It's a bad idea and it wont work anyway. Me or someone else will just buy the tainted coins cheap and sell them to you after a bath.  This is the problem with the OP's solution. The coins would be "tainted" and thus have less value then other bitcoin. The purchaser of such bitcoin could simply use a mixer to make it look as if their coins did not come from the FBI. Since most mixers are automated the mixer would have no idea that they have exchanged "tainted" coins for untainted coins until after the fact, they would be holding tainted coins due to no fault of their own |
|
|
|
You are correct, but only if they had known about the 200k wallet prior to halting withdrawals. I think they halted withdrawals because they thought they ran out of bitcoin. If they had found out about the 200k wallet after they stopped withdrawals then they would likely had a "run on the bank" Although this would be very unethical they could have sold that 200k btc on other exchanges and then purchase it back from customers on the GOX exchange. They probably couldn't have made 550k BTC (the amount of lost customer btc minus the 200 btc) from doing this but could have made a pretty penny.
The actual bankruptcy filing says a lot of interesting things, including blaming the shortfall on the bitcoin transaction malleability bug. However, this claim has elsewhere been thoroughly debunked. Mt. Gox appears to have experienced a very confusing situation, especially so far as losing the 200K bitcoins, and then later finding them again in the old-format wallet. It's very obvious though that they weren't really ever out of bitcoin, and certainly could have finessed this situation much better had they any mind to do it. It's not at all clear that they ever needed to declare bk. In fact depositors might have responded quite well to a frank admission that "we screwed up, but are going to fix it." I doubt the failure had anything to do with the bots. It wouldn't even make any sense for them to short via bots when the bots were what was making the prices go up. If anything then they should have been short cash and had extra BTC.
I personally do not believe any of the conspiracy theories about those bots, I believe that the bots were simply large investors trying to purchase large amounts of bitcoin without causing the price to spike.
You are forgetting about the fact that there are always two sides to every trade. If the bots bought bitcoins, then they probably sold them too. The bots purpose may have been to suppress the price of bitcoin through a massive uncovered short position, not inflate it as claimed in the media. There were no trading fees charged for at least one of the two bots' trades, so perhaps their buys could have gone unfunded too. The article didn't mention exactly what the debts were, but wasn't that about what customers were owed that had fiat deposited with them? Say for example you wired $1,000 to GOX but did not buy any bitcoin from them. They would owe you $1,000 in dollars and nothing in BTC. If I had deposited 2 BTC with GOX and did not sell it then GOX would owe me 2 BTC and nothing in fiat
I would assume like most businesses, Mt. Gox carried a line of credit with its bank to fund any routine needs for liquidity--for example, to pay back a depositor for an incomplete trade, as you mentioned. The actual status of cash deposits and withdrawals are very unclear in this situation, especially considering what the CCI investigators uncovered, suggesting that deposits bound for Mt. Gox from European depositors were deliberately misrouted by its banks. These kinds of conditions could have resulted in a cash squeeze/illiquidity. Had its bank reacted by revoking Mt. Gox's line of credit, then that would completely dry up its access to cash. I don't think they every actually "lost the 200k" wallet, they rather tried to take bitcoin out of their cold storage only too see that the cold storage was (virtually) empty. As far as I can tell they did not have a good way to keep track of their cold storage addresses and they assumed that all were empty. When they later discovered that they controlled 200k in bitcoin they disclosed it. They blamed the malleability issue, other exchanges looked into the issue and determined it would really not be a threat to them. There have been reports that malleability could not have done the damage that was done to GOX but the scope of time that this research did was less then the time that GOX was in existence, it would be very possible that a large part of this kind of attack happened several years ago, in GOX's early days when bitcoin was worth much less.This kind of attack could have happened when the price of bitcoin was much lower and would not have had as large of an impact at the time. As far as the bot trading is concerned, anything that says the were manulipating the price of bitcoin is crazy. There is evidence that they were trading on behalf of large investors. If they were buying from others without any "real" person paying the price that the bots paid for the bitcoin and receiving the bitcoin that the bots purchased then the exchange would have a massive shortage of fiat. If the bots were "trying to suppress he price of bitcoin via a massive uncovered short positiion" then the exchange would have a massive surplus of fiat to the turn of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars. The trades that the bots executed were (almost) always buy orders so a short position would make even less sense. I don't think there is evidence that has been leaked that shows the bots sold bitcoin to that degree. I don't follow your logic to say that GOX would have needed a credit line to fund their short term liquidity needs. It is my understanding that GOX only used one bank (it was in Japan) for receiving deposits from customers and processing withdrawals for customers (and for any other banking needs that the exchange had). |
|
|
|
It makes it 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 times easier to brute force.
So if you could guess 10^9 per second it'd only take you 10^24 years instead of 10^63 years.
256 bit ECDSA keys only have 128 bit security. Half of an ECDSA key would be 64 bit security. While a naive attack would be to increment all possible private keys there are more sophisticated attacks ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollard%27s_rho_algorithm_for_logarithms ) which are of complexity O( n^(1/2) ) steps where n is the key length. 64 bit security would be breakable but it is very likely the cost to break they key would be greater than the reward. Although if this isn't a hypothetical I would recommend transferring the coins now. Thanks for answers. Reason I asked is that I prefer to give half a key to Alice and Bob and the other half to Charlie and Dennis. I consider this a backup strategy in case something happens to me (so my family can inherit) or I lose my notes (e.g. house burns down). To add safety I could use multisig, but the risks to worry about should be elsewhere; may these conspire and steal my coins, did a screen capture see the private key, did I write them down without any typos? Why don't you copy/paste 1/2 of your private key separately and put each half in a safe deposit box. You could set up each box so that while you are alive, only you have access to both boxes, but upon receipt of notification that you have died, Bob would have access to one box and Allice would have access to the other. This issue with multi sig is that both parties could potentially work together to gain access to your funds, as well as the fact that multi sig is relatively new to the Bitcoin network. Writing down your key is not a good idea as even one "typo" would cause your entire "key" (it wouldn't actually be a key anymore) worthless |
|
|
|
Hello,
The chain between banks and institutions is huge so these are surely the biggest enemies of us in the future. They will try to stop BTC with every method! But good times will come after that , because BTC will survive everything!
Soon the new generations will see paper money only in the museums when people realise how much better is to use BTC.
BR
Gondel
What about using a currency backed by Gold and made by a sound bank? Any currency (especially a P2P currency) backed by a 3rd party has risks. You have a central point of failure that could potentially cause everyone's funds to be at risk. |
|
|
|
If you are going to work in US then you should well aware of Work Culture in USA, their Working Hours, Lunch time, Meetings etc. It depend on the company and your role in the organization.
All of this is much more relaxed then most of the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
Anyone who advertises their site in this manner (posting on forum topics requesting specific exchange features and suggesting that their own exchange be used) is almost certainly scamming |
|
|
|
When the gov't sell the coin it has it might hit 450, if it does hit 450 it will not stay thee Lon but I is think we will have a week to 10 days on 500's.
What does everyone else think?
It is very difficult to predict the short term price movements to this level of precision |
|
|
|
I think that alot of people on this board will become citizens of St. Kitts, 200k is not too big a deal for the benefits.
The nice thing with the St Kitts program is you spend the $400k to buy real estate and you can sell it again in 5 years so you are essentially investing in real estate there which may appreciate, or at least won't lose all its value and then you can get it back later. So if you don't mind having your money tied up for 5 years, it is a good deal. IF you are looking for that kind of thing. If you think about it, its just a ponzi scheme. Btw, Roger Ver is a fraudster and scammer. The MtGox fiasco proved this. I've warned ppl on here many times b4 MtGox went south. I can strongly say hes in it with Marks. He may be, but the program itself is what I was speaking about. They've been doing it for 30+ years and the real estate on st kitts is comparably priced with other islands in the Caribbean, so you have some indication of the value there. The bitcoin and passports thing is a separate issue. :-) If you are going to invest in that area regardless of the passport incentive then St Kitts is a great place to go. Using bitcoin would help you raise the public awareness of bitcoin (large actual transactions) however it could backfire on bitcoin by associating it with tax evasion |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
